I have been a gun owner for a long time. I can not say since it I was legal, because that was my Dad's gun, but I bought me first gun shortly after I joined the Air Force and have upgraded as my finances have allowed.
However, I have never joined the NRA or any other organization. Just recently I accepted a free 1-year membership to the NRA and have been paying close attention to the information they provide. I have also been going to gun shows and spent a lot of time online and in gun stores. The common theme is that Obama is going to take our guns.
Well, it doesn't take a great education to know that Democrats for the most part do not like guns and that we only have to worry about our guns being taken when a Democrat is in office.
BUT, I have not seen anything that shows Obama is actively trying to take my guns. YET!?!?
I just don't know. Obama has said all the right stuff so far, even when in Mexico he said he would not sacrifice American's rights because of the violence in Mexico.
My liberal coworker, who is now a gun owner (welcome to the club), likes to ask me what proof do I have that Obama wants to take my guns and I do not have an answer. I know that from studying Obama's past that he has said he wants gun control and I know he is from Chicago which has horrible gun control laws. But he has not done anything. YET!?!?!
His Attorney General has come out and said he supports reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban (what a joke), but I have not seen any support from the legislative branch, which is Democrat run, so you would think it could pass.
My liberal coworker also brought up a great point in saying that hyping Obama’s liberal mind set and screaming about an upcoming rush to take away our weapons benefits the NRA, gun store owners, and other groups. I couldn’t argue that point.
So, never wanting to agree with a dirty liberal, I posed my questions directly to the NRA. I never thought I would get a reply, but I did. However, the response I got is pretty weak. I have followed their links and they do not tell me much. First, all of the links are to Conservative websites. This in itself is not a bad thing, but it tells me they have an agenda. I hoped to use the information from those sites to cross reference with other sources. Unfortunately, the information I read was speculation and innuendo.
Second, the sites that do talk about actual bills are written by congressmen and it is extremely far fetched they will get real consideration. No where is there a link saying the President supports them.
Now, I am not blind nor am I dumb. I do not trust those in Washington at this moment to protect my 2nd amendment rights. I just do not like people exaggerating, embellishing, and frightening people for their own benefit.
There are plenty of reasons to present to people the need to bear arms and the need for an organization to fight to keep those rights. I can not be a member of an organization that uses fear to drive up membership.
I have attached both my email and the reply. I welcome you all to take a look and help me see what they are seeing. Did I miss something?
My Email:
Hello,
Can you show me anything that actually cites what you have listed in emails about the attorny general and/or Obama. I have tried looking for facts into Obama and his administration attempting to push gun laws and I can not find any. I know Obama and his people hate people who want to defend themselves, they have stated it in the past.
What I am looking for is something that has been stated sense the election. Some speech or quote that says, "We want to take your gun rights away". Even something that has to be read between the line would work. I fear we are using the possibility of our rights being taken away to gain membership and support from the fearful, when in truth, it is us who are making them afraid.
I am not a liberal or someone trying to play games. I want to be able to show proof that they are trying this and must be stopped. I do not want to be a parinoid fear monger.
The Reply:
Dear Steve,
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.
What Obama has said -http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=6e4eb1bf-3a37-475b-8f00-0da81a24c06d
What Obama has done - http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=530ecfa4-ae4e-4819-97e6-892463d99f08
During this session bills like HR 45 and HR 2159 have been introduced.
HR 45 - http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4329
HR 2159 - http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4879
AG Eric holder has publically announced he wants to reinstate another "assault weapons ban" http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12245http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=341&issue=010
Obama reconsiders CIFTA treatyhttp://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4780
I hope you find this information helpful.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Man Stands Up to Criminals Receives a Bullet
Here is a person who stood up to criminals. Unfortunately, he had to bring a protest sign to a shoot out. His government disarmed him and therefore he was easy prey against his enemy who is well armed and cold blooded.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530985,00.html?test=latestnews
Good people who are unarmed stand no chance against animals with weapons. Arm the people of that town and I am willing to bet that after a short spike in violence and a long clean up of dead bad guy parts the streets become a lot safer.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530985,00.html?test=latestnews
Good people who are unarmed stand no chance against animals with weapons. Arm the people of that town and I am willing to bet that after a short spike in violence and a long clean up of dead bad guy parts the streets become a lot safer.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The News
It is retarded and sad that Michael "shares his bed with kids" Jackson is such big news while we have a Marine who has been captured by the Taliban. That story is relegated to second page news while Michael "who gives a shit" Jackson's Dr's license is investigated.
Give me a friggin break America. Priorities are all messed up. Hell, I want to beat the shit out of us right now.
Give me a friggin break America. Priorities are all messed up. Hell, I want to beat the shit out of us right now.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Independence Day
Yesterday was the Independence Day, the 4th of July. As far as I can remember it is the first time I have been out of the country on Independence Day, though I may have been in Kuwait for one in 1997 but I can not remember when I was actually there. I know it was hot and all the animals either wanted to kill you or them selves. But I digress.
What I really want to talk about is personal Patriotism.
The patriotism we should all embrace. I joined the military out of patriotism. Sadly, when my drill instructor asked my basic training flight why we joined, I was the only one who raised his hand to the question, “who joined to serve their country” The rest raised their hands for “to pay for college” and for “had no other options but to work at McDonalds”. That truly saddened me to think that out of 50 or more people, I was the only one who wanted to serve my country and not doing it out of necessity. I have not lost my patriotic drive and can accurately be accused of loving my country blindly. I used to think the good old US of A was perfect and anyone who said differently was an idiot.
I have changed a lot over the years since 9/11. I have been driven to understand why the US is so hated and have learned that there are some good reasons people might hate America. We get involved everywhere and sometimes meddle where we shouldn’t. We do things half assed sometimes and leave people hanging, i.e. Vietnam, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan in the 80/90s just to name a few. In Vietnam we went to war half assed after the French had already lost a war there. In Iraq we called for the Shiites to stand up against Saddam and we would have their back, but we didn’t. In Afghanistan we supported them against the Russian and when they won, we turned off all support which allowed for Osama and the Taliban to take over. It is important to know that Osama and the Taliban were not in control of government after the communists were kicked out; Ahmad Shah Massoud led his soldiers into Kabul first. We were too focused on the collapse of Russia to realize that leaving this fledgling country to its infighting would leave us with 9/11 and other attacks.
These are just a few examples of America’s mistakes and we can list a whole lot more if we wanted too. For all of America’s mistakes, we still do a lot more good then we do bad. The gist of it is that America is the big dog, the Super Power, the boss. No one likes the boss, but he is the one you turn to when the shit hits the fan and you need help. He is also the one who gets blamed when things go wrong. America gets blamed for interfering in one country and blamed for not interfering in another. Somalia is touted by some as an example of American imperialism in Africa and in the same breath America is blamed for the deaths in Darfur for not intervening. You just can not win. All we, as Americans, can do is hope that our good deeds are truly good and not expect to be rewarded for them. We also need to recognize when our attempts at good fall short.
Our forefathers built this country with the belief that all men are created equal. In their time, that did not include women or men of color. Over time that has changed, all Americans are created equal and free. We should strive to maintain those truths. The world likes to point out that America was built on the destruction of Indians and on the backs of Africans. Those comments are undeniable though the severities of each are arguable. History shows us that no country or society is free of misdeeds, but it is the learning from those misdeeds and striving for a freer more tolerant society that should be our goal.
I love my country and would gladly lay down my life fighting for what it stands for. This should not make me a rarity but just another American amongst 300 million other Americans who feel the same way. You do not have to like everything about your country, just like a family you may not agree with everyone in it, but you stick by family through think and thin. I hope our day of Independence brought you to reflect on why you live in America and if it didn’t then I ask you to ponder why you stay in America or why it would be better to live somewhere else.
If you have lasted this long and finished reading this meandering hodge podge of a post, I ask you to leave a comment on why you are or are not a patriot.
What I really want to talk about is personal Patriotism.
