Monthly Archives:December 2012
Read the rest of the article linked below..it’s sobering.
According to the CNN timeline for the Sandy Hook tragedy, “Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls.” Twenty minutes. Five minutes is forever when violence is underway, but 20 minutes — a third of an hour — means that the “first responders” arent likely to do much more than clean up the mess.
Unfortunately when we continue our examination that we find that there is evil in the world. There are those who disrespect other people’s rights. Some of them may want to kill you. Everyone who undertakes to murder believes their reason for doing so is justified. That they may be objectively insane doesn’t change their view of the world. Their desire to see you die is in direct conflict with your right to live.
In that situation one of you will be victorious, and the other will not.
It is your decision, and only justly your decision, how you resolve this conflict. You have the right to surrender your life if you so wish, but in doing so you are making a decision that only you, and nobody else, has the authority to make.
President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg demand that you cede this decision to an insane criminal.
They are attempting to demand that you not defend your right to life, although they will not themselves do what they demand of you and cede their decision to any person who is insane and would kill them.
They in fact spend millions of your taxpayer dollars to prevent the very victimization they demand you submit to from happening to them.
There is only one sane response to that demand, and it is for you to insist that these people perform an anatomically-impossible act.
Now let’s put this in the context of your children.
When a child is born it is defenseless, hungry and cold. The newborn baby is dependent upon its parents for everything, other than oxygen from the air, that it needs to survive. It is incapable of feeding itself, it is incapable of adjusting its environment and bodily covering to deal with environmental changes such as heat or cold, and it is incapable of disposing of the waste products from bodily processes in a manner that will not make itself and others ill. That child, during the next 18 years, undergoes growth in both mind and body, to the point where (hopefully) he or she is capable of discharging those responsibilities alone.
But until that time comes, you are that child’s protector. You are the one ensconced with the responsibility to protect that child’s life.
That child’s right to life is unalienable but as that child’s parent you are the one charged with defending that right.
How dare you refuse to discharge that responsibility!
Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama, along with many others have, thus far successfully, demanded that you intentionally refuse to defend your child’s right to life as soon as that child enters a school — and they then attempt to compel you, by law, to have that child attend some form of school!
How dare you consent in place of that young person who is too young to do so!
They have the gall to tell you that your children must be unarmed targets while armed guards stand at the ready next to them on a literal 24 hour a day basis to prevent the same thing from happening to them, while forcing you to pay for their protection.
How dare you accept this premise while they smugly stand with their Secret Service and Police, armed to the teeth, not even willing to step inside a hotel without security first checking to make sure there has been no evil laid in!
Now I would like it very much if we could find a way to rid the world of evil. Simply making all guns disappear, which is incidentally a factual impossibility, is unfortunately insufficient. One of the worst mass-murders committed in the 20th century was undertaken by a man with less than a gallon of gasoline and two matches; he killed 80 people here in the United States and is currently in prison for life. No gun law in the world could have changed that outcome, for he did not use a gun. Another nutjob blew up a federal building in Oklahoma; he used fertilizer, diesel fuel and a truck. Likewise people have murdered with cars, SUVs, swimming pools, common household goods used as poisons along with sporting goods, including baseball bats, golf clubs and even their bare hands. A not-insignificant number of murders in China in recent years have been committed (in schools no less!) by knife-wielding assailants. Your kitchen contains more than enough implements of destruction to murder virtually anyone, especially if taken by surprise. Harris and Klebold at Columbine not only used guns, they also attempted to blow up the school with tanks of ordinary propane; fortunately the detonators failed to work.
I don’t see anyone talking about banning outdoor BBQ grills.
Another good post about the lies of the gun control folks..:)
this excerpt is spot on…hit the link for the rest of the post…it is totally true…time for folks to put their actual thinking caps on instead of taking the spew on tv as gospel folks.
Why does the media only cover guns in the face of such tragedy? Why don’t they discuss it when we can examine the subject coolly and rationally, and maybe get somewhere?
Because then we might learn something. Because then the public could become educated, and the media does not really want this to happen. Because then you might learn that guns have social utility, and are indispensable — that guns serve good purposes — instead of being pounded with the hopelessly false idea that arms are bad.
If the media covered guns without tragedy as a background, you would learn that guns save lives, which is why we want our police heavily armed, with high-capacity magazines, and high-powered rifles, and all the ammunition they can carry. You would learn that you need guns and ammo and full-capacity magazines — for the exact same reason.
You would learn that your need is even greater, because YOU are the first responders, and police are always second. You face the criminals first, in every event. Police, with all their deadly bullets only show up later. Police are the second responders. Media stories are always wrong about that. That’s what you say.
