Drivers Receivers Wanted
UPDATE: Just a few minor changes. That help, Ron?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Translating Mumbonics Into English
Boston Mayor Tom Menino on Heller:
The verbiage may be slightly different, but the sentiment remains.
(click to biggify)
UPDATE: Also from the Mubonics/English Dictionary:
As if you needed further proof that these people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has clarified a much publicized debate over the legal right of citizens to bear arms. While I support the politically-correct constitutional rights of all people, I continue to fight for common sense regulations to prevent firearms from getting in the hands of poor, second-class citizens, who seek to protect their families. Mayors are on the front lines in ensuring a safe and peaceful place for politicians and violent criminals to live, work and raise their families. It is imperative that we continue to work together with our federal partners in adopting laws that will help Mayors and law enforcement officials from across the country protect and serve their fellow upper-class elitists.”
The verbiage may be slightly different, but the sentiment remains.
(click to biggify)UPDATE: Also from the Mubonics/English Dictionary:
Background check machine (noun): an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance; specifically : one in which sound is converted into electrical impulses for transmission (as by wire or radio waves), see also: telephone
As if you needed further proof that these people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
New Hampshire, Just Like Massachusetts
Except, not.
Today's Quote of the Day comes from the first linked clip (at 4:21):
I love the smell of liberty and gun rights education in the morning. The smell, you know that smell. Smells like... victory.
Today's Quote of the Day comes from the first linked clip (at 4:21):
That's not right.
I love the smell of liberty and gun rights education in the morning. The smell, you know that smell. Smells like... victory.
When Lefty Talking Points Self-Implode
So much for dissent being patriotic.
Paints a real cheery picture of what life in (the former United States of) America would be like under a President Obama - a land where dissenters will either be silenced by force or publicly branded racists.
And, they wonder why we cling bitterly to our freedom.
Paints a real cheery picture of what life in (the former United States of) America would be like under a President Obama - a land where dissenters will either be silenced by force or publicly branded racists.
And, they wonder why we cling bitterly to our freedom.
I Gotta Ask
Is everyone enjoying the mainstream lefty media's post-Heller PSHitstorm as much as I am? Some of these folks are coming seriously freakin' unglued.
These are good times.
These are good times.
Quick Question
Following a recent spike in robberies of businesses in New Bedford, Massachusetts, WBZTV.com reports:
OK.
Will these do?
[New Bedford Police Lt. Jeffrey Silva] says the best way for businesses to protect themselves is to invest in good lighting...
OK.
Will these do?
Not Quite Getting It
Chet from Manchester, commenting on this Union Leader article:
And, these people are allowed to vote.
I am a liberal, and I have no problem with gun owners wanting their guns, none at all. The recent decision by the court says a BAN is unconstitutional, and that is fine and correct. It allows REGULATION, as in background checks, so felons and the mentally ill are prevented from owning guns. The gun nuts think they are protecting a serious right, but gun ownership is really just a hobby, like restoring old cars. It is not the right to speak freely or worship, not even close. In rare circumstances a gun works for self defense, but it is rare. So have your hobby, just don't let it go to your heads.
And, these people are allowed to vote.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Another Gem From Tinpot Newsom
Reuters:
From the Progressive Dictionary:
"I intend to fight any NRA lawsuit that challenges our common-sense gun laws every step of the way," he said in a statement.
From the Progressive Dictionary:
Common-sense (adj.): a term used to describe laws that allow rich, white people to enjoy the exercise of their Constitutional rights, while systematically denying the same to low-income people of color.
What Was I Thinking?
I don't know why I bothered changing the wording in the quote from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in this earlier post. His actual words were positively fiskworthy on their own merits without my having to help them along.
Here's what Tinpot Newsom actually said:
Again, I wish I was making this up.
I guess that's what the good "progressives" of San Francisco look for in a leader, someone willing to stand up and fight for the "rights" of bureaucratic government agencies, and protect those rights from being infringed upon by a bunch of meddling, second-class citizens.
So what if some of those citizens end up getting their heads beaten in by pipe-wielding bigots? This is about principles, dammit!
Here's what Tinpot Newsom actually said:
"I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."
Again, I wish I was making this up.
I guess that's what the good "progressives" of San Francisco look for in a leader, someone willing to stand up and fight for the "rights" of bureaucratic government agencies, and protect those rights from being infringed upon by a bunch of meddling, second-class citizens.
So what if some of those citizens end up getting their heads beaten in by pipe-wielding bigots? This is about principles, dammit!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Kilts For Sale
I've got three (gently-used) kilts for sale. These kilts are from Stillwater Kilts, the best non-custom kilt out there for the money. They're all size 36 (see their website for important sizing info) with a 24" drop.
I've got two "Standard Kilts", in Black Watch and USMC Leatherneck tartans, and one "Economy Kilt" in Irish National tartan. I have the flashes that match the Black Watch kilt and will include them, not sure about the Leatherneck.
Asking $50 for the Standard Kilts (which have only been worn once), and $25 for the Economy Kilt.
All three are machine washable. See the SWK website for more info.
E-mail me at the address in the right-hand sidebar if interested. I'll ship for an additional five bucks. Payment by Paypal, money order, or cash.
Thanks.
I've got two "Standard Kilts", in Black Watch and USMC Leatherneck tartans, and one "Economy Kilt" in Irish National tartan. I have the flashes that match the Black Watch kilt and will include them, not sure about the Leatherneck.
Asking $50 for the Standard Kilts (which have only been worn once), and $25 for the Economy Kilt.
All three are machine washable. See the SWK website for more info.
E-mail me at the address in the right-hand sidebar if interested. I'll ship for an additional five bucks. Payment by Paypal, money order, or cash.
Thanks.
Quote of the Day: Armed and Free Edition
Ted Nugent:
Ahhh...the good old days.
(via Kim du Toit)
When the evil King’s gangsters came to collect unfair taxes from Americans, we tossed their tea into the drink. When they came to disarm us into helplessness against their old world tyrannical ways, we met them at Concord Bridge and shot them dead till they quit treading on us. Any questions children? I didn’t think so.
Ahhh...the good old days.