The patriotism we should all embrace. I joined the military out of patriotism. Sadly, when my drill instructor asked my basic training flight why we joined, I was the only one who raised his hand to the question, “who joined to serve their country” The rest raised their hands for “to pay for college” and for “had no other options but to work at McDonalds”. That truly saddened me to think that out of 50 or more people, I was the only one who wanted to serve my country and not doing it out of necessity. I have not lost my patriotic drive and can accurately be accused of loving my country blindly. I used to think the good old US of A was perfect and anyone who said differently was an idiot.
I have changed a lot over the years since 9/11. I have been driven to understand why the US is so hated and have learned that there are some good reasons people might hate America. We get involved everywhere and sometimes meddle where we shouldn’t. We do things half assed sometimes and leave people hanging, i.e. Vietnam, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan in the 80/90s just to name a few. In Vietnam we went to war half assed after the French had already lost a war there. In Iraq we called for the Shiites to stand up against Saddam and we would have their back, but we didn’t. In Afghanistan we supported them against the Russian and when they won, we turned off all support which allowed for Osama and the Taliban to take over. It is important to know that Osama and the Taliban were not in control of government after the communists were kicked out; Ahmad Shah Massoud led his soldiers into Kabul first. We were too focused on the collapse of Russia to realize that leaving this fledgling country to its infighting would leave us with 9/11 and other attacks.
These are just a few examples of America’s mistakes and we can list a whole lot more if we wanted too. For all of America’s mistakes, we still do a lot more good then we do bad. The gist of it is that America is the big dog, the Super Power, the boss. No one likes the boss, but he is the one you turn to when the shit hits the fan and you need help. He is also the one who gets blamed when things go wrong. America gets blamed for interfering in one country and blamed for not interfering in another. Somalia is touted by some as an example of American imperialism in Africa and in the same breath America is blamed for the deaths in Darfur for not intervening. You just can not win. All we, as Americans, can do is hope that our good deeds are truly good and not expect to be rewarded for them. We also need to recognize when our attempts at good fall short.
Our forefathers built this country with the belief that all men are created equal. In their time, that did not include women or men of color. Over time that has changed, all Americans are created equal and free. We should strive to maintain those truths. The world likes to point out that America was built on the destruction of Indians and on the backs of Africans. Those comments are undeniable though the severities of each are arguable. History shows us that no country or society is free of misdeeds, but it is the learning from those misdeeds and striving for a freer more tolerant society that should be our goal.
I love my country and would gladly lay down my life fighting for what it stands for. This should not make me a rarity but just another American amongst 300 million other Americans who feel the same way. You do not have to like everything about your country, just like a family you may not agree with everyone in it, but you stick by family through think and thin. I hope our day of Independence brought you to reflect on why you live in America and if it didn’t then I ask you to ponder why you stay in America or why it would be better to live somewhere else.
If you have lasted this long and finished reading this meandering hodge podge of a post, I ask you to leave a comment on why you are or are not a patriot.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Email From a Friend Who's House Was Broken Into
Yesterday morning, Jen received a phone call from a Phoenix police officer informing her that he and another officer were in our house investigating a possible break-in.
They needed at least one of us to come back to the house because a window had been broken, leaving the house unsecure, and they were unable to leave the house unattended.
(Question #1--What if this situation happens to a homeown er who isn't in town, and happens to have no friends or family nearby that they can call?)
We both came back to the house, and upon arriving surveyed the house quickly to see if there were any noticeable missing items. (As of yet, we can't think of anything that has disappeared.) The officers showed us the point of entry, which was a spare bedroom being used as our computer office. (Geographically, the window is on the north side of the house, next to a laundry room window, whose screen was pried off in their likely first attempt. The front door faces east, to the street.) They had pried off a screen, damaging the framework on the outside. They then used a rock to break through the double paned glass, reached through the hole, and unlocked the window. When the officers arrived, the window had been unlocked and pulled up.
From what the officers could tell, it did not appear as if the intruder actually ever got into the house. In fortune undefined, our next door neighbor to the north made a 911 call, which alerted the officers to the scene. We haven't yet gotten to talk directly to the20neighbors to find out what exactly happened, but it seems likely that they scared the burglar(s) away by sound or proximity. The officer informed us that one of our screens was in the neighbor's yard....which means either the officers saw it there, or the neighbor heard the breaking glass and came out to investigate, or even simply looked out a window. This likely scared them away.
The police dusted and found a print on the window, estimated the damages, and were on their way. There is one funny part of the story, that occurred when the officers were doing the sweep of the house to see if anyone was hiding inside.....while checking the walk-in closet off of the main bedroom, one of the officers was rather startled when a similarly startled cat sprang from it's normal sleeping spot.....they had a good laugh at that. I can only imagine....
It's the possible scenarios that are the most interesting to me......my initial reaction was of relief that Jen wasn't home at the time.....tele-commuting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, they had picked a day in which she wasn't there.....random or not is an entirely new line of possibilities. The officers, however, disagreed...saying that a disturbing trend is for intruders to ring the doorbell as a solicitor, checking to see if someone is at home or if a dog is in the house.
The scenario opened up a few questions for me, and I'm sure there will be more......
#2. If someone is in the house, she does not need to pronounce that she has a weapon, correct?
#3. If she had been home, heard the glass break, and went into the office (standing inside, looking out) with gun in hand to inspect.....finding the intruder still outside standing on a chair as if to come in....is she within her rights to shoot at that point?
#3b. If she had been home, and went around to the back side of the house to inspect from the outside, where is she within her right to shoot?
#4. I seem to remember a story in Texas, who has20different laws on this one, but what rights did the neighbors have at any point in this?
#5. What are the liabilities that we have concerning [our] unsecured weapon in the case of a break-in?
I would first like to say that I am glad that both Matt and Jenn are safe and nothing was stolen from the house. I would like to thank Matt for allowing me to post his story on this blog and allow everyone to read his story and share in answering his questions. I would like to also ask that our law enforcement readers throw their 2 cents into the mix.
Second, I would like to remind everyone that the following answers are my opinion, though educated, they are only opinion and you should look up your own answers or ask a lawyer.
Remember: No matter what anyone says, no matter how the law is written, only the people involved in the altercation know what happened. It will be up to people sitting behind desks to decide whether to try the case or not. If they do, then it is up to 12 people to convict you or find you innocent. I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
They needed at least one of us to come back to the house because a window had been broken, leaving the house unsecure, and they were unable to leave the house unattended.
(Question #1--What if this situation happens to a homeown er who isn't in town, and happens to have no friends or family nearby that they can call?)
We both came back to the house, and upon arriving surveyed the house quickly to see if there were any noticeable missing items. (As of yet, we can't think of anything that has disappeared.) The officers showed us the point of entry, which was a spare bedroom being used as our computer office. (Geographically, the window is on the north side of the house, next to a laundry room window, whose screen was pried off in their likely first attempt. The front door faces east, to the street.) They had pried off a screen, damaging the framework on the outside. They then used a rock to break through the double paned glass, reached through the hole, and unlocked the window. When the officers arrived, the window had been unlocked and pulled up.
From what the officers could tell, it did not appear as if the intruder actually ever got into the house. In fortune undefined, our next door neighbor to the north made a 911 call, which alerted the officers to the scene. We haven't yet gotten to talk directly to the20neighbors to find out what exactly happened, but it seems likely that they scared the burglar(s) away by sound or proximity. The officer informed us that one of our screens was in the neighbor's yard....which means either the officers saw it there, or the neighbor heard the breaking glass and came out to investigate, or even simply looked out a window. This likely scared them away.
The police dusted and found a print on the window, estimated the damages, and were on their way. There is one funny part of the story, that occurred when the officers were doing the sweep of the house to see if anyone was hiding inside.....while checking the walk-in closet off of the main bedroom, one of the officers was rather startled when a similarly startled cat sprang from it's normal sleeping spot.....they had a good laugh at that. I can only imagine....