Because so-called “news” media gun stories are not news, they are propaganda. Showing the image of a mass murderer 100 times a day isn’t news, it is propaganda. Because staying on the same single event for a week or more isn’t news — even reporters would call it old news, or yesterday’s news, or yellow journalism, if they were being honest — a trait many have long since lost the ability to exercise. It is propaganda by every definition of that term.
It is designed to disgust, and cause revulsion, and motivate mob mentality. It serves no news purpose other than to induce fear and cause terror. In five minutes you have told the story, nothing new is added, yet it rolls on with images on endless loop. It promotes evil, encourages copycats, with zero redeeming news value. It violates every rule of ethical news behavior there is. That’s what you say.
But here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned. Here’s the Pulitzer Prize, waiting for you if you want one. Should people who put scores of guns into the hands of drug lords get one-month sentences — like we saw the very day before this massacre — is that right? If you get the laws you’re shouting for, would it matter if that’s what the Justice Dept. does with them?
Why isn’t THAT discussed? How did you let that skate by? Don’t tell me you covered that story, if you simply reported the government handout, that Fast and Furious smugglers Avila and Carillo were sentenced. That’s not reporting, that’s reading.
I’ve seen this statement more and more that mass shootings are not on the rise. I’m not sure i agree with that one..but the rest of the points in this article are spot on.
A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.
First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
Laws don’t stop massacres….read on.
But they’re not what people are promoting, especially those who are always looking for a way to shove you in the hole — right after they remove your ability to resist.
And let’s not kid ourselves — that’s exactly what happened in Connecticut. The teachers and staff in that school had no lawful means to resist, because they accepted (and probably even supported) the fallacious argument that laws (paper) stop bullets. They learned, too late, that this argument is and always has been false.
A murderous thug, enabled by foolish reliance on pieces of paper, shoved them in the hole.
If you believe that “gun control” (of any sort) will stop these events you’re suffering from a severe case of logical fallacy — or delusion. The worst mass-murder in a school wasn’t committed by Adam Lanza. That distinction belongs to former school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, who got*****ed off about a property tax levy and detonated three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan, killing 38 elementary school children, two teachers, a handful of other adults and himself. Nearly 60 were injured.
That murderer also killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire just before he set off the bombs.
Believe it or not, Bath Township got off light. There were over 500lbs of additional explosives planted in the buildings that failed to go off; he intended to destroy the entire school and presumably kill everyone inside, but the second device failed to explode.
Nor do you need a gun to commit mass-murder in general. One of the worst mass-murder events in US history was committed in 1990 with a gallon of gasoline; Julio Gonzalez, who was later convicted of arson and murder, spread gasoline on the entrance to the club and set it ablaze. 87 people died. Not only did the gasoline cost far less than a gun, it is much easier to obtain. Do you recall any hue and cry for the banning of gasoline, or even for gasoline-powered weed-eaters and lawn-mowers (or, for that matter, portable generators) — the predicate items that for sane people compel them to buy and use a portable gas can, and thus make portable gas cans available to homicidal maniacs?
Next, let’s talk about the school once again, because here we see an over-reliance on half-measures and “feel good” ideation as well. The school locked the doors and required a buzzer to enter, which sounds reasonable. The problem is that they didn’t armor the glass in the immediate vicinity of the door, making possible a trivial forced entry. A person intent on homicide doesn’t care if he breaks a window (a petty crime) first. You can’t reasonably replace all windows with shatter-proof panes (e.g. wired-mesh glass that can be shot through but will not break in a fashion that allows entry) but you can do so for that glass in an entry door or in its immediate vicinity, and you can for small windows in and immediately in the vicinity of classroom doors. You can also equip classroom doors with cylinder deadbolt locks that require a key from the outside to open, but can be operated without a key from the inside. These enhancements, which are pretty inexpensive, would have thwarted the shooter’s forced entry into the school and if he gained entry to the building would have prevented his entry into the classrooms. There are reports that teachers had to use file cabinets and their bodies to barricade the doors; one was shot and injured doing so. That’s outrageous when a quality deadbolt-equipped door and metal frame bolted to the structure of the building costs only a few hundred dollars.
I want to know who was behind the changes made to “secure” this school and what sort of analytical process was undertaken, whether it was debated in the open at a school board meeting, whether the public was involved, and whether the public was invited to think about and comment on the path undertaken and its expense. Again, while hindsight is always 20/20 if the fact that a plate window was in the immediate vicinity of a “locked” door was not looked at as a security problem then I question both the people and the process involved in “hardening” this installation.
Next, let’s talk about the adults in the school. We already require training on sexual assault, child abuse and similar issues for school teachers and administrators. Why do we omit self-defense from this list, when our teachers and administrators claim the right of in loco parentis during school hours for our children?