(via Kim du Toit)
Quotes of the Day: Hypocritical Fascists Edition
Lining up the dominos.
Quote of the Day I:
OK, that's not exactly what he said, but it's hard to argue that isn't precisely what he's saying here. Not to mention, his tacit admission that the current gun ban has been nothing but a big bucket of fail.
More to the point, I wish these assholes would get their story straight.
From one side of their mouths they're telling us that gay bashing is so prevalent in this country that we need a whole new realm of federal hate crime legislation to deal with this violent crime wave.
Then, without even pausing to take a breath, they tell us out of the other side of their mouths that anyone expressing the desire to protect himself or herself from violent, gay-bashing thugs is just being paranoid and that no such threat exists.
1. Gay-bashing is a very real and serious problem.
2. Gay people do not have the right to self-defense.
3. Vote for us. We care.
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't indicative of a serious mental disorder? Or am I just not "progressive" enough to understand?
Quote of the Day II:
So, according to this reality-detached nutball, people living in public housing do not have the right to keep a gun in their homes, because they're not in their "homes", but are living on "government property".
Looks like someone just got a new pair of Captain Hypocrisy Underoos for his birthday.
I suppose Herrera would also have no problem allowing for unwarranted wiretapping of the phone lines of any person living in public housing. Likewise, I can only assume he'd be OK with the police entering these people's homes unannounced, with no search warrants, whenever they like, and searching them for contraband.
And, if some city in Texas or South Carolina were to pass a law prohibiting consensual anal intercourse between adults living in public housing, I'm sure Dennis Herrara would be first in line to sign his name to the amicus brief in support of such a law, right?
I mean, it's not like any of these these peasants should expect to be secure in their homes, when they don't actually live in "homes", but in buildings owned and controlled by the government, right?
Something tells me Herrara's been reading this blog.
No Looking Backwards - March 2008:
As I'm wont to say, I wish I was making this shit up.
UPDATE: What was I thinking?
SAN FRANCISCO — The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its handgun ban in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.
[...]
In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project as plaintiffs.
The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the city's ban as good for public safety.
Quote of the Day I:
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the city's violent, gay-bashing bigots."
OK, that's not exactly what he said, but it's hard to argue that isn't precisely what he's saying here. Not to mention, his tacit admission that the current gun ban has been nothing but a big bucket of fail.
More to the point, I wish these assholes would get their story straight.
From one side of their mouths they're telling us that gay bashing is so prevalent in this country that we need a whole new realm of federal hate crime legislation to deal with this violent crime wave.
Then, without even pausing to take a breath, they tell us out of the other side of their mouths that anyone expressing the desire to protect himself or herself from violent, gay-bashing thugs is just being paranoid and that no such threat exists.
1. Gay-bashing is a very real and serious problem.
2. Gay people do not have the right to self-defense.
3. Vote for us. We care.
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't indicative of a serious mental disorder? Or am I just not "progressive" enough to understand?
Quote of the Day II:
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he was "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."
So, according to this reality-detached nutball, people living in public housing do not have the right to keep a gun in their homes, because they're not in their "homes", but are living on "government property".
Looks like someone just got a new pair of Captain Hypocrisy Underoos for his birthday.
I suppose Herrera would also have no problem allowing for unwarranted wiretapping of the phone lines of any person living in public housing. Likewise, I can only assume he'd be OK with the police entering these people's homes unannounced, with no search warrants, whenever they like, and searching them for contraband.
And, if some city in Texas or South Carolina were to pass a law prohibiting consensual anal intercourse between adults living in public housing, I'm sure Dennis Herrara would be first in line to sign his name to the amicus brief in support of such a law, right?
I mean, it's not like any of these these peasants should expect to be secure in their homes, when they don't actually live in "homes", but in buildings owned and controlled by the government, right?
Something tells me Herrara's been reading this blog.
No Looking Backwards - March 2008:
OK, now it's not every day I voluntarily lend my superior intellectual powers to my ideological foes, but I'm going to help out Mumbles and Fenty on this one.
So, don't say I never did you assholes any favors.
Gentlemen, you don't need to ask permission.
Here, I'll spell it out for you.
Amendment 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.
1. The 4th Amendment obviously protects the right of the people to be secure in their houses.
2. Clearly, the word "their" implies possession (i.e. ownership) of the houses in question.
3. So, as long as the cops only go kicking in the doors of renters and people living in subsidized public housing, what's the big deal? It's not like it "their" house.
You're welcome.
Wow, this constitutional law stuff is easy.
As I'm wont to say, I wish I was making this shit up.
UPDATE: What was I thinking?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Old Question, New Twist
Kim writes about the current state of dickheadedness of DC officials who are laying the groundwork, post-Heller, for what they will be calling "reasonable restrictions" for the licensing of handgun ownership in the District.
Suffice to say, it would make Boston, Massachusetts look like Butte, Montana, in comparison.
In addition to strict licensing guidelines for non-criminals that would make Dianne Feinstein [CENSORED OUT OF COMMON DECENCY AND RESPECT FOR MY READERS' DIGESTIVE SYSTEMS], they are going to maintain the current ban on non-criminal ownership of all semi-automatic firearms, and most likely limit non-criminals to owning just one gun per person.
So, we're taking the "If you could only own one gun..." question that's been beaten more severely over the years than the Seattle Mariners have been the last three months, and modifying it slightly to reflect the fascist whims and wet dreams of Fenty's Gestapo.
"If you could own only one, non-semiautomatic handgun..."
I don't think you could go wrong with one of these in the bedside table:
Smith & Wesson Model 327 Night Guard
Specs:
Though, I might be willing to sacrifice that eighth available round, and go with the Model 586 L-Comp, simply because it's so damn good-looking.
On second thought, the new set of "reasonable regulations" will likely include a provision that will give Cathy Lanier's goon squad the authority to confiscate your one firearm over an unpaid parking ticket.
Given the costs involved with getting re-licensed, if they'd even allow for that, and replacing your one handgun, I'd probably just drop $100 for a beat-to-hell Rossi .38 snubbie. And, start shopping for my next replacement after that one would get taken from me for not painting the exterior window trim on my house in one of the District's approved color selections.
Suffice to say, it would make Boston, Massachusetts look like Butte, Montana, in comparison.