It's the possible scenarios that are the most interesting to me......my initial reaction was of relief that Jen wasn't home at the time.....tele-commuting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, they had picked a day in which she wasn't there.....random or not is an entirely new line of possibilities. The officers, however, disagreed...saying that a disturbing trend is for intruders to ring the doorbell as a solicitor, checking to see if someone is at home or if a dog is in the house.
The scenario opened up a few questions for me, and I'm sure there will be more......
#2. If someone is in the house, she does not need to pronounce that she has a weapon, correct?
#3. If she had been home, heard the glass break, and went into the office (standing inside, looking out) with gun in hand to inspect.....finding the intruder still outside standing on a chair as if to come in....is she within her rights to shoot at that point?
#3b. If she had been home, and went around to the back side of the house to inspect from the outside, where is she within her right to shoot?
#4. I seem to remember a story in Texas, who has20different laws on this one, but what rights did the neighbors have at any point in this?
#5. What are the liabilities that we have concerning [our] unsecured weapon in the case of a break-in?
I would first like to say that I am glad that both Matt and Jenn are safe and nothing was stolen from the house. I would like to thank Matt for allowing me to post his story on this blog and allow everyone to read his story and share in answering his questions. I would like to also ask that our law enforcement readers throw their 2 cents into the mix.
Second, I would like to remind everyone that the following answers are my opinion, though educated, they are only opinion and you should look up your own answers or ask a lawyer.
Remember: No matter what anyone says, no matter how the law is written, only the people involved in the altercation know what happened. It will be up to people sitting behind desks to decide whether to try the case or not. If they do, then it is up to 12 people to convict you or find you innocent. I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
#1. If you are out of town and the police can not contact someone, I can not imagine they are going to watch your house till you get back. I have no clue what would happen. Hopefully, a police officer would be able to tell us.
#2. No one has a responsibility to retreat or offer any kind of warning in the sanctity of their own home. I look at it this way. If you are trained and in control you can give a warning and that is awefully nice. If you are scared shitless and barely able to hold the gun, then do not give away your position and hope the cops show before a confrontation.
#3. It is my understanding that once they have broken into your home, whether or not they are inside, they represent a danger and you are justified in defending yourself. At the point you discribe, I can not imagine anyone not agreeing that you would feel indangered for your life.
#3b. This gets trickier as I am not exactly sure what the law states in this case. Things start to go gray here. For example, you are no longer in your home and therefore could retreat. However, the scenario changes if they become agressive. If you come out and confront them and they run, then you really have no fear of death, if they turn toward you and move forward, you are now in danger of being attacked. (this scenerio is covered in one of my very early posts)
#4. You owe your neighbors lunch, dinner, a bbq, beer, or what every they like. They really saved your property by being aware, vigilant, and proactive. If they had taken it a step forward and investigated the situation, with a firearm perhaps, they would fall under the same rules as 3b. They do not know who these people are, maybe its you and you locked yourself out, or you sent someone to do what ever. They can investigate and confront, if threatened they have every right given to the rest of us to defend themselves.
That man in Texas was a wierd story in that he called the cops, gave them a play by play of the burglary, was told to stay inside, then ran out and confronted the robbers, and shot them. A man after my own heart in the fact that he confronted bad guys, but wierd in how he chose to confront them.
#5. This is something your story put in my head straight away. Oh shit, was the gun stolen? I do not know the actual law, but during my CCW class it was stressed that our weapon is our responsibility even if stolen. I have never heard of a case being tried where a person was charged after their gun was stolen and used in a subsequent crime. This is another question I would like a police officer or lawyer to answer.
Again, these are my personal answers and are no way a representation of law. If you want exact answers look them up or call a lawyer please. Then post the answers on here.Another Example of Police Brutality
Or is it another example of people being stupid?
For one minute I would like for all non-law enforcement people to try, just try, and put your self into their shoes. You have pulled over a person for what ever reason, maybe it’s a bad guy you know about or just some poor bastard late for church. But you have to be on high alert incase it is a bad guy. You always have to be on high alert. For 10 hrs a shift you have to be completely aware of all that is going on around you and then put yourself into the middle of the fight.
Now that you have imagined for just one minute what it must be like to be a cop, put yourself into the police officer's, mentioned below, shoes. You have a guy pulled over and another person comes running out asking questions. Maybe the pastor is wearing a collar or a robe that identifies him as a pastor, but maybe not.
So let’s treat the pastor as a normal guy, which is how a pastor should be treated by anyone in authority.
"Sir, please walk away, this is none of your business." says the officer
"He is one of sheep. It is my job to worry about him." says the pastor
Well if the pastor continues to harangue the officer then it is time force him to go away. If he puts up a fight or runs to get 40 of his friends, well its full on go time.
This is personal responsibility at its height. What possible thing does that pastor have to do with this situation? NONE, nothing what so ever. If it is a grown ass man who is being talked too, ticketed, or arrested then no one, including his parents have nothing to do with the situation.
Want to know what they can do? They can wait patiently and if the worst happens such as arrest, they can go bail the person out of jail.
REMEMBER PEOPLE, it is not the cops job to judge you, it is his or her job to site you for breaking the law. The time to argue whether you did it or not is in court. YOU WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUEMENT WITH A COP!!! At least an on duty cop.
Your only hope is that if you are polite and respectful that he might show mercy and just give you a warning. Treat a police officer with respect and 9 times out of 10 he will treat you the same way. Act like an asshole and it wont matter what job you have, your ass will either be receiving a ticket, an ass wuppin, or jail. All of which you deserve for being stupid.
Police Taser Pastor 'Helping' Driver in Traffic Stop
Thursday , July 02, 2009
WEBSTER, Texas — Police used a Taser on a pastor and pepper spray to disperse his congregants Wednesday after the pastor allegedly interfered with a traffic stop in the church parking lot.
Congregants say they were in the Iglesia Profetica Peniel church for an early morning prayer when pastor Jose Elias Moran went to assist the stopped driver, a church member, by asking the police what had happened.
An incident report on the Webster police department's Web site said Officer Raymond Berryman tried to calm Moran and arrest him. But police say he pushed the officer, went inside the church and returned with 40 other congregants.
The congregants say Moran fled into the church when the officer grew angry and began to yell, and Moran's family disputes that the pastor touched the officer.
Moran's son Miguel said 30 witnesses saw the officer turn aggressive and repeatedly kick the church door. Several members were hit with pepper spray and children were present, Miguel Moran said.
"They treated him as if he were a drug dealer or murderer, but he is a pastor that tries to help the community," Moran said. "The police always want to be right but they are not."
Moran's wife, Maria, said she tried to help her husband after he was hit with the Taser but police threatened to arrest her.
"My husband has a heart condition and with electrocution who knows what could've happened," Maria Moran said, referring to the Taser's electrical shock.
"A pastor has to tend to his flock," she said. "That is all he was doing."
Speaking from a hospital bed Wednesday night, Moran told The Associated Press he planned to hire an attorney to file charges against the officer. He was being held at the hospital overnight for additional tests.
Police did not immediately return calls seeking comment and more details of the incident. Police Sgt. James Lovel did not specify Moran's status, except to say he was in custody and negotiations for bail were taking place Wednesday night.
Webster is a suburb southeast of Houston.
For one minute I would like for all non-law enforcement people to try, just try, and put your self into their shoes. You have pulled over a person for what ever reason, maybe it’s a bad guy you know about or just some poor bastard late for church. But you have to be on high alert incase it is a bad guy. You always have to be on high alert. For 10 hrs a shift you have to be completely aware of all that is going on around you and then put yourself into the middle of the fight.
Now that you have imagined for just one minute what it must be like to be a cop, put yourself into the police officer's, mentioned below, shoes. You have a guy pulled over and another person comes running out asking questions. Maybe the pastor is wearing a collar or a robe that identifies him as a pastor, but maybe not.
So let’s treat the pastor as a normal guy, which is how a pastor should be treated by anyone in authority.
"Sir, please walk away, this is none of your business." says the officer
"He is one of sheep. It is my job to worry about him." says the pastor
Well if the pastor continues to harangue the officer then it is time force him to go away. If he puts up a fight or runs to get 40 of his friends, well its full on go time.