That omission is asinine.
With what I’ve been seeing…i’d say no. Read the liked post as it contains several cartoons that i can easily cut an paste here.
I invite anyone opining on this massacre read this entire article at the link below. there are some facts in here you will never hear about in the “mass media’ at all. Read all of the facts here before pining…
We’ll start with the guns. They are reported to have been legally owned by the shooter’s mother and included a Glock pistol, a Sig pistol and a .223 caliber rifle. The rifle has been reported to be a sporting variety commonly used for target practice or hunting varmints; if the make and model reported are correct it is indeed a hunting variant (it has a fixed stock as hunting rifles typically do, no flash-hider on the front or other “scary looking” but immaterial cosmetics, etc.) Sig makes extremely high-quality (and commensurately expensive) pistols; Glock of course makes highly-reliable and well-respected weapons as well. A little-known fact about Glocks is that for many people they “point” funny due to a different grip angle than most other pistols; some people find them very difficult to shoot accurately for this reason. That may be why the mother owned both (she may have bought one and not liked it, then bought the other.) The rifle was found inside the car the shooter drove and since he never came out of the school building once going in it must be presumed that he did not use that gun in the school assault. There is nothing particularly-remarkable about the weapons used in this assault; they are common guns used lawfully by millions of Americans for hunting, target practice and defensive purposes.
Of note is that the shooter could not have legally acquired the pistols, as he is not 21. Federal law requires one to be 21 years of age before purchasing a pistol at retail. In this particular case, however, it doesn’t matter whether he was 21 or not as he didn’t buy any of the weapons involved; they were lawfully purchased by his mother who the assailant murdered prior to assaulting the school.
In other words the shooter effectively stole the weapons used in the assault. We do not know at this point (and may never know) the exact order of events in terms of his acquisition of the weapons but what we do know factually is that he murdered their owner, ending her ability to report the theft or to resist what he intended to do with them next.
That is, there was no “gun control” violation involved in this assault. The bad guy did not obtain the weapons through lawful means and he also did not (legally or not) circumvent the background check system by, for example, buying them privately from someone (the much-maligned “gun show loophole” that people talk about but is almost-never actually implicated in an assault.) Rather, the assailant removed the weapons from their lawful owner through, either directly or indirectly, the crime of murder.
As a retired school teacher with no reported criminal history, there was utterly no reason to prevent the mother from owning these firearms for perfectly reasonable and lawful purposes, such as paper-punching or self-defense. Being divorced — as a single woman — she had every right and reason to be armed for defensive purposes, particularly in her own home.
I came home last night and gave my older daughter a big hug…i then proceeded to explain to her about one of the reason so many folks died that horrid day. Gun Free Zones = Turkey Shoot. I’m not going to be blithe and say armed staff could have eliminated all deaths..that’s simply idiocy. However, armed staff would have meant fewer folks would have died. Most school building on the interior are not made of bullet resistant materials like concrete but usually drywall and maybe some cinder blocks. Right now if somebody comes into the school with the purpose of killing anything .40 caliber and larger isn’t going to be stopped by interior constructions. unfortunately this means the current lockdown scheme simply means you cower in your classroom hoping the killer(s) don’t come to your door If they do..unless the teacher tries to intervene and gets shot) you are as good as dead. Unfortunately modern education(fueled by modern liberalistic gov’t) have so ingrained the fear of guns into the population’s brains they don’t realize that the first and last line of true defense is now gone…their own personal armaments. This massacre was over before the cops go there. News reports are saying the cops got there instantly…that’s a lie. Even in my small town where i can literally walk to the police station in under 10 minutes it still takes a minimum of 3 minutes for an officer to arrive. This was probably over in about that time. The cops are purely a reactionary force. if you want to keep your kids safe is school your choices are limited:
1. Truly education them about their surrounding at school. That means you need to intimately familiarize yourself with the building inside and out. You need to know how its hallways and classrooms are laid out..what the interior is made of and know your child’s classrooms so you can train your child on proper egress procedures. Son’t let your children become sitting ducks.
2. let the schools and local cops handle it. Ref other mass shootings for the results.
3. pull your children out of the public school system until the anal cranial infection clears itself.
guns are used more often by responsible owners more than double to stop(and prevent crimes) than they are to commit them. As long as the gun control folks have their way the mass shootings in schools, malls, hotels, churches…anywhere the turkey shoot mentality exists is not only going to continue..but may very well increase. The answer to this isn’t just more guns..i can agree there…the answer is more properly trained, self-armed gun owners packing. If schools are truly interested in our children’s safety they’ll get properly trained gun owners into the schools…if this turkey shoot mentality continues…children will continue to die at the hands of those who know where the easiest prey is located.
this so called ‘fiscal cliff” is merely a smokescreen for the Obamacare taxes that start kicking in from now until 2014.