In addition to strict licensing guidelines for non-criminals that would make Dianne Feinstein [CENSORED OUT OF COMMON DECENCY AND RESPECT FOR MY READERS' DIGESTIVE SYSTEMS], they are going to maintain the current ban on non-criminal ownership of all semi-automatic firearms, and most likely limit non-criminals to owning just one gun per person.
So, we're taking the "If you could only own one gun..." question that's been beaten more severely over the years than the Seattle Mariners have been the last three months, and modifying it slightly to reflect the fascist whims and wet dreams of Fenty's Gestapo.
"If you could own only one, non-semiautomatic handgun..."
I don't think you could go wrong with one of these in the bedside table:
Smith & Wesson Model 327 Night GuardSpecs:
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 8 Rounds
Barrel Length: 2 1/2"
Front Sight: XS® Sight 24/7 Standard Dot Tritium Sights
Rear Sight: Cylinder & Slide Extreme Duty Fixed
Overall Length: 7 3/4"
Weight: 27.6 oz.
Grip: Pachmayr® Compac Custom
Material: Scandium Alloy Frame/ Stainless PVD Cylinder
Finish: Matte Black
Though, I might be willing to sacrifice that eighth available round, and go with the Model 586 L-Comp, simply because it's so damn good-looking.
On second thought, the new set of "reasonable regulations" will likely include a provision that will give Cathy Lanier's goon squad the authority to confiscate your one firearm over an unpaid parking ticket.
Given the costs involved with getting re-licensed, if they'd even allow for that, and replacing your one handgun, I'd probably just drop $100 for a beat-to-hell Rossi .38 snubbie. And, start shopping for my next replacement after that one would get taken from me for not painting the exterior window trim on my house in one of the District's approved color selections.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Nope, Nothing to See Here.
Mexican Army Members Raid Phoenix Home & Shoot Man Dead
Everything's fine.
Hope and ChangeTM!
Now, get back on the "Straight Talk Express" and behave yourselves.
Everything's fine.
Hope and ChangeTM!
Now, get back on the "Straight Talk Express" and behave yourselves.
When You Wish Upon a Star...
...may that wish include something about this guy getting a big, horny roommate.
UPDATE: Maybe we can take up a collection to get Mucko some Viagra.
UPDATE: Maybe we can take up a collection to get Mucko some Viagra.
Hellerva Morning!
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Ben Winograd AT scotusBLOG:
More later.
UPDATE: One thing is certain, based on this close ruling.
Liberty, as we know it, is hanging by a thread. Put Obama in the White House and that thread will be cut faster than you can say, "What Second Amendment?".
Ben Winograd AT scotusBLOG:
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
More later.
UPDATE: One thing is certain, based on this close ruling.
Liberty, as we know it, is hanging by a thread. Put Obama in the White House and that thread will be cut faster than you can say, "What Second Amendment?".
T-Minus 16 Minutes and Counting
SCOTUS will he handing down its Heller v. DC decision this morning, sometime after 10AM. Here's what I'm calling the best case scenario, as far as the basic argument of individual vs. collective right is concerned.
BEST CASE: 6 to 3 in favor of an individual right.
Obviously, any decision favoring the "rights" of overbearing governmental tyrants would be disastrous. So, we can rule out everything from 0-9 to 4-5.
A decision of 5-4 favoring our side would leave the "ambiguous card" still on the table, for the anti-gunners to play, ad infinitum, in the future.
A decision of 9-0 or 8-1 favoring our side would create a dangerous sense of complacency among gun owners, who might feel less compelled to keep Barack Obama out of the White House and away from the position of appointing replacement Supreme Court justices.
The reality is there's simply no such thing as "cast in stone" where governmental recognition of our rights is concerned.
A 6-3 ruling would give us the "2 to 1" argument, yet would still keep people on their toes by letting them know that tyranny could be a mere two new justices away.
OK, I'd be happy with a 7-2 split as well.
As I'm wont to say...
We shall see.
UPDATE: OK, don't get me wrong. I'd launch into full-blown naked happy-dance in the event of the 9-0 ruling. Just don't think it will happen. But, damn, the ensuing PSHitstorm (anyone copyright that one yet?) would be entertaining beyond measure.
BEST CASE: 6 to 3 in favor of an individual right.
Obviously, any decision favoring the "rights" of overbearing governmental tyrants would be disastrous. So, we can rule out everything from 0-9 to 4-5.
A decision of 5-4 favoring our side would leave the "ambiguous card" still on the table, for the anti-gunners to play, ad infinitum, in the future.
A decision of 9-0 or 8-1 favoring our side would create a dangerous sense of complacency among gun owners, who might feel less compelled to keep Barack Obama out of the White House and away from the position of appointing replacement Supreme Court justices.
The reality is there's simply no such thing as "cast in stone" where governmental recognition of our rights is concerned.
A 6-3 ruling would give us the "2 to 1" argument, yet would still keep people on their toes by letting them know that tyranny could be a mere two new justices away.
OK, I'd be happy with a 7-2 split as well.
As I'm wont to say...
We shall see.
UPDATE: OK, don't get me wrong. I'd launch into full-blown naked happy-dance in the event of the 9-0 ruling. Just don't think it will happen. But, damn, the ensuing PSHitstorm (anyone copyright that one yet?) would be entertaining beyond measure.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
SCOTUS Watch
As of 10:18 ET, "At least one more decision is coming."
UPDATE: Nope, not today.
UPDATE II: Mark your calendars!
UPDATE III: No new news to report. Just wanted to stake my claim to the phrase (and future blog post title) "Hellerva Morning" (and all derivatives thereof).
UPDATE: Nope, not today.
10:21 Tom Goldstein - Guns is not being decided today. Last opinion coming now.
UPDATE II: Mark your calendars!
10:27 Ben Winograd - The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.
UPDATE III: No new news to report. Just wanted to stake my claim to the phrase (and future blog post title) "Hellerva Morning" (and all derivatives thereof).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Words Fail Me (Almost)
Two words: Scum. Bag.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go outside and kiss the non-Massachusetts soil upon which I now live.
UPDATE: Just to add a little perspective...