This is personal responsibility at its height. What possible thing does that pastor have to do with this situation? NONE, nothing what so ever. If it is a grown ass man who is being talked too, ticketed, or arrested then no one, including his parents have nothing to do with the situation.
Want to know what they can do? They can wait patiently and if the worst happens such as arrest, they can go bail the person out of jail.
REMEMBER PEOPLE, it is not the cops job to judge you, it is his or her job to site you for breaking the law. The time to argue whether you did it or not is in court. YOU WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUEMENT WITH A COP!!! At least an on duty cop.
Your only hope is that if you are polite and respectful that he might show mercy and just give you a warning. Treat a police officer with respect and 9 times out of 10 he will treat you the same way. Act like an asshole and it wont matter what job you have, your ass will either be receiving a ticket, an ass wuppin, or jail. All of which you deserve for being stupid.
Police Taser Pastor 'Helping' Driver in Traffic Stop
Thursday , July 02, 2009
WEBSTER, Texas — Police used a Taser on a pastor and pepper spray to disperse his congregants Wednesday after the pastor allegedly interfered with a traffic stop in the church parking lot.
Congregants say they were in the Iglesia Profetica Peniel church for an early morning prayer when pastor Jose Elias Moran went to assist the stopped driver, a church member, by asking the police what had happened.
An incident report on the Webster police department's Web site said Officer Raymond Berryman tried to calm Moran and arrest him. But police say he pushed the officer, went inside the church and returned with 40 other congregants.
The congregants say Moran fled into the church when the officer grew angry and began to yell, and Moran's family disputes that the pastor touched the officer.
Moran's son Miguel said 30 witnesses saw the officer turn aggressive and repeatedly kick the church door. Several members were hit with pepper spray and children were present, Miguel Moran said.
"They treated him as if he were a drug dealer or murderer, but he is a pastor that tries to help the community," Moran said. "The police always want to be right but they are not."
Moran's wife, Maria, said she tried to help her husband after he was hit with the Taser but police threatened to arrest her.
"My husband has a heart condition and with electrocution who knows what could've happened," Maria Moran said, referring to the Taser's electrical shock.
"A pastor has to tend to his flock," she said. "That is all he was doing."
Speaking from a hospital bed Wednesday night, Moran told The Associated Press he planned to hire an attorney to file charges against the officer. He was being held at the hospital overnight for additional tests.
Police did not immediately return calls seeking comment and more details of the incident. Police Sgt. James Lovel did not specify Moran's status, except to say he was in custody and negotiations for bail were taking place Wednesday night.
Webster is a suburb southeast of Houston.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Harold Fish's Murder Conviction Thrown Out!!!
This is great news for Harold and great news for victims of crazy people.
Retrial ordered in fatal shooting of hiker
by Michael Kiefer - Jun. 30, 2009 03:08 PMThe Arizona Republic
The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a murder conviction of a hiker who claimed self-defense when he shot a man to death on a hiking trail north of Payson in May 2004.
Harold Fish, 62, was convicted of second-degree murder in June 2006 for shooting Grant Kuenzli, 43, after Kuenzli ran at him waving his arms because Fish had fired a warning shot into the ground to scare away Kuenzli's aggressive dogs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
But the Court of Appeals sent the case back to Coconino Court Superior Court to be retried because the trial court judge had not given adequate instruction on what constituted self defense.
And the panel of appellate judges scolded Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran for not answering a jury request to define the word "attack." The panel remarked that the jury may not have understood that someone can commit aggravated assault on another person without actually touching him.
Fish's contention was that Kuenzli's three dogs ran at him and put him in fear for his safety. He fired a shot into the ground in front of the dogs and scared them away. But then Kuenzli ran at him shouting and waving his arms and refused to stop.
The panel also noted that the lower court had "sanitized" evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such "prior bad acts" are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.
The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially "dangerous instruments," furthering Fish's self-defense claims.
Two weeks after Fish's trial began, the Arizona State Legislature rewrote the state's self-defense statutes to force prosecutors to better disprove self-defense claims. And although the Fish case was a catalyst for the law, it could not be applied retroactively. That change in the law, however, coupled with the strong wording of the ruling may factor into whether the Coconino County Attorney decides to retry the case or whether Fish goes free.
Retrial ordered in fatal shooting of hiker
by Michael Kiefer - Jun. 30, 2009 03:08 PMThe Arizona Republic
The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a murder conviction of a hiker who claimed self-defense when he shot a man to death on a hiking trail north of Payson in May 2004.
Harold Fish, 62, was convicted of second-degree murder in June 2006 for shooting Grant Kuenzli, 43, after Kuenzli ran at him waving his arms because Fish had fired a warning shot into the ground to scare away Kuenzli's aggressive dogs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
But the Court of Appeals sent the case back to Coconino Court Superior Court to be retried because the trial court judge had not given adequate instruction on what constituted self defense.
And the panel of appellate judges scolded Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran for not answering a jury request to define the word "attack." The panel remarked that the jury may not have understood that someone can commit aggravated assault on another person without actually touching him.
Fish's contention was that Kuenzli's three dogs ran at him and put him in fear for his safety. He fired a shot into the ground in front of the dogs and scared them away. But then Kuenzli ran at him shouting and waving his arms and refused to stop.
The panel also noted that the lower court had "sanitized" evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such "prior bad acts" are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.
The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially "dangerous instruments," furthering Fish's self-defense claims.
Two weeks after Fish's trial began, the Arizona State Legislature rewrote the state's self-defense statutes to force prosecutors to better disprove self-defense claims. And although the Fish case was a catalyst for the law, it could not be applied retroactively. That change in the law, however, coupled with the strong wording of the ruling may factor into whether the Coconino County Attorney decides to retry the case or whether Fish goes free.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Man stabbed after attempted carjacking at Taco Bell
Man stabbed after attempted carjacking at Taco Bell
by Christopher Cash - Jun. 29, 2009 10:04 PM The Arizona Republic
A group attempting a carjacking stabbed a man in Phoenix Monday afternoon.
The man pulled into a Taco Bell parking lot near 43rd Avenue and Indian School Road around 5 p.m. due to car troubles and was approached by three men and one women, said Phoenix Police Department Lt. John White.
One carried a weapon and demanded the victim's car, White said.
The man tried to flee and was stabbed in the back. He suffered non-life threatening injuries.
The suspects did not take the car and fled on foot.
by Christopher Cash - Jun. 29, 2009 10:04 PM The Arizona Republic
A group attempting a carjacking stabbed a man in Phoenix Monday afternoon.
The man pulled into a Taco Bell parking lot near 43rd Avenue and Indian School Road around 5 p.m. due to car troubles and was approached by three men and one women, said Phoenix Police Department Lt. John White.
One carried a weapon and demanded the victim's car, White said.
The man tried to flee and was stabbed in the back. He suffered non-life threatening injuries.
The suspects did not take the car and fled on foot.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
This is why you carry in a restaurant
Police Hunt Suspects After Fatal Shooting at New Mexico Denny's
Sunday, June 21, 2009
KASA FOX 2
June 20: As many as four masked men armed with rifles and handguns rushed into the restaurant killing an employee.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Police on Sunday were searching for at least two more suspects they believe killed a teenage worker during a robbery at a packed Denny's and committed 10 more armed robberies in Albuquerque this past year.
Two suspects were arrested within minutes of the crime Saturday on suspicion of murder, kidnapping, robbery and child abuse because there were at least five children in the restaurant, Albuquerque Police Officer Nadine Hamby said.
Hamby said the men who were arrested are in their late 20s to early 30s and are from South America, but she did not know where specifically. She said police were working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify the men's identities.
Hamby said at least four masked men with rifles and handguns rushed into the northwest Albuquerque Denny's around 9:30 a.m. Saturday and demanded money.
A teenage female employee was fatally shot during the robbery. Police have not yet identified her.