Even if lawmakers somehow stop the Bush-era tax rates from expiring, taxes are still expected to rise on Jan. 1 — thanks to a trio of new fees tied to the federal health care overhaul.
The IRS this past week published rules for some of the first major taxes meant to help pay for President Obama’s massive insurance coverage expansion. Together, they will raise investment and income taxes on top earners and impose a separate — and controversial — tax on medical devices.
The bundle of fees has been largely overlooked as lawmakers and the White House bicker over the Bush tax rates, with Republicans demanding they be extended for everyone and Obama insisting rates rise for top earners. But that same group of earners is already in the crosshairs under the ObamaCare tax rules published this week.
Starting Jan. 1, investment income for individuals earning over $200,000 and households earning over $250,000 will be subject to a new 3.8 percent tax. Further, regular income above those thresholds will be hit with a .9 percent Medicare surtax. Should the Bush tax rates expire for those workers, those increases will be compounded.
But the rather obscure medical device tax is the one that has stirred the most controversy in Washington and the business community. This week, groups and lawmakers renewed their calls to repeal it as the IRS published its final rules.
“This week, the Internal Revenue Service outlined which medical supplies and technologies will be subject to a tax. Now, everything from latex gloves to pacemakers will become more expensive and in some cases, more scarce,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said in a statement. “The tax on medical devices harms America’s ability to conduct the necessary research and development to maintain our global competitiveness, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and fewer groundbreaking innovations in this field. With millions of Americans unemployed, this simply makes no sense.”
The Affordable Care Act imposed the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade.
Equipment makers, though, argue that the tax ends up being much higher than that since it’s on gross sales. One industry spokesman estimated earlier this year that the impact on actual earnings is more like 15 percent.
Already, some have warned that the tax will stifle growth. Indiana-based Cook Medical earlier this year announced it was scrapping plans to open five new plants because of the tax.
So true. Repubs=Dems
How many times can Republicans purge those to their right from their ranks and still be meaningfully considered to represent the American political right?
Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) have worked assiduously to keep conservative groups on the outside in line as they try to strike a massive deal to keep taxes low on all Americans and avoid spending cuts to the Pentagon and other domestic programs. The traditional right — The Wall Street Journal editorial page, National Review, Fox News and business-friendly analysts on CNBC — have been lockstep in line with Boehner, the result of careful outreach by leadership staff. But now, top House leaders suddenly find themselves under fire from entities with enormous sway in GOP politics.
The fact that the WSJ, NR, and Fox are pro-business doesn’t mean they are traditional right. Not anymore. Mussolini and Hitler were pro-business too. The irony is that the right was told that they had to dutifully line up behind Mitt Romney because he was, as a moderate, more electable than the anti-bank, anti-war, Ron Paul. Then, when Romney went down in flames just like McCain, Bush, Dole, Ford and every other elite-selected moderate before, what passes for Republican “leadership” in the House is trying to keep moving left.
If you are a conservative who is still a Republican, I have a very simple question to ask you: why? It is becoming increasingly obvious that both conservatives and America would have been better off if the John Birch Society purged William F. Buckley rather than the other way around.
Wonderful. Facebook is now intentionally reducing the reach of everyone’s posts..unless you promote them..which is a paid thing. I don’t mind them trying to make money but this is done in the typical sneaky Facebook way. of course i’m not highly invested in Facebook as i see it as a fad anyway..it’ll go away in the next few years.
There’s a meme that has been flying around for a while since Facebook introduced the “promote” feature (where you can pay to cause your postings to show up on people’s consolidated timelines — and if you don’t, most of the time they won’t) that I’d like to address:
Many of us managing Facebook fan pages have noticed something strange over the last year: how our reach has gotten increasingly ineffective. How the messages we post seem to get fewer clicks, how each message is seen by only a fraction of our total “fans.”
It’s no conspiracy. Facebook acknowledged it as recently as last week: messages now reach, on average, just 15 percent of an account’s fans. In a wonderful coincidence, Facebook has rolled out a solution for this problem: Pay them for better access.
As their advertising head, Gokul Rajaram, explained, if you want to speak to the other 80 to 85 percent of people who signed up to hear from you, “sponsoring posts is important.”
What, did you think that you were going to get something for free forever?
But here’s the problem — Facebook apparently can’t make any money (so their results show) without trying to ding you on both sides. In other words not only do they insist that a person with a page pay to reach most of the people who “like” them, they also then spam the users who like the page with their own advertising.
This is tantamount to an admission that their advertising model is a failure.
And if anything that model has only gotten more aggressive.