If you are caught leaving a public gun range in Massachusetts with a spent .22 casing stuck in the sole of your shoe, and you do not have a $100 gun license, under current state law, you can be found guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition and sentenced to two years in prison.
It's a "common sense" public safety measure, you understand. Gotta keep the streets safe FOR THE CHILDRENTM.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts State Rep. James Fagan believes that sentencing someone to 20 years in prison for raping an 11-year-old is "draconian".
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go outside and kiss the non-Massachusetts soil upon which I now live.
UPDATE: Just to add a little perspective...
If you are caught leaving a public gun range in Massachusetts with a spent .22 casing stuck in the sole of your shoe, and you do not have a $100 gun license, under current state law, you can be found guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition and sentenced to two years in prison.
It's a "common sense" public safety measure, you understand. Gotta keep the streets safe FOR THE CHILDRENTM.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts State Rep. James Fagan believes that sentencing someone to 20 years in prison for raping an 11-year-old is "draconian".
I Guess It All Depends...
...on one's definition of voting.
The suspense is killing me.
WASHINGTON - The AFL-CIO is preparing to give its stamp of approval to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
The leaders of the nation’s largest labor organization started voting today on whether to endorse the Illinois senator. The election, which is being done by fax, is scheduled to end on Thursday.
Obama’s name is the only one on the ballot sent to the AFL-CIO’s 56 unions.
The suspense is killing me.
Please Pass the Ear Bleach
I made the unforgivable mistake of clicking on the audio link here.
I should have known better.
"Come on, girlfriend!"
I should have known better.
Signs of a Struggle Found at Crime Scene
Somewhere in my neighborhood, there's a bird telling his buddies the story about how he recently got his ass kicked in my back yard.
Or a well-fed carnivore rubbing its belly and picking its teeth.
UPDATE: OK, I revisited Ground Zero today and got some of the larger feathers for a quick round of "Name That Bird"? The longest is 5.75" long.
Or a well-fed carnivore rubbing its belly and picking its teeth.
UPDATE: OK, I revisited Ground Zero today and got some of the larger feathers for a quick round of "Name That Bird"? The longest is 5.75" long.
A Tale of Two Eggs
The egg on the right came from a local farm. The one on the left is what a "local" chain supermarket is calling "large eggs" these days.
No contest.
I'll be damned if I ever scramble one of those little shit eggs again.
(50 bonus points for the first person who picks up on the George Carlin joke illustrated in that picture)
No contest.
I'll be damned if I ever scramble one of those little shit eggs again.
(50 bonus points for the first person who picks up on the George Carlin joke illustrated in that picture)
From the Gun Nut Dictionary
Heller Dwellers (noun): People who have been rendered physically incapable of separating themselves from their computer screens this week, while reading SCOTUSblog and tapping incessantly on the REFRESH button.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Stacking the (Race Card) Deck
Keep your decoder rings handy.
Here's a partial list of the words and phrases we can expect the Obama camp to define as racist "code words", in their attempt to have them removed from any conversations held between now and the first week of November.
And, for future reference, here's thepartial list of approved, non-racist words and phrases bearing the Obama stamp of approval:
Obama adviser David Axelrod said the Democrat's campaign will be on high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters' racial sentiments. "We're going to be aggressive about pushing back on anything that we feel is inappropriate or misleading," he said.
Here's a partial list of the words and phrases we can expect the Obama camp to define as racist "code words", in their attempt to have them removed from any conversations held between now and the first week of November.
Liberal
Socialist
Communist
Marxist
Collectivist
Naive
Inexperienced
Corrupt
Pretentious
Foolish
Weak
Appeasement
Gun Control
Rhetoric
Scandal
Preconditions
Raising taxes
Michelle Obama
Jeremiah Wright
Bill Ayers
Tony Rezko
Jimmy Carter
Che Guevara
Fidel Castro
Hamas
Flag pin
Flip-flop
527
And, for future reference, here's the
Hope
Change
Fluffy bunnies
Smoking Guns
Newly crowned Miss Tennessee packs heat
Speaking of bodies...
(click to biggify)
Wouldn't want to risk getting hit with the old "This post is useless without pics!" complaint, now, would I?
(link via Say Uncle)
UPDATE: Well, I did say "pics" above, as in plural.
(source)
You're welcome.
She's a daddy's girl.
But don't think this year's Miss Tennessee is a pushover.
Ellen Carrington, 21, who was crowned Miss Tennessee on Saturday night, has a concealed weapons permit.
"I have a Smith & Wesson .40-caliber," Carrington told reporters on Sunday, "(with a) silver top and black body."
Speaking of bodies...
(click to biggify)Wouldn't want to risk getting hit with the old "This post is useless without pics!" complaint, now, would I?
(link via Say Uncle)
UPDATE: Well, I did say "pics" above, as in plural.
(source)
You're welcome.
Nope, No Bias Here
Click on the "CBS News Interactive: Guns In America" link on this page. Then, click on the "Armed Self-Defense" tab therein.
Remember the good old days when they used to try to hide their prejudices?
Remember the good old days when they used to try to hide their prejudices?
The Passing of a Giant
NYT: George Carlin, Splenetic Comedian, Dies at 71
This one hurts.
I've been a George Carlin fan for as long as I can remember. First saw him perform at City Hall Auditorium in Portland, Maine when I was in high school. I won't even bother posting any of my favorite Carlin bits here. I'd be typing, cutting, and pasting all damn week.
OK, maybe one...
Pure gold.
I miss the cantankerous, old bastard already.
George Carlin, the Grammy-Award winning standup comedian and actor who was hailed for his irreverent social commentary, poignant observations of the absurdities of everyday life and language, and groundbreaking routines like “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” died in Santa Monica, Calif., on Sunday, according to his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He was 71.
This one hurts.
I've been a George Carlin fan for as long as I can remember. First saw him perform at City Hall Auditorium in Portland, Maine when I was in high school. I won't even bother posting any of my favorite Carlin bits here. I'd be typing, cutting, and pasting all damn week.
OK, maybe one...
Pure gold.
I miss the cantankerous, old bastard already.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Reasonable Restriction
Ban female gnus all you want, pal, but don't you dare come after my constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear rams.