One restaurant employee told police a manager was forced to open the cash register and the robbers took an undetermined amount of cash.
Hamby said police believe the men committed 10 similar robberies in the Albuquerque area in the past year, but no one was shot in those incidents. She would not provide further details.
She said about 35 detectives, who were in the area as part of a special operation targeting robberies, responded to the restaurant and found two of the suspects quickly.
Hamby said police were trying to help the roughly 100 people who were in the restaurant at the time get any emotional or psychological help they may need.
"They've been through a traumatic experience," she said.
Witnesses described the scene inside the restaurant as chaotic, with people getting down on the floor when they heard a bang.
"Four masked men came in with guns," customer Brian Thompson told KRQE News in Albuquerque. "Two went toward the back. That's all we could see because we all hit the ground."
Sunday, June 21, 2009
KASA FOX 2
June 20: As many as four masked men armed with rifles and handguns rushed into the restaurant killing an employee.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Police on Sunday were searching for at least two more suspects they believe killed a teenage worker during a robbery at a packed Denny's and committed 10 more armed robberies in Albuquerque this past year.
Two suspects were arrested within minutes of the crime Saturday on suspicion of murder, kidnapping, robbery and child abuse because there were at least five children in the restaurant, Albuquerque Police Officer Nadine Hamby said.
Hamby said the men who were arrested are in their late 20s to early 30s and are from South America, but she did not know where specifically. She said police were working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify the men's identities.
Hamby said at least four masked men with rifles and handguns rushed into the northwest Albuquerque Denny's around 9:30 a.m. Saturday and demanded money.
A teenage female employee was fatally shot during the robbery. Police have not yet identified her.
One restaurant employee told police a manager was forced to open the cash register and the robbers took an undetermined amount of cash.
Hamby said police believe the men committed 10 similar robberies in the Albuquerque area in the past year, but no one was shot in those incidents. She would not provide further details.
She said about 35 detectives, who were in the area as part of a special operation targeting robberies, responded to the restaurant and found two of the suspects quickly.
Hamby said police were trying to help the roughly 100 people who were in the restaurant at the time get any emotional or psychological help they may need.
"They've been through a traumatic experience," she said.
Witnesses described the scene inside the restaurant as chaotic, with people getting down on the floor when they heard a bang.
"Four masked men came in with guns," customer Brian Thompson told KRQE News in Albuquerque. "Two went toward the back. That's all we could see because we all hit the ground."
This Could Have Been You Instead of a Cop
Tucson police kill man, say he pulled gun
by Associated Press (June 24th, 2009 @ 6:36pm)
TUCSON, Ariz. - Tucson police say a man pulled a gun on an off-duty officer who had stopped to help motorists, and the officer fatally shot him early Wednesday.
Police say Officer Rico M. Acevedo has been placed on paid leave - standard procedure in such incidents.
Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco says Acevedo and another officer were driving home in their own vehicles after their shifts ended at midnight when they spotted a car apparently crashed on an Interstate 10 frontage road. Two men and two women were standing nearby. The officers stopped to help.
Pacheco says one of the men pulled a gun and tried to carjack Acevedo, striking him in the face with the weapon. Acevedo pulled his own gun and fatally shot the man, who was identified by authorities as 28-year-old Paul J. Hoppler.
Police say Hoppler was pronounced dead at the scene.
by Associated Press (June 24th, 2009 @ 6:36pm)
TUCSON, Ariz. - Tucson police say a man pulled a gun on an off-duty officer who had stopped to help motorists, and the officer fatally shot him early Wednesday.
Police say Officer Rico M. Acevedo has been placed on paid leave - standard procedure in such incidents.
Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco says Acevedo and another officer were driving home in their own vehicles after their shifts ended at midnight when they spotted a car apparently crashed on an Interstate 10 frontage road. Two men and two women were standing nearby. The officers stopped to help.
Pacheco says one of the men pulled a gun and tried to carjack Acevedo, striking him in the face with the weapon. Acevedo pulled his own gun and fatally shot the man, who was identified by authorities as 28-year-old Paul J. Hoppler.
Police say Hoppler was pronounced dead at the scene.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
WOW, I always wanted the perfect analogy and here it is. I am not a police officer, a Marine, or a soldier, I am just an old Air Force Aircraft Electrician, but I am prepared to defend my home, friends, and neighbors. I am a Sheepdog.
For a long time now I have had a hard time articulating my thoughts on self defense to people who did not believe owning a gun and/or possibly taking a bad persons life was worth anything in the world. I felt guilty when I said a criminal doing bad things deserved what ever he got. I almost felt that I was as bad as the bad guy but always new that my intentions were good. Why did I feel guilt for my beliefs? Because I just didn't know how to express them in a way that did not sound hostile. How does one say, I am all for peace and at the same time have a Glock under the shirt with full intent to use it if necessary. I could discuss it with my friends but to a staunch passive minded person I just couldn't put it into words. Dave Grossman has done that for me.
When you are done reading, decide what type of person you are and what type of person you want to be. Nothing is set and it is never too late to start training and take person responsibility for your own safety and that of your families.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
For a long time now I have had a hard time articulating my thoughts on self defense to people who did not believe owning a gun and/or possibly taking a bad persons life was worth anything in the world. I felt guilty when I said a criminal doing bad things deserved what ever he got. I almost felt that I was as bad as the bad guy but always new that my intentions were good. Why did I feel guilt for my beliefs? Because I just didn't know how to express them in a way that did not sound hostile. How does one say, I am all for peace and at the same time have a Glock under the shirt with full intent to use it if necessary. I could discuss it with my friends but to a staunch passive minded person I just couldn't put it into words. Dave Grossman has done that for me.
When you are done reading, decide what type of person you are and what type of person you want to be. Nothing is set and it is never too late to start training and take person responsibility for your own safety and that of your families.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Lies and Misinformation
It is best to read my previous blog titled, ‘New Bills That Need Your Support”, before you read this one.
Here is a link to the Bill that is being discussed below and a paragraph taken from the fact sheet. Remember the paragraph as it is important to this post. http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
1. Allows a CCW permit holder to carry a concealed handgun into the on-sale retail premises where food is sold for on-site consumption prepared in a kitchen located on the premises, unless the licensee posts a sign at the primary entrance or entrances prohibiting the possession of weapons on the premises.
I do not take one source of information as fact or truth, ever. Sometimes it gets my hopes up, but often I find it can not be validated by any other source. I always try to provide sources for the statements I make on this blog and when I can not I state it as my opinion.
Misinformation and writer bias can come in different ways though. An article can have all the facts but still be biased by the way the facts are presented. It can also use quotes from idiot people who state things as if they are fact and since it is quoted apparently the author does not have to substantiate the person’s claims. I have found this to be true in The Arizona Republic article: “Gun measure riles restaurant, bar owners in Arizona” written by Amy B Wang. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/22/20090622guns0622.html#reply17787244
This is going to be a long post because I am going to tear up this article. So schedule some time before you start reading.
The article starts off with a negative against the bill which makes sense after reading the title. But why not start off with what the actual bill states? Why not give the facts of the bill then go into why some bar owners are against it and God forbid, why some would be for it. I live in a dream world I know.
First quote:
"People realize alcohol and guns don't mix," said Al McCarthy, owner of Duke's Sports Bar & Grill in Scottsdale. "This is going back to the Wyatt Earp days of the Wild Wild West."
Warthog’s response:
This is very true. Guns and alcohol do not mix. That is why the bill states that the person carrying the gun can not be drinking. It is also my understanding that this bill is only meant for restaurants that serve mostly food, i.e. Applebee’s, Chili’s , Outback, etc.
Second quote:
McCarthy, who has been in the restaurant industry for 18 years, insisted that bars and restaurants were probably "one of the safest commercial places in your neighborhoods."
