Monthly Archives:October 2015

For those who think appeasement of those who are against the biblical view of Christianity…look at the following.  Do you think that living in fear of what others think is going to protect you?  Absolutely not.  Appeasement only leads to more aggression.  Folks just look back through history for that one.  Churches if this act passes you are now too late to protect yourselves from direct governmental interference.  Even if you give up your NPO status this act “authorizes” (in direct violation of the Constitution) the gov’t to start ordering ANYONE or any business to comply with any request irregardless of their Christian beliefs.  yes this is targeted against Christians as the Muslims and other religions would be exempted.  I am not saying ti is going tob e immediate but if this act passes how bold are churches willing to be in defending their beliefs?  I can truly say most will not…and it will be time for Christians to remove themselves from places like Facebook so as to be able to weather the incoming persecution storm.  So churches what are you going to do now?  Soon even giving up your NPO status is not going to protect you.  Are you still willing to stand not only for the bible but for the US Constitution?  When i see a church that shows me they are willing to make that stand I’ll attend it.

 

So the Supreme Court has established “same-sex marriage,” and that will quiet the LGBT crowd, because, after all, they got what they wanted, right?

Not even close.

How about protections for LGBT people in jobs, jury duty, credit applications, housing, facilities that provide exhibitions, facilities that provide recreation, facilities that provide exercise, facilities that provide amusement and even facilities that provide “gatherings”?

Already, there’s a bill in Congress to do all those things and much more.

It even would gut the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act so LGBT-based discrimination complaints could be brought against churches that follow the Bible, which teaches homosexual behavior is a sin.

The “Equality Act” would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “to include sex, sexual orientation and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”

It would unilaterally change public school desegregation standards “to provide for the assignment of students without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Churches that hold to biblical beliefs about sexuality would not be immune, according to Paul Kengor, whose book “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage” addresses the problem.

He shows how, beginning with Karl Marx and continuing with Margaret Sanger, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and assorted ’60s radicals, formerly fringe concepts have been accepted. And they’re being used by leftists to attack traditional marriage.

“I think we’re already seeing what’s next from the ‘LGBT’ and same-sex-marriage movement – that is, an aggressive and uncompromising push for forced acceptance, forced compliance, and forced acquiescence,” he said. “For these people, ‘tolerance’ doesn’t actually mean ‘tolerance,’ just as ‘diversity’ doesn’t actually mean ‘diversity.’ What they want is a very selective tolerance and very selective diversity, which, of course, isn’t actually real tolerance or real diversity.

Kengor said they support what Marcuse called “repressive tolerance.”

“They are going to coerce those who disagree with their movement and their agenda, and that will include an aggressive attempt to force religious believers into full compliance with their movement and their agenda,” he said.

“For that, they will enlist the long arm of the state, and they will seek to do so with liberal politicians as their handmaidens. The force will take the form of fines, pickets, boycotts, demonization and, in some cases, incarceration,” said Kengor

In Kentucky, a county clerk, Kim Davis, already was put in jail for nearly a week for refusing an order from U.S. District Judge David Bunning to violate her faith and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Activists obtained their marriage licenses from her deputies, under a judge’s order, while she was in jail, and now they’re taking her to court again demanding she reissue the licenses with her name on them.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/equality-act-creates-lgbt-rights-everywhere/#VSyQPPPAgocb53wu.99

Americans have allowed themselves to be so pussified..yes that’s right..pussified that we will cower in fear.  It turns out the shooter reloaded TWICE! Not from his belt but from a backpack?!?!?  Come on folks if within that amount of time you cannot bring yourself to at least charge this asshat then frankly anyone who got shot and died while allowing this fool to reload deserves what they got.  Call me insensitive but this is the final straw for me in terms of the wimping of the American public.  For all your citizens who voted in people who advocated gun control, who advocated the dumbing down of the education system, who voted for representatives who hate this country….the blood of every massacre victim now and in the future is on your hands.

 

Go ahead folks, call me “insensitive.”

The shooter reloaded two handguns with ammunition from his backpack during the killings, Downing said. Harper-Mercer was “firing on people who were just lying there,” Downing said.

The shooter reloaded twice?!

Further, he didn’t have his magazines immediately at-hand (e.g. in a belt pouch or similar) and got them from his backpack?

What are we talking here — 10 seconds or so for each reload?  The people in the room, who had just witnessed their friends getting shot in the head, sat still for long enough to allow this clownface to reload twice?

It gets better.  What I have long maintained is that these shootings are about control and as soon as challenged by anyone who gets aggressive the shooter tends to kill themselves because control is the entire point.