Getting the Real "Criminals" Off the Streets
It seems the police in Boston have finally put an end to the drug-fueled gang violence that had plagued the city for decades.
I mean, imagine if they were using the city's limited police resources to arrest "criminals" like John Valmas of Allston, at a time when they actually had unsolved shootings, stabbings, and homicides to contend with.
(link via Universal Hub)
I mean, imagine if they were using the city's limited police resources to arrest "criminals" like John Valmas of Allston, at a time when they actually had unsolved shootings, stabbings, and homicides to contend with.
(link via Universal Hub)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Mumbles: Get Me Ed Davis, Pronto!
CNN: Cops pay 3 a.m. visit to tell man his door is unlocked
Of course, had Mr. Molde chosen to protect himself and the children in his care by shooting and killing these intruders who came into his home, unannounced, in the middle of the night, do you think this same spokesman would be calling his actions "justified"?
Yeah, me neither.
Lastly, can you say "slippery slope"?
I'm seeing all kinds of light bulbs going on over people's heads in Mumbles' office and BPD headquarters come Monday morning. If they can't get the peasantry to consent to unlawful searches of their homes, they can start training cops to look for "suspicious" dwellings to search, instead.
LAKEVILLE, Minnesota (AP) -- A Lakeville man says he feels violated after two police officers woke him up at 3 a.m. to tell him his door was unlocked.
Their surprise visit was part of a public service campaign to remind residents to secure their homes to prevent thefts. Usually, officers just leave notices on doors.
But they went further in Troy Molde's case on Thursday. Police entered the house where four children under 7 were having a sleepover, and then went upstairs to Molde's bedroom.
[...]
A police spokesman says the intrusion was justified because the officers' initial door knocks went unanswered, and they wanted to make sure nothing was wrong.
Of course, had Mr. Molde chosen to protect himself and the children in his care by shooting and killing these intruders who came into his home, unannounced, in the middle of the night, do you think this same spokesman would be calling his actions "justified"?
Yeah, me neither.
Lastly, can you say "slippery slope"?
I'm seeing all kinds of light bulbs going on over people's heads in Mumbles' office and BPD headquarters come Monday morning. If they can't get the peasantry to consent to unlawful searches of their homes, they can start training cops to look for "suspicious" dwellings to search, instead.
BPD Internal Memorandum
Date: June 23, 2008
Subject: Operation Suspicious Dwelling
Effective immediately, the following conditions will be presumed to be indicative of "suspicious" residences, in which officers will be permitted to conduct unannounced and unwarranted searches.
1. Misaligned welcome mats.
2. Curtains drawn closed during the daytime.
3. Children's toys in the front yard that haven't been moved for at least two days.
4. Grass taller than 6" in the front yard.
5. Out of place holiday decorations or Christmas lights left up past January 31.
6. Screen doors cracked open or with torn screens
7. Excessive litter near the front steps.
8. Loud music.
9. Excessive silence.
10. __________________ (Officers are invited to add their own items to the list prior to kicking in the front door of any residence that fails to meet any of the above criteria).
Friday, June 20, 2008
Oh, By the Way...
Did I mention he's a race-baiting douchebag?
Here's a quick riddle for you before I turn in for the evening. What do white assholes, black assholes, red assholes, green assholes, blue assholes, and yellow assholes all have in common?
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.
"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Here's a quick riddle for you before I turn in for the evening. What do white assholes, black assholes, red assholes, green assholes, blue assholes, and yellow assholes all have in common?
Here's a Suggestion
If you don't want to government to have a sample of your DNA on file, don't give it to them when they come around asking for it.
That goes double if the government "promises" you they'll give it back to you, once they no longer "need" it.
Here's how it works, or how it should work:
Cape Cod men who voluntarily gave DNA samples during the investigation into the murder of fashion writer Christa Worthington are suing to have the samples returned.
A class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts in Suffolk Superior Court accuses District Attorney Michael O'Keefe with failing to make good on a promise to return or destroy the samples.
That goes double if the government "promises" you they'll give it back to you, once they no longer "need" it.
Here's how it works, or how it should work:
"Hi, we're from the government. We'd like a sample of your DNA. It's so that you can prove to us you're not a rapist. Once we are convinced you're not a rapist, we'll give it back to you. We promise."
"Go screw."
Thursday, June 19, 2008
So You Think You Know Bruce
Of the four artists/bands featured in my 17-themed Celtics championship post, which one have I seen live in concert?
(A) The Sex Pistols
(B) Winger
(C) Stevie Nicks
(D) The Stray Cats
Put your answer in the comments. I'll draw a winner from the correct entries in a few days and give away some cheap-ass prize.
(A) The Sex Pistols
(B) Winger
(C) Stevie Nicks
(D) The Stray Cats
Put your answer in the comments. I'll draw a winner from the correct entries in a few days and give away some cheap-ass prize.
Channeling the Blues Brothers...Again
Jake: Hey, who's that on Fox News?
Cop: Ah, those bums got elected to Congress so they get to hold press conferences.
Jake: What bums?
Cop: The f***ing Communist party.
Elwood: New York Communists!
Jake: I hate New York Communists.
Cop: Ah, those bums got elected to Congress so they get to hold press conferences.
Jake: What bums?
Cop: The f***ing Communist party.
Elwood: New York Communists!
Jake: I hate New York Communists.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Rite of Passage
Today is my daughters' last day of Kindergarten, and it's also their sixth birthday. We gave them their first Zebco 202's today. If you don't know what that means, I want to know what sad, depraved planet you grew up on.
And, yeah, I know.
But, I couldn't score a pair of Chipmunks for $20 bucks.
Likewise, if you don't know what that means...
And, yeah, I know.
But, I couldn't score a pair of Chipmunks for $20 bucks.
Likewise, if you don't know what that means...
Cheap Bastard
Dude.
I know times are tough, but come one. You gotta offer at least five. Hell, the pack of smokes alone set you back four bucks.
Would that be "Please, don't arrest me, officer!" or "Please, have sex with me anyway, officer!"?
MANCHESTER – A man, who last night offered a woman $1 and a cigarette for sex, was promptly arrested by police on a prostitution charge.