Warthog’s response:
You have got to be kidding me that the author put this quote in. Warthog says, “I am almost always right some of the time, except when I am not.” Makes about as much sense, doesn’t it? Now, let’s break it down. When I think of restaurants, bars, and violence I have to call bullshit on Mr. McCarthy. I am thinking Red Fish and Teakwood’s right of the bat. These two Restaurant/bars had shootings and people killed. I do not know the ratio of food to alcohol sales but Red Fish is a seafood restaurant with a separate bar, while Teakwood’s is a sports bar. This does not even mention the fact that adding bars to the equation automatically proves the above statement false as no where else are there bouncers needed. It is also not a valid argument as Bars (places one does not go mainly for food) would still not allow firearms. Now, let’s think about other areas around our home and try to think of more dangerous places. Hell, I can’t really think of one other then maybe a covenant store. You all know the ones that have shady looking people hanging around.
Third Quote:
"We're used to dealing with problem makers," he [McCarthy] said. "We get rid of them."
Warthog’s response:
Still think this guy is confused about the difference between a bar and a restaurant. I also point to the fact that bouncers are not armed so no matter how big the guy is he still goes down against the great equalizer the gun. I also refer back to another one of my blog posts: http://arizonashooter.blogspot.com/2009/05/suzanna-gratia-hupp-what-second.html
Now, I don’t think Luby’s sells alcohol so it would have been legal in Arizona, but this could and has happened at other restaurants. Mr. McCarthy, how would you get rid of someone like the man above? Wait, I already know. You would call the police. I appreciate that; make sure you tell them to bring a lot of chalk for all the dead bodies.
I am done with the quotes. This article is filled with stupid quotes that continue to argue the same point that alcohol and guns do not mix. Well no shit and that is not the point of the bill. No one wants to be able to do shots, literally shoot someone. Well, no one I know.
On to the CYA part of the story which is the proponent side of the story, which offers a quote from Priscilla Johnson, general manager of a Denny’s:
"People come in all the time with guns," said Johnson, whose Denny's is one of a few in the national restaurant chain that serves alcohol. "Not like, 'Hey, I got a gun,' you know, but you can see it in their jacket."
Warthog’s response:
AND NO ONE GETS KILLED? HOW CAN THAT BE? YOU’RE A LIAR MRS. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE TO BE AND EVERYONE KNOWS PEOPLE WITH GUNS ALMOST ALWAYS WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE SOMETIMES.
So as you can see I lied about being done with the quotes. My journalistic integrity is out the window. Maybe I will get an offer from the New Times.
Here is my favorite quote of the article. I have mixed in the description as well.
Quote:
Bill Smith, whose management company Smith Hospitality Group owns or operates several Phoenix-area establishments, said he didn't know any restaurant owner in favor of the bill.
His company manages Rawhide, a Chandler theme park and eatery modeled after the Wild West, where fake "shootouts" with toy guns frequently take place.
"That's another reason you don't want people carrying guns in there," Smith said. "What worse way to get them completely carried away than for some inebriated guy to walk out on Main Street out there with a loaded weapon and call some guy out? That is a dismal scenario.
Warthog’s response:
Apparently Mr. Smith thinks adults with guns turn very quickly to idiot children and want to have shootouts with real guns. Mr. Smith, read the damn law, you can not drink if you are carrying a gun and if someone is going to break that law then they sure as hell are not going to pay attention to the law saying they are not supposed to have the gun in the store in the first place.
Last quote (I promise):
[From Mr. Smith:] "I just think with all the down-going in the economy now, there's got to be something more important to concentrate on than allowing people to bring guns into restaurants."
Warthog’s response:
It is never a bad time to talk about people individual right to protect themselves, their families, and those innocents around them. It is the bad economy that makes right now the best time to talk about removing the burden of over zealous laws that put people in danger rather then making us safer.
Conclusion:
When it comes to the people being quoted, and the supposed majority of bar owners and managers who do not wish to allow guns into their restaurants, it is their right to be afraid. However, it is not their right to leave us defenseless. So read the law people. If you wish to ban guns from your restaurant all it takes is a cheap sign at the door. This will allow people to make the decision of where they want to spend their money. Frankly, I will choose the place that allows me to put my life in my own hands before the place that doesn't.
This article really pissed me off and having reread it again and again, I think that Amy Wang was just being lazy and did not bother to do her homework. If she wanted to really sand bag the bill then she could have done a better job of it.
Laziness does not excuse the lack of investigation and facts into the matter. I would love to see the statistics to back up any of the claims made. Using other peoples words to write an article does not make it okay to lie and misinform. We Arizonans, for the most part, are all able to look at the facts of a case and make our own decisions. Give us the facts and let us figure it out. Leave the bias bullshit to the New Times.
Here is a link to the Bill that is being discussed below and a paragraph taken from the fact sheet. Remember the paragraph as it is important to this post. http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
1. Allows a CCW permit holder to carry a concealed handgun into the on-sale retail premises where food is sold for on-site consumption prepared in a kitchen located on the premises, unless the licensee posts a sign at the primary entrance or entrances prohibiting the possession of weapons on the premises.
I do not take one source of information as fact or truth, ever. Sometimes it gets my hopes up, but often I find it can not be validated by any other source. I always try to provide sources for the statements I make on this blog and when I can not I state it as my opinion.
Misinformation and writer bias can come in different ways though. An article can have all the facts but still be biased by the way the facts are presented. It can also use quotes from idiot people who state things as if they are fact and since it is quoted apparently the author does not have to substantiate the person’s claims. I have found this to be true in The Arizona Republic article: “Gun measure riles restaurant, bar owners in Arizona” written by Amy B Wang. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/22/20090622guns0622.html#reply17787244
This is going to be a long post because I am going to tear up this article. So schedule some time before you start reading.
The article starts off with a negative against the bill which makes sense after reading the title. But why not start off with what the actual bill states? Why not give the facts of the bill then go into why some bar owners are against it and God forbid, why some would be for it. I live in a dream world I know.
First quote:
"People realize alcohol and guns don't mix," said Al McCarthy, owner of Duke's Sports Bar & Grill in Scottsdale. "This is going back to the Wyatt Earp days of the Wild Wild West."
Warthog’s response:
This is very true. Guns and alcohol do not mix. That is why the bill states that the person carrying the gun can not be drinking. It is also my understanding that this bill is only meant for restaurants that serve mostly food, i.e. Applebee’s, Chili’s , Outback, etc.
Second quote:
McCarthy, who has been in the restaurant industry for 18 years, insisted that bars and restaurants were probably "one of the safest commercial places in your neighborhoods."
Warthog’s response:
You have got to be kidding me that the author put this quote in. Warthog says, “I am almost always right some of the time, except when I am not.” Makes about as much sense, doesn’t it? Now, let’s break it down. When I think of restaurants, bars, and violence I have to call bullshit on Mr. McCarthy. I am thinking Red Fish and Teakwood’s right of the bat. These two Restaurant/bars had shootings and people killed. I do not know the ratio of food to alcohol sales but Red Fish is a seafood restaurant with a separate bar, while Teakwood’s is a sports bar. This does not even mention the fact that adding bars to the equation automatically proves the above statement false as no where else are there bouncers needed. It is also not a valid argument as Bars (places one does not go mainly for food) would still not allow firearms. Now, let’s think about other areas around our home and try to think of more dangerous places. Hell, I can’t really think of one other then maybe a covenant store. You all know the ones that have shady looking people hanging around.
Third Quote:
"We're used to dealing with problem makers," he [McCarthy] said. "We get rid of them."
Warthog’s response:
Still think this guy is confused about the difference between a bar and a restaurant. I also point to the fact that bouncers are not armed so no matter how big the guy is he still goes down against the great equalizer the gun. I also refer back to another one of my blog posts: http://arizonashooter.blogspot.com/2009/05/suzanna-gratia-hupp-what-second.html
Now, I don’t think Luby’s sells alcohol so it would have been legal in Arizona, but this could and has happened at other restaurants. Mr. McCarthy, how would you get rid of someone like the man above? Wait, I already know. You would call the police. I appreciate that; make sure you tell them to bring a lot of chalk for all the dead bodies.