This is why the shooters go to “Gun Free Zones” to commit their horrific act — they know that law-abiding citizens will not be carrying arms suitable for attempting interruption of their control.  It’s also why the mall shooter who was confronted by an armed citizen retreated into a side hallway and shot himself; he lost controleven though the citizen never got a shot off because there were too many other people in the area he might have hit by accident.

And it’s why this shooter, once wounded, killed himself instead of going down fighting.

He didn’t come to fight, he came to exert “control” and murder defenseless people.

As soon as that paradigm was shattered in this mind he was done.

If we removed that paradigm from his consideration by dropping the so-called “Gun Free Zones” that he read as “Murder Here, You’re In Control”, thereby raising the risk that he would confront others willing and able to offer armed resistance to his plan, the assault probably wouldn’t have happened.

But until such a change takes place (and it only will if you insist that the Second Amendment be enforced as written, America) the fact remains that if you find yourself in such a circumstance your best option is to take any tactical advantage, no matter how fleeting, to attack.  There were two such opportunities here and while there is no guarantee of success it certainly beats lying on the ground while the shooter reloads; not only might you succeed in preventing him from getting that mag into the gun it’s a hell of a lot harder to hit a moving target than one that’s quietly lying on the floor.

 

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230780

This is from Philly.com not exactly a conservative bastion with some startling revelations:

 

Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual.

Still, Kelly said, “There’s no indication from other — from another study that any shooter intentionally went to a gun-free zone.”

Kelly might be surprised to learn that killers have frequently talked about their desire to attack where guns are banned. The suspect in the Charleston, S.C., shootings in June originally aimed to attack the College of Charleston. He chose a church instead because the college had armed guards.

The diary of the Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released just a few months ago. He decided against attacking an airport because of the “substantial security.” Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment in 2012, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.

Or take a couple of cases from last year. Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his reasoning in his 141-page “manifesto.” He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree. Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that guns are prohibited.

Americans seem to understand these points. A June Rasmussen Reports survey found that 68 percent feel safer in neighborhoods where guns are allowed, while just 22 percent would feel less safe. A Gallup poll last December found by a whopping 63 to 30 percent margin that Americans thought guns in their homes made them safer.

If you don’t think deterrence works, ask yourself if you would post a sign in front of your home saying it is a “gun-free zone.” It’s very likely that such signs aren’t going to be going up in any neighborhoods soon.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thinktank/Would-be-killers-target-gun-free-zones.html

I am tired of seeing Obama take every incident of shootings to scold this country on the exercising of our rights under the Constitution even though more and more of us are actually giving up those rights. This shooting was a targeted attack on Christians.  Where’s the media outrage? Where’s the Al Sharptions? Where’s the mention of a hate crime as this is what this is? Nowhere. Karl Denninger has a great take on this. I’ll post it here because he puts things so succinctly I do not need to add anything further to it:

There are some very disturbing reports coming in about the Oregon shooting.

First off, it was clear within minutes that the shooter targeted Christians. How many people in our political system have been outraged that Christians were targeted for execution while others were either shot in the leg or not shot at all? I have heard exactly nothing from Obama or anyone else in political power in that regard. Why not?

Second, you’ve heard my screeds over the years about The Second Amendment. If you cannot argue facts and logic then get the hell off my lawn — you’re unwelcome around me. In matters of life and death there is exactly zero room for any sort of “squishy”, “touchy-feely” or “feel good emotionalism.”

Let me be clear: If you resort to emotion when life or death are on the line you are going to die.

If you wish to entertain the debate here on firearms, gun control or anything of the sort then you are going to argue logic and facts. Here they are:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. You call the police when there is an active shooter and they show up with guns. They don’t willy-wally around; they look for a tactical solution and if they get one that works they shoot the bad guy. That’s exactly what happened yesterday.

We cannot have cops everywhere, all the time. We are not only incapable of paying for it nobody would want to live in such a world. Even if a cop is just one minute away from anywhere in the United States (an utterly fanciful expectation even in a big city) a person with a bolt action rifle or single-shot pistol can shoot a dozen people (or more!) in that one minute. As a result the faster any good guy with a gun can engage the bad guy with a gun the lower the risk is of everyone in the vicinity winding up dead — and the more good guys with guns and the closer they are to the situation the better the odds are for you and everyone else.

Virtually all (something like all but three) mass-shootings in the last couple of decades have taken place in “gun-free zones.” To those who want to further restrict firearms — since there are literally over 100 million peaceful Americans that never have and never will commit a crime with a firearm, and that is an overwhelming majority of the population that owns guns, why don’t we ban gun-free zones since virtually every single mass-shooting has taken place in one? There’s an obvious reason that these homicidal maniacs don’t shoot up a cop shop — everyone there is armed and will shoot back! If our President — or anyone on the left — gave a good damn about human life they would both take down the “Nobody here that obeys the law is able to defend themselves, commit mass-murder here” signs.