I know times are tough, but come one. You gotta offer at least five. Hell, the pack of smokes alone set you back four bucks.
"Please, I haven't had sex in four years," Ali Yare Khalid, 21, of 375 Merrimack St., begged the woman, an undercover police officer, according to Capt. Richard Valenti.
Would that be "Please, don't arrest me, officer!" or "Please, have sex with me anyway, officer!"?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
In Honor of the Celtic's 17th NBA Title
UPDATE: Gotta love FOX25. Split-screen postgame coverage with multiple camera angles keeping a watchful eye out for any rioting and vandalism that might ensue.
UPDATE II: How did I forget this one?
And You Thought You Had a Bad Day
Was out mowing the lawn today, when I came across this hungry garter snake enjoying a dinner of succulent toad. So, I did what any good father would do. I went inside and got the girls so they could watch too.
At this point, I had to go back inside with the kids for our dinner. All this toad munching and crunching was making us hungry! After dinner, I went back outside to check on our little reptilian gastronome, and found him under a nearby shrub.
BURRRRRP!
Well done, sir.
(click pics to super-size)
At this point, I had to go back inside with the kids for our dinner. All this toad munching and crunching was making us hungry! After dinner, I went back outside to check on our little reptilian gastronome, and found him under a nearby shrub.
BURRRRRP!Well done, sir.
Monday, June 16, 2008
As If I Have To Ask
When the Supreme Court hands down its decision on Heller v. DC, and declares that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, what percentage of the ensuing media coverage will consist of stories reporting it as a victory for the individual rights of all American citizens, as opposed to describing it as a victory the Gun Lobby, the Republican party, and/or right-wing militia groups?
I'm having a hard time pinning down the exact number, but it will probably be somewhere between 0.0018% and 0.0021%.
Let the PSH fly!
I'm having a hard time pinning down the exact number, but it will probably be somewhere between 0.0018% and 0.0021%.
Let the PSH fly!
PSH: Make That a Triple, Barkeep
These stories are coming in faster than I can keep track of. I've run out of room on my proverbial back burner, so I gotta get this post up today to clear the deck in anticipation of the next wave of PSH-laden drivel.
And, with a Supreme Court decision on Heller looming on the horizon, we can expect that wave to be apocalyptic in scope.
First up, on the topic of allowing concealed carry in our National Parks, we get this gem from one Maureen Finnerty:
First off, no one's "putting loaded weapons" in anyone's hands. These are weapons already being carried legally outside of the park by individuals who have repeatedly proven themselves to be entirely law-abiding citizens. This ridiculous statement of hers is pretty much the same panic alert being sent out by those opposed to allowing concealed carry on college campuses.
It's the pathetic "Why do you want to hand out Uzis to every kid on their way into class?" argument, only modified slightly to apply to national parks. It's a disingenuous and misleading argument and serves only to blur the facts in the discussion.
But, then again we're talking about a proud member of the the anti-gun rights brigade here. Misleading the public and blurring the facts are what they do best.
As to her claim that "there's a tremendous possibility that there will be increased violence", that's simply another layer of fear-mongering and hyperbole to spread on the bread of her bullshit sandwich. Nothing in what she's saying is based on anything resembling real life.
There's a good reason why no one who's ever regurgitated this ridiculous talking point has ever followed it up with "...such as in [name of city or state], where the rate of violent crimes committed by licensed individuals has been on the rise ever since concealed carry was made legal there."
There's also a good reason why people like Maureen Finnerty don't argue against concealed carry in national parks by pointing to all the violent crime already being committed by concealed carry permit holders in the state parks where they're already allowed to carry their loaded sidearms.
It.
Isn't.
Happening.
So, just so I understand...
We shouldn't allow concealed carry in our national parks because they're already such safe, low-crime areas, in which no one needs to carry a gun to protect himself or herself from harm.
Likewise, we shouldn't allow concealed carry in Washington DC, because it's already such a safe...ummm...
Hey, I never argued that consistency of thought was among the gun controllers' strong suits. As The Geek so eloquently once stated:
Speaking of Washington, DC, that number of 272-million visitors includes more than just visitors to National Parks. The National Park Service also oversees such entities as National Monuments and Memorials.
I wonder how many of the millions of annual visitors to our nation's capital became crime victims walking from their hotel room to any of 15 National Memorials located in the District. I'm sure the fact that no one was actually raped or murdered last year inside the Washington Monument, itself, comes as great comfort to the people who have to live and work in its shadow.
But, I digress.
Notice also how she's more than happy to use her statistics to back up her claim that your chances of becoming a victim are "extremely, extremely remote", but she's more than willing to ignore the statistics on the law-abiding, non-violent nature of concealed carry permit holders and declare that there would be a "tremendous possibility" of violence if they were allowed to carry firearms in the parks.
Facts? we don't need no stinking facts!
Also, try reminding these people that the number of guns used illegally in this country to commit violent crime represents but a minuscule fraction of a percentage of the privately owned firearms in this country, and they'll tell you "The numbers don't matter! If this new gun control law saves JUST ONE LIFE, it will all be worth it!".
Why does it never work the other way around? If one concealed carry permit holder saves just one life, isn't that enough justification for expanding concealed carry laws across the country, using the gun control lobby's own "reasoning"?
In her sad, little world, an individual intent on illegally hunting wildlife in our national parks, and ignoring entirely the "No Poaching Allowed" signs posted there, will change his mind when he sees that "No Guns Allowed" sign at the gate next to them.
Likewise, of course, if law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons into the park, they will be over-powered by the mind-altering radiation emitting from their sidearms, and will all start taking out caribou and mountain lions with their Kel-Tecs and .38 snubbies.
Enter graduate student Nathanael Snow, with today's breath-of-fresh-air counterpoint:
Game, set, match.
Next on our journey in to the Forest of Pants-Shitting Hysteria, we find this Letter to the Editor of the Portsmouth (NH) Herald, written buy one Joan Pike of Newmarket, New Hampshire.
This post at Wake Up America does a nice job addressing both Ms. Pike's historical and hysterical shortfalls. I gotta give her credit though. She really brings her "A-game" in this opening paragraph.
