The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hard Questions for Anti-Gun Friends By Rad Magnum Guest
Contributor
Here are some
questions for those trying to dump the second amendment…If read, the first 4
amendments to the constitution answer most of the questions.
I. Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
II. A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be
quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
IV. The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Was the second
amendment written about sporting rifles and gun collectors or was it written so
that each civilian could protect “their persons, houses, papers, and effects”?
Is a “well
regulated Militia” usually armed with bows and arrows, or with the most
effective military arms available?
Were these rights
considered to be temporary or are they necessary to the security of a free
State?
Do countries with
gun control eliminate terrorism, massacres and crime?
Were these
amendments designed defend public freedom and safety?
Do individual
criminal acts negate the rights and freedoms of the public or should only
criminals be restricted?
If human rights are
suspended by advances in weaponry, then does the freedom of the press not apply
to modern forms of communication?
The clear purpose
of the Second Amendment was so that each civilian could arm themselves with
state-of-the-art military-capable weapons in order to fight against would-be
tyrants to protect their life, liberty and property with the most effective advanced
contemporary military arms available.
Reality Check: Is it reasonable to think that individuals or groups can/should
acquire sophisticated military weapons for the possibility of using against
"tyrants"?
~~~~~~
Jamie Foxx: ‘Black People are the Most Talented People in
the World’
It seems
Oscar-winning actor Jamie Foxx just can’t avoid saying something really stupid
at awards ceremonies. After calling Barack Obama “Our Lord and
Savior” at last November’s Soul Train Awards, Foxx, during his acceptance
speech as Entertainer of the Year at last Friday’s NAACP Image Awards, said,
“Black
people are the most talented people in the world.” All I can say is I’m so
humbled tonight. I was thinking about all the stuff that I was going to say
personally about myself, and I was gonna be all about me and how I did it, and
how me and me and I and I, and then you watch Harry Belafonte and Sidney
Poitier come out, and you say to yourself it’s really not big of a deal of what
you are doing just yet. I have so many things I wanted to say, but after
watching and listening to Harry Belafonte speak, sometimes I feel like somehow
I failed a little bit in being caught up in what I do, or maybe that’s the
young generation, and that’s what it is. But I guarantee you that I’m going to
work a whole lot harder man. Black people are the most talented people in the
world. I, it’s, I can’t explain it. You can’t sit in this room and not watch
Gladys Knight sing and go like, “Golly, what in the world?"
Now, I realize this
was the NAACP Image Awards. However, can you imagine the heat a white actor
would get if he said at a nationally televised awards ceremony, "White
people are the most talented people in the world?" Probably be the end of
his or her career. But a week has passed
since this occurred, and I bet this is the first you're hearing about.
~~~~~~
Dorner and the Media Game
By Pauline Wolak
Which is more
dangerous? A certifiable nut, hell bent on seeking revenge or the public that
appears to support him?
“Go
black Rambo.” “They want him dead because of what he knows.” “He lost his job,
his wife and his family because of this attorney that sold him out, read all
the back story , this guy stood up and spoke out about 2 dirty cops and LAPD
crucified him … karma baby karma.” “If I saw Dorner I WOULD NOT turn him in,
I’d wish him good luck!”
Article after
article have been written about Christopher Dorner and the massive manhunt
unfolding in California. Countless media outlets have posted bits of his manifesto. It’s these apparent bits that the public is taking as fact.
He’s been called a whistleblower, railroaded, just a fair and honest guy that
reached his limit. To briefly sum up,
Christopher Dorner says that while he was a probationary officer for the LAPD
he witnessed another police officer kick a suspect in the course of an arrest.
He claims he was retaliated against for reporting it to superiors. It
ultimately led to the loss of his job. Why anyone is taking him at face value
is beyond me. Upon reading the appeals court decision (Dorner
vs LAPD
A Michigan
gun store will stop selling targets that depict a skeleton holding an AK-47 and
wearing a turban after a Muslim
civil liberties group voiced concern that the
target may cause gun owners to have a negative view of all Muslims. According
to the Detroit Free Press, Dawud Walid, the executive director of the Michigan
chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, voiced his
concerns to the owner of Target Sports, in Royal Oak. After Walid met with the
owner, the paper reports, he promised to stop selling the item. But when Walid
called Ohio-based Thompson Target, which manufactures the life-sized target
called “Crazy-Bones,” to ask them to stop making the product, he says he was
met with some resistance.
A level playing field, huh? Walter E. Williams
Asenior
Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted
because the military’s goal is “to provide a level, gender-neutral playing
field.” I’d like to think the goal of the military should be
to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let’s
look at “genderneutral playing field.”