You have an unalienable right to life. The Constitution does not grant you that right because the government never possessed it in the first place and you cannot grant that which you do not first possess. The Founders understood this and we know that because they declared it to be so in the Declaration of Independence; that’s why such a right is not in the Constitution, but the recognition of same, in the gravest extreme, is found in the Second Amendment.

You are free to decide at any time to give up. You are not free to demand that others give up, including giving up their right to protect their own lives. Any infringement on the Second Amendment is a declaration of your disrespect for someone else’s life and an indirect assault upon same. The only means by which that is legitimate is if and when you are willing to die in the place of those who you demand be disarmed. If you are not willing to take a bullet intended for me then you have no right to demand that I, in any situation that I find myself, be debarred the ability to effectively fight back against such an assault.

A right cannot be conditioned upon a permit. By definition a permit or license gives you the ability to do something otherwise prohibited. If I have a right to defend my own life I need no permit to do so.

For the above reasons people at large have the right to own, possess and carry upon their person arms suitable for defensive use without any damn permits. Period.
If you cannot argue these points from a perspective of logic then you have no basis to be here as a member with the privilege of commenting and having your state (e.g. what you’ve read, etc) between sessions. In point of fact this is a perfect illustration of the difference between rights and privileges — you have no right to be on this site on the Internet at all as it is private property, and therefore I may deny you entry as I wish.

Now let me leave you with one more thing to contemplate.

There are reports that the shooter reloaded during his rampage. If these reports are true and he was in the room with a bunch of people who were about to become deceased then you need to hear this very clearly and must read this next sentence over and over until it sinks in:

Stop watching the damn movies and become educated now about firearms.

The instant that jackass dropped his magazine and thus announced he was out at the close range that exists in a classroom (30-50′ or so maximum, right?) there was absolutely no reason on God’s Green Earth why the persons there should not have immediately grabbed something (e.g. a chair!) and threw it at him and/or bum-rushed the shooter.

He was empty and thus at that point he was a thug with a club until he could reload.

Everyone reading this needs to spend some time in the deep, dark recesses of their mind and drill this singular fact far, far into your consciousness:

If you find yourself in a situation like this you must assume you are dead.

Therefore, logic says that anything you do from that instant forward can only change things for the better. Yes, you may fail. One ex-military member reportedly did try to rush the shooter and was shot several times. It is reported he is expected to survive. His doing so likely prevented some number of other people from being shot as the shooter was occupied with shooting at him. He is a hero but the point here is not to urge people to be heros — it is to point out that once your life is under assault in this sort of fashion nothing you can do will make the situation worse; you can only improve your odds.

You won’t hear this from the mainslime media nor from the so-called “pundits” and “experts” but it is true. You do not know how many rounds or what other weapons the person threatening you has. You only know that that person’s very presence and presentation means that from an objective point of view you must assume you are dead and thus if you get any tactical advantage, no matter how small, you must take advantage of it immediately and without a second thought.

On United Flight 93 the passengers did exactly this, collectively. They saved a tremendous number of lives by doing so. They correctly surmised that they were all dead at the moment they learned the plane had been hijacked and was intended to be used as a bomb. There was, for this reason, no downside to any action they might take — they could only improve their odds and those of others, and decided to do so.

This was the correct decision. It is the only logical decision and the only logical set of actions in a circumstance such as this.

Folks, firearms do not shoot themselves. They do run out of ammunition. If they are not aimed, but rather wildly fired, they either miss or if they hit someone it is much less likely to cause serious injury or death than if they are deliberately aimed. Bullets do not have a GPS embedded in them as you see in the movies and without deliberate, concentration action most of the time they will miss. There is an infamous Youtube video of a bar fight in Toledo a number of years back in which many shots were fired at close range typical of the distance you’d find in a classroom. Watch the video folks, and then realize this: Not one of those rounds hit anyone.

Therefore anything you can do that detracts from an active shooter’s concentration and deliberation who is targeting you increases your odds of survival and that of everyone in the area with you.

If you are scared of firearms then do something about that. Take a shooting lesson from an instructor or someone you trust that owns firearms. Learn how they work and how to handle them safely without quivering in fear. A gun is just a mechanical device and simpler than most that you use every day; it is vastly less-complex than a bicycle, lawn-mower or car. Safe use and handling of firearms is not difficult to learn at all and every gun works essentially the same way. Understanding this and having at least a passing level of comfort with it means that if you find yourself in a situation such as what occurred the other day and you are given a tactical break no matter how small you will have a clean opportunity to save not only your own life but that of everyone in the vicinity.