Yeah, that's it. We are simply trying to protect our image. Here's some images to think about, Ms. Pike.
First, there's the "image" of Bryan Gaedtke. He's the guy who took off his clothes, crawled in through a window of Geoff Gamann's house in Rochester, New Hampshire, clutching a tube of mechanical lubricant, and yelling "I'm gonna get you!" as he made his way toward the bedroom where Gamann's wife and child were sleeping.
Gamann shot and killed thepoor homeless guy who was just looking for directions to the nearest bus station Mr. Gaedtke.
Your side of this "pointless gun debate", Ms. Pike, would rather see this man's family brutally beaten, raped, and killed, than to see a man protect his wife and daughter from such a crazed, violent individual.
Who's being "staunchly protective" here?
Certainly not the people who claim Mr. Hamann had no need for a gun.
Then there's the image of Eliezer Encarnacion, who began shooting at the doorman of a bar in Manchester, New Hampshire after being kicked out of the bar earlier that night. His would-be killing spree was only thwarted because an armed customer in the bar came to the defense of the would-be victims and was able to return fire, striking the assailant twice.
Your side of this "pointless gun debate", Ms. Pike, would rather see the doorman of the Uptown Tavern lying dead in a pool of his own blood than to see a brave, armed American come to the aid of his fellow citizen.
Who's being "staunchly protective" here?
Certainly not the people who would like to see the Uptown Tavern turned into a "gun-free zone", or who would work to abolish the laws that recognize the right of a law-abiding citizenry to carry firearms.
How about the image of Peter Camplin, who, while drunk and high on cocaine, broke into Donald Narkis' house in Hollis, New Hampshire one night and then proceeded to embark on a crazed, violent rampage destroying Mr. Narkis' living room.
His rampage was promptly brought to a halt when Mr. Narkis and his daughter, who was in the house at the time, held him at gunpoint. He with a .45, and she with a .357 Magnum revolver.
Your side of this "pointless gun debate", Ms. Pike, would rather see a drug-fueled maniac terrorizing innocent people in the middle of the night, than to allow people to be safe in their homes and protect themselves from such assailants.
Remind me again. Who's being "staunchly protective" here?
Certainly not the people who claim Mr. Narkis has no right to keep a gun in his home, because he is not an active member of the National Guard.
Your side, Ms. Pike, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is "staunchly protective" of evil-hearted scumbags like Bryan Gaedtke, Eliezer Encarnacion, and Peter Camplin - all individuals for whom the laws against aggravated assault, breaking and entering, criminal threatening, and attempted murder amounted to little more than a bowl of after dinner mints at the Applebee's hostess station.
"Gee, those look nice, but I'll pass, thanks."
Don't bother reading the rest of her letter, I can sum it up for you quite easily.
Yaaaaaawn.
Last stop on our mystical journey into the world of irrational fear of inanimate objects is this op-ed piece in Boston Globe, written (originally in crayon, I'm guessing) by James Carroll.
'Open carry' guns at our children's risk
Cries of "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"?
Check.
And, we haven't even made it past the headline.
Gun as magical, mind-altering objects?
Check.
Gun as a measure of one's "manhood"?
Check.
You're forgetting the words "keep and" there, pal. Where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah, it was Barack Obama saying:
Translated: You have the right to store your guns at a government controlled storage facility, where you would be allowed to sign them out when you wanted to engage in politically correct sporting activities.
But, I digress. back to the subject at hand.
Deliberately failing to differentiate between the actions of the nations millions of law-abiding gun owners and those of the inner-city gang-banging scumbag population?
Check.
Blaming the evil "gun lobby"?
Check.
Using the illegal behavior of the country's street gang population to vilify the country's law-abiding gun owner population is tantamount to blaming collectors of vintage Corvettes for the problems the country faces dealing with drunk driving and illegal street racing.
It simply makes no sense.
But, this is the gun control movement we're talking about. Nonsensical is what they do best.
That last paragraph there should read:
But, what do I know, I'm just a bitter gun-clinger.
Obligatory "Wild West" reference?
Check.
"Unchecked" gun carnage?
In Chicago?
But, the police are the only ones in Chicago allowed to have handguns. Why isn't Daley asking, "Why are so many of my city's police officers shooting innocent schoolchildren?"
Sorry, James, but these children are dying because scumbag liberal politicians and judges refuse to put violent criminals in prison where they belong, out of fear of offending their race-obsessed constituents.
Doing the right thing by going after criminals is hard work, and requires people to recognize the presence of evil in the world and to assume responsibility for themselves and their families.
Disarming law-abiding people as part of some feel-good, do-nothing, legislative puppet show requires only the use of one's hand and a pen.
He closes this diatribe by saying that gun ownership is something to be ashamed of, no doubt trying to shame people into surrendering their Constitutional rights (well, just the icky ones), should the Supreme Court fail to take those rights away when they hand down their decision in Heller vs. DC.
Shame yourself all you want, pal.
Come after my guns and my freedom, and you're coming after my right to keep my children safe. It will be the last mistake you make. I promise. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go check my artificial penis collection for surface rust.
And, with a Supreme Court decision on Heller looming on the horizon, we can expect that wave to be apocalyptic in scope.
First up, on the topic of allowing concealed carry in our National Parks, we get this gem from one Maureen Finnerty:
...the U.S. Interior Department is considering a proposal from 51 U.S. senators to change its regulations on guns in national parks.
As the law stands, a person can take a gun -- unloaded -- into a national park, but it must be packed away or rendered temporarily inoperable.
The country's 391 national parks, recreation areas, monuments and scenic trails are operated under a single set of regulations by the U.S. Interior Department.
The proposed change would have the parks adopt the gun laws of the state in which they are located. This means a person would be able to take a loaded, concealed weapon into a national park if he or she holds a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon in a given state and as long as they would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in that state's parks.
[...]
Gregory Hylinski, a gun owner from Connecticut visiting a friend, tells me there's another reason for guns in national parks: "It's important for people to be able to protect themselves at all times and in all places even from wild animal attacks."
When Maureen Finnerty hears warning like that she gives an exasperated shrug.
[...]