In the Army’s physical fitness test in basic training, the minimum requirement
for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a
two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of
the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42
two-mile run. Why the difference? “USMC Women in the Service
Restrictions Review” found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower
aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting
strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men. William Gregor, professor
of social sciences at the Army’s Command and General Staff College, reports
that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show,
only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers’ Training Corps women attained the level of
the lowest 16 percent of men. The “fight
load” – the gear an infantryman carries on patrol – is 35 percent of the
average man’s body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman’s weight. In his
examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back
to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9
percent of women were able to attain the men’s average pushup ability and time
in the two-mile run. In a January
report titled “Defense Department ‘Diversity’ Push for Women in Land Combat,”
Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to Army
studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer
injuries and are three times more un-deployable than men. Women are less likely
to be able to march under load, crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that
load or move a casualty
weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load.
Then there’s the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to four times as
likely as men to be un-deployable. And once deployed, they often have to be
medically evacuated, leaving units understrength. Finally, there’s another
difference between men and women rarely considered in deliberation about
whether women should be in combat. All measures of physical aggressiveness show
that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more
aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable
for combat. There’s another issue. The Selective
Service System’s website has the following message about draft registration:
“Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat
jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are
currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18
thru 25. Women still do not register.”
How can that, coupled with differences in performance standards, possibly
be consistent with the Defense Department’s stated agenda “to provide a level,
gender-neutral playing field”?
The highest
rate by far can be found in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El
Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia
(27). For America’s neighbors, the rate
in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.
It is
interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low
homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has
only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest
ownership rate, is 63rd on the list. “The
most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in
and of themselves, cause gun violence,” said Stephen Gutowski. “In other words,
more guns must mean more gun violence.” But in light of the ownership and
homicide figures, he observes: “More
guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are,
used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”
Following
Seung-Hui Cho's 2007 shooting spree at Virginia Tech, President George W. Bush
put forth mental health proposals aimed at identifying and treating people who
might have the propensity for such heinous crimes--people like Adam Lanza.
However, Bush's proposals were never acted upon. Now,
Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Diana DeGette
(D-CO), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Michael Burgess (R-TX), are asking what
happened to those recommendations. Moreover,
each of them has noticed that the mental health recommendations recently put
forth by President Obama bear a striking resemblance to what Bush previously
suggested: "Some of the recommendations made in the report following
Virginia Tech appear to be similar to proposals that were presented by the
President on January 16, 2013, after the Newtown tragedy." The group of lawmakers has re-submitted the list of Bush recommendations
to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and are requesting to be updated on what
happened with them when Bush originally put them forward. The lawmakers
asked Sebelius to provide them with answers by Feb. 21st.
Ever seen
someone bristle at the mere hint of someone challenging their opinion... or
having the gall to suggest a different idea? I've seen parents do it
with their kids... leaders do it with team members.
Just read an article the other day about how most actors hate directors because
they have no interest in the actor's interpretation of the part or how a line
should be delivered... and the few directors who do, have actors dying to work
with them... and get better performances from them too. Arrogance seldom produces quantum
results. It's always smart to invite differing opinions and alternate
viewpoints.
Alfred Sloan, former chairman of General Motors, employed a fascinating
practice on his board. If a motion
passed unanimously on the first vote, he postponed the decision until someone
had the courage to stand up and disagree. He wanted opposing views...
he required them... believing higher quality decisions came from honest
disagreement. In younger days at school, I spent time on a debate
team. Our coach told us that any
good debater should be able to take either side of any issue. He
often made us debate in favor of the view we personally opposed, to broaden our
knowledge and force us to see the other side. What powerful training for the real world, where
disagreement abounds and often leads to friendships dissolving, marital
break-ups, political strife, and war between nations.
In the book "Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior",
authors Ori and Rom Brafman say absence
of a devil's advocate position leads to group conformity, seldom a good thing.
Yet if you introduce one lone dissenting voice, it's enough to break open the dialogue and allow others
who also disagree, but are reluctant to stand alone, a comfort level to speak
up. Result: richer debate, better decisions. I believe
disagreement before a decision is made leads to healthy, productive dialogue...
exposure of all vulnerabilities... examination of multiple options... a clear
understanding of potential dangers... and smarter and better-informed final
decisions. I want all those.
Holder was in
Atlanta recently, not far from where I live, giving a talk at Clark Atlanta
University about civil rights, voting, and gun violence. He “spoke out” against
gun violence and referred to the recent shootings that took place at nearby
Atlanta schools as evidence that we need to do more to curb gun violence. Why is
it always about gun violence? Why don’t they care about all forms of
violence? Well, I don’t think they actually care about violence at all. They
don’t talk about violence and murders committed with knives, bats, hammers,
fists, etc. because they don’t care about those items…yet. They’ve been working
hard to blame guns for violence so that they can justify taking them away. So far, they’ve been successful in barring
those with histories of felonies or mental illness from being able to own a
gun. But Eric Holder said that he’s been tasked by Obama to see if he can
expand that list to other groups:
No comments:
Post a Comment