I am done with the quotes. This article is filled with stupid quotes that continue to argue the same point that alcohol and guns do not mix. Well no shit and that is not the point of the bill. No one wants to be able to do shots, literally shoot someone. Well, no one I know.
On to the CYA part of the story which is the proponent side of the story, which offers a quote from Priscilla Johnson, general manager of a Denny’s:
"People come in all the time with guns," said Johnson, whose Denny's is one of a few in the national restaurant chain that serves alcohol. "Not like, 'Hey, I got a gun,' you know, but you can see it in their jacket."
Warthog’s response:
AND NO ONE GETS KILLED? HOW CAN THAT BE? YOU’RE A LIAR MRS. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE TO BE AND EVERYONE KNOWS PEOPLE WITH GUNS ALMOST ALWAYS WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE SOMETIMES.
So as you can see I lied about being done with the quotes. My journalistic integrity is out the window. Maybe I will get an offer from the New Times.
Here is my favorite quote of the article. I have mixed in the description as well.
Quote:
Bill Smith, whose management company Smith Hospitality Group owns or operates several Phoenix-area establishments, said he didn't know any restaurant owner in favor of the bill.
His company manages Rawhide, a Chandler theme park and eatery modeled after the Wild West, where fake "shootouts" with toy guns frequently take place.
"That's another reason you don't want people carrying guns in there," Smith said. "What worse way to get them completely carried away than for some inebriated guy to walk out on Main Street out there with a loaded weapon and call some guy out? That is a dismal scenario.
Warthog’s response:
Apparently Mr. Smith thinks adults with guns turn very quickly to idiot children and want to have shootouts with real guns. Mr. Smith, read the damn law, you can not drink if you are carrying a gun and if someone is going to break that law then they sure as hell are not going to pay attention to the law saying they are not supposed to have the gun in the store in the first place.
Last quote (I promise):
[From Mr. Smith:] "I just think with all the down-going in the economy now, there's got to be something more important to concentrate on than allowing people to bring guns into restaurants."
Warthog’s response:
It is never a bad time to talk about people individual right to protect themselves, their families, and those innocents around them. It is the bad economy that makes right now the best time to talk about removing the burden of over zealous laws that put people in danger rather then making us safer.
Conclusion:
When it comes to the people being quoted, and the supposed majority of bar owners and managers who do not wish to allow guns into their restaurants, it is their right to be afraid. However, it is not their right to leave us defenseless. So read the law people. If you wish to ban guns from your restaurant all it takes is a cheap sign at the door. This will allow people to make the decision of where they want to spend their money. Frankly, I will choose the place that allows me to put my life in my own hands before the place that doesn't.
This article really pissed me off and having reread it again and again, I think that Amy Wang was just being lazy and did not bother to do her homework. If she wanted to really sand bag the bill then she could have done a better job of it.
Laziness does not excuse the lack of investigation and facts into the matter. I would love to see the statistics to back up any of the claims made. Using other peoples words to write an article does not make it okay to lie and misinform. We Arizonans, for the most part, are all able to look at the facts of a case and make our own decisions. Give us the facts and let us figure it out. Leave the bias bullshit to the New Times.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Arizona Concealed Carry Law
The latest and greatest new gun law or bill to come out lately is the bill to allow all Arizonians the right to carry a weapon concealed. It is more a repeal of a law then a new law all together, as our right to bear arms is in both our National Constitution and our State Constitution. So this Bill, if voted in, will become a law saying that the law that was passed before it is no longer valid and therefore we as Arizona residents can again use the rights guaranteed by not one but two Constitutions. CONFUSED? Yeah, I believe that is the intent.
My first thoughts when hearing about this bill was that I did not agree with it. Why? Because I thought that allowing any idiot to carry concealed would put both him and others in danger. There is a certain stigma that one feels when they open carry and an even bigger one when someone carries concealed. The CCW class takes a commitment and offers some sort of training and proficiency testing. This is small, but it is something.
I got passed my first thought quickly and moved to my second thought. IT IS OUR RIGHT. Done, finished, over. So, I started thinking about my initial feelings and how could those concerns be diminished without infringing on someone’s rights.
Education was my answer or rather School. Have gun safety become a mandatory class just as Drivers Education was mandatory in my school. I believe we have a right to demand that all people who own or use a firearm know what the hell they are doing. This can only be done one or two ways without infringing on some ones rights.
The first way is what I stated above, education by the schools. The second is a law that said people had to have a license to own a gun, but it was like a driver’s license. Basically, you had to take a safety class AND show safety proficiency with a firearm. This would have to be signed off by a licensed professional instructor. You would get a license and that license would allow you to buy what ever and do what ever. The license would be checked but would not be documented with any firearms purchase.
Now, the second idea does infringe a bit into people privacy as I am opposed to anyone knowing that you might own a gun in any way. That is why I prefer the first suggestion. It would mean that ALL Americans knew how to handle a gun safely. Whether they actually follow what they have been taught is another matter, but again we can see that a lot of people don’t drive within the rules and they have all been tested that they know the rules.
I hope this spurs debate and I look forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on this subject. Law enforcement opinions extremely welcome, as the news portrays the Police as being the biggest opponents of the bill.
My first thoughts when hearing about this bill was that I did not agree with it. Why? Because I thought that allowing any idiot to carry concealed would put both him and others in danger. There is a certain stigma that one feels when they open carry and an even bigger one when someone carries concealed. The CCW class takes a commitment and offers some sort of training and proficiency testing. This is small, but it is something.
I got passed my first thought quickly and moved to my second thought. IT IS OUR RIGHT. Done, finished, over. So, I started thinking about my initial feelings and how could those concerns be diminished without infringing on someone’s rights.
Education was my answer or rather School. Have gun safety become a mandatory class just as Drivers Education was mandatory in my school. I believe we have a right to demand that all people who own or use a firearm know what the hell they are doing. This can only be done one or two ways without infringing on some ones rights.
The first way is what I stated above, education by the schools. The second is a law that said people had to have a license to own a gun, but it was like a driver’s license. Basically, you had to take a safety class AND show safety proficiency with a firearm. This would have to be signed off by a licensed professional instructor. You would get a license and that license would allow you to buy what ever and do what ever. The license would be checked but would not be documented with any firearms purchase.
Now, the second idea does infringe a bit into people privacy as I am opposed to anyone knowing that you might own a gun in any way. That is why I prefer the first suggestion. It would mean that ALL Americans knew how to handle a gun safely. Whether they actually follow what they have been taught is another matter, but again we can see that a lot of people don’t drive within the rules and they have all been tested that they know the rules.
I hope this spurs debate and I look forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on this subject. Law enforcement opinions extremely welcome, as the news portrays the Police as being the biggest opponents of the bill.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Great-grandma dared cop to Tase her, so he did
Thanks for this Mike.
Watch the time stamp. 7 minutes go by.
Obey the law. I will not make excuses for the cop but a full seven minutes goes by with him taking her abuse. He is twice her size and I wonder if his thought process after trying to grab her arm was this. If I fight with this woman and we fall I can seriously injure her. I can tase her and she falls in the grass.
This is a direct result of her actions, not a disgruntled cop who wanted to pick on an old lady. She should have known better then to act that way and her lying afterward shows the character of this woman. I commend the officer for his patience and for being put into such a horrible position. Sorry that this women has now made you a national pariah
Watch the time stamp. 7 minutes go by.
Obey the law. I will not make excuses for the cop but a full seven minutes goes by with him taking her abuse. He is twice her size and I wonder if his thought process after trying to grab her arm was this. If I fight with this woman and we fall I can seriously injure her. I can tase her and she falls in the grass.
This is a direct result of her actions, not a disgruntled cop who wanted to pick on an old lady. She should have known better then to act that way and her lying afterward shows the character of this woman. I commend the officer for his patience and for being put into such a horrible position. Sorry that this women has now made you a national pariah
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds gun law and spits on Constitution
Cause of my angst:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-rights3-2009jun03,0,1976638.story
Note: It is not the writer or this news source that is the cause. I found many sources but picked the liberal one to show I read everything.
Alright folks, I am freaking out here. Maybe I am just some dumb trailer trash POS who thought he new some things cuz I read a few books and paid attention in school. I thought the the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were for all Americans and set the basis of our great country. Now I am reading that The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK??? We all live in states right? Well, except for those people who live in DC. So how can a state impose a law that supercedes my supposed rights?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-rights3-2009jun03,0,1976638.story
Note: It is not the writer or this news source that is the cause. I found many sources but picked the liberal one to show I read everything.
Quote:
“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.
-
-
Warthog:
Alright folks, I am freaking out here. Maybe I am just some dumb trailer trash POS who thought he new some things cuz I read a few books and paid attention in school. I thought the the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were for all Americans and set the basis of our great country. Now I am reading that The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK??? We all live in states right? Well, except for those people who live in DC. So how can a state impose a law that supercedes my supposed rights?
I just read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights all the way through in one sitting. Don't think it was the first time, but might be.
Am I reading this wrong? Please read it to yourself, feel free to verify I copied and pasted correctly. But I understand the below article to state: The Constituition is the supreme Law of the Land and every State is bound by it. Is that not what it says?
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
I need help from you guys. Talk me down off the ledge people. Seriously, is everything, I believed and fought for, some foolish naive bullshit that can be thrown to the side at any moment? I know our politicians have been shitting on it for years but now its being openly said? What compels a person to force laws on people that make them vulnerable and weak? Why do they feel the need to make us dependant on them? Can they not be satisfied with being in charge of productive hardworking law abiding citizens? What is this codependent relationship they long for? They need us to need them, therefore they cause our need. Its ridiculous.
New Bills that Need Your Support
The following bills are no brainers in my humble opinion. I find all Gun Control Laws unconstitutional so any bill giving our rights back are good to me. Actually, isn't it ridiculous that we have to pass bills to counter act illegal bills?
House Bill 2474 , sponsored by State Representatives John Kavanagh (R-8) and Frank Antenori (R-30), would permit law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm locked in their privately owned vehicle when parked on their employer’s publicly accessible parking lot. HB2474 passed by an overwhelming vote in the House, 41-10-9. Please contact your State Senators TODAY and respectfully urge them to support and vote yes on HB2474 before session comes to an end, which would kill the bill.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Warthog: This bill needs to be passed so I can stop breaking the law. I have no idea how it is lawful for someone to say that keeping my gun in my car is against the law anywhere. Do you even know if your company has a policy against it?
Senate Bill 1243, sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce (R-18), would clarify the statutory definition of defensive display of a firearm. SB1243 is awaiting a Senate committee assignment. This clarification of defensive display of a firearm is a valuable addition to your right to self-defense.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1243
Warthog: Imagine this scenario. You are filling your car up with gas when three young punks (you know their punks cuz they are dressed like punks) start walking up to you from three different directions. You slide your jacket back to give you free access to you firearm, while also letting the punks get a good view of what is in store for them, and they suddenly get a brain and decide to go mess with someone else. Well, you were spotted doing this by someone at the gas station who decides to call the cops. Instead of saying, "I just saw three punks surround a man and he showed his weapon and they fled!!!" the person says, "A man just displayed a weapon to three young men, scaring them and me. He just took off in a Red Starlet with license plate 6SNAFU2, he was heading East." You suddenly get pulled over at gun point and arrested. The charge?
Aggravated Assault.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Arizona Statute 13-1203.A.2 states that: A person commits assault by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. Arizona Statute 13-1204.A.2 states that: A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 if the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
You did all of the above to those poor misunderstood kids who just wanted to give you a hand by making your wallet lighter, or give you exercise by forcing you to walk home after they stole your car, or making your wife rich when she cashes in your insurance policy after you die.
REMEMBER, THE FIRST PERSON WHO CALLS THE COPS IS THE VICTIM!!!
Senate Bill 1113, introduced by State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), would give customers the right to take concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), the restaurant industry, and NRA have worked to craft new language that will be used in place of the currently proposed posting requirements. Over 30 states currently have restaurant carry provisions. In 2005, the Arizona legislature passed a restaurant carry provision, which was vetoed by previous Governor Janet Napolitano. SB1113 has been through First Reading and is now awaiting a committee assignment in the Senate.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
Warthog: This one can get tricky. I do not agree that anyone should have a gun on them when they are drinking, at all, ever. BUT, if I want to go to Applebees and have dinner with ice tea, in the restaurant, then I should be able to carry. My gun is a long way out in the parking lot if someone wants to reenact the Texas Lubby's shootings. This bill would cover restaurants that serve more food then liqueur. Right now, if the restaurant sells individual beers in a bottle with a selection of three types, you can not carry. You know the places that have a fridge that you can grab a bottle of beer and a sandwich. If you don't well never mind. lol
Note: The story about aggravated assault was told to me during a CCW class. I tried researching it and could not find anything. True story or not, this scenario could easily happen.
House Bill 2474 , sponsored by State Representatives John Kavanagh (R-8) and Frank Antenori (R-30), would permit law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm locked in their privately owned vehicle when parked on their employer’s publicly accessible parking lot. HB2474 passed by an overwhelming vote in the House, 41-10-9. Please contact your State Senators TODAY and respectfully urge them to support and vote yes on HB2474 before session comes to an end, which would kill the bill.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Warthog: This bill needs to be passed so I can stop breaking the law. I have no idea how it is lawful for someone to say that keeping my gun in my car is against the law anywhere. Do you even know if your company has a policy against it?
Senate Bill 1243, sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce (R-18), would clarify the statutory definition of defensive display of a firearm. SB1243 is awaiting a Senate committee assignment. This clarification of defensive display of a firearm is a valuable addition to your right to self-defense.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1243
Warthog: Imagine this scenario. You are filling your car up with gas when three young punks (you know their punks cuz they are dressed like punks) start walking up to you from three different directions. You slide your jacket back to give you free access to you firearm, while also letting the punks get a good view of what is in store for them, and they suddenly get a brain and decide to go mess with someone else. Well, you were spotted doing this by someone at the gas station who decides to call the cops. Instead of saying, "I just saw three punks surround a man and he showed his weapon and they fled!!!" the person says, "A man just displayed a weapon to three young men, scaring them and me. He just took off in a Red Starlet with license plate 6SNAFU2, he was heading East." You suddenly get pulled over at gun point and arrested. The charge?
Aggravated Assault.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Arizona Statute 13-1203.A.2 states that: A person commits assault by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. Arizona Statute 13-1204.A.2 states that: A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 if the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
You did all of the above to those poor misunderstood kids who just wanted to give you a hand by making your wallet lighter, or give you exercise by forcing you to walk home after they stole your car, or making your wife rich when she cashes in your insurance policy after you die.
REMEMBER, THE FIRST PERSON WHO CALLS THE COPS IS THE VICTIM!!!
Senate Bill 1113, introduced by State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), would give customers the right to take concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), the restaurant industry, and NRA have worked to craft new language that will be used in place of the currently proposed posting requirements. Over 30 states currently have restaurant carry provisions. In 2005, the Arizona legislature passed a restaurant carry provision, which was vetoed by previous Governor Janet Napolitano. SB1113 has been through First Reading and is now awaiting a committee assignment in the Senate.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
Warthog: This one can get tricky. I do not agree that anyone should have a gun on them when they are drinking, at all, ever. BUT, if I want to go to Applebees and have dinner with ice tea, in the restaurant, then I should be able to carry. My gun is a long way out in the parking lot if someone wants to reenact the Texas Lubby's shootings. This bill would cover restaurants that serve more food then liqueur. Right now, if the restaurant sells individual beers in a bottle with a selection of three types, you can not carry. You know the places that have a fridge that you can grab a bottle of beer and a sandwich. If you don't well never mind. lol
Note: The story about aggravated assault was told to me during a CCW class. I tried researching it and could not find anything. True story or not, this scenario could easily happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