"Right now parks are very safe, they're very safe places to take your family," she tells me. "Our crime statistics are very, very low and you put loaded weapons in people's hands and there's a tremendous possibility that there will be increased violence."
First off, no one's "putting loaded weapons" in anyone's hands. These are weapons already being carried legally outside of the park by individuals who have repeatedly proven themselves to be entirely law-abiding citizens. This ridiculous statement of hers is pretty much the same panic alert being sent out by those opposed to allowing concealed carry on college campuses.
It's the pathetic "Why do you want to hand out Uzis to every kid on their way into class?" argument, only modified slightly to apply to national parks. It's a disingenuous and misleading argument and serves only to blur the facts in the discussion.
But, then again we're talking about a proud member of the the anti-gun rights brigade here. Misleading the public and blurring the facts are what they do best.
As to her claim that "there's a tremendous possibility that there will be increased violence", that's simply another layer of fear-mongering and hyperbole to spread on the bread of her bullshit sandwich. Nothing in what she's saying is based on anything resembling real life.
There's a good reason why no one who's ever regurgitated this ridiculous talking point has ever followed it up with "...such as in [name of city or state], where the rate of violent crimes committed by licensed individuals has been on the rise ever since concealed carry was made legal there."
There's also a good reason why people like Maureen Finnerty don't argue against concealed carry in national parks by pointing to all the violent crime already being committed by concealed carry permit holders in the state parks where they're already allowed to carry their loaded sidearms.
It.
Isn't.
Happening.
Finnerty knows the National Park Service statistics by heart. The latest data, from 2006, shows 272,623,980 people visited the parks that year. There were 11 cases of homicide or manslaughter, 61 robberies and 35 rapes or attempted rapes.
So, just so I understand...
We shouldn't allow concealed carry in our national parks because they're already such safe, low-crime areas, in which no one needs to carry a gun to protect himself or herself from harm.
Likewise, we shouldn't allow concealed carry in Washington DC, because it's already such a safe...ummm...
Hey, I never argued that consistency of thought was among the gun controllers' strong suits. As The Geek so eloquently once stated:
In a truly civil society peopled primarily by enlightened, sober individuals, the carriage of arms might be deemed gratuitous, but it is nonetheless harmless.
In a society that measures up to anything less than that, the option to carry arms is a necessity.
Speaking of Washington, DC, that number of 272-million visitors includes more than just visitors to National Parks. The National Park Service also oversees such entities as National Monuments and Memorials.
I wonder how many of the millions of annual visitors to our nation's capital became crime victims walking from their hotel room to any of 15 National Memorials located in the District. I'm sure the fact that no one was actually raped or murdered last year inside the Washington Monument, itself, comes as great comfort to the people who have to live and work in its shadow.
But, I digress.
"Now, could something happen? Of course it could happen, but the chances are extremely, extremely remote," she says.
Notice also how she's more than happy to use her statistics to back up her claim that your chances of becoming a victim are "extremely, extremely remote", but she's more than willing to ignore the statistics on the law-abiding, non-violent nature of concealed carry permit holders and declare that there would be a "tremendous possibility" of violence if they were allowed to carry firearms in the parks.
Facts? we don't need no stinking facts!
Also, try reminding these people that the number of guns used illegally in this country to commit violent crime represents but a minuscule fraction of a percentage of the privately owned firearms in this country, and they'll tell you "The numbers don't matter! If this new gun control law saves JUST ONE LIFE, it will all be worth it!".
Why does it never work the other way around? If one concealed carry permit holder saves just one life, isn't that enough justification for expanding concealed carry laws across the country, using the gun control lobby's own "reasoning"?
The proposed change, their Web site says, "could significantly increase the danger to visitors in national parks." It would put wildlife at risk, they claim, and make poaching easier.
In her sad, little world, an individual intent on illegally hunting wildlife in our national parks, and ignoring entirely the "No Poaching Allowed" signs posted there, will change his mind when he sees that "No Guns Allowed" sign at the gate next to them.
Likewise, of course, if law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons into the park, they will be over-powered by the mind-altering radiation emitting from their sidearms, and will all start taking out caribou and mountain lions with their Kel-Tecs and .38 snubbies.
Enter graduate student Nathanael Snow, with today's breath-of-fresh-air counterpoint:
"For me, I feel safer if I know that people who are qualified and proficient in handling a weapon have it on them because the bad guys are going to have guns on them anyway."
Game, set, match.
Next on our journey in to the Forest of Pants-Shitting Hysteria, we find this Letter to the Editor of the Portsmouth (NH) Herald, written buy one Joan Pike of Newmarket, New Hampshire.
This post at Wake Up America does a nice job addressing both Ms. Pike's historical and hysterical shortfalls. I gotta give her credit though. She really brings her "A-game" in this opening paragraph.
So continues the pointless gun debate, since one side is mired in the desire to protect their image, and the other staunchly protective of the victims, both human and animal, of gun violence.
Yeah, that's it. We are simply trying to protect our image. Here's some images to think about, Ms. Pike.
First, there's the "image" of Bryan Gaedtke. He's the guy who took off his clothes, crawled in through a window of Geoff Gamann's house in Rochester, New Hampshire, clutching a tube of mechanical lubricant, and yelling "I'm gonna get you!" as he made his way toward the bedroom where Gamann's wife and child were sleeping.
Gamann shot and killed the
Your side of this "pointless gun debate", Ms. Pike, would rather see this man's family brutally beaten, raped, and killed, than to see a man protect his wife and daughter from such a crazed, violent individual.
Who's being "staunchly protective" here?
Certainly not the people who claim Mr. Hamann had no need for a gun.
Then there's the image of Eliezer Encarnacion, who began shooting at the doorman of a bar in Manchester, New Hampshire after being kicked out of the bar earlier that night. His would-be killing spree was only thwarted because an armed customer in the bar came to the defense of the would-be victims and was able to return fire, striking the assailant twice.
Your side of this "pointless gun debate", Ms. Pike, would rather see the doorman of the Uptown Tavern lying dead in a pool of his own blood than to see a brave, armed American come to the aid of his fellow citizen.
Who's being "staunchly protective" here?
Certainly not the people who would like to see the Uptown Tavern turned into a "gun-free zone", or who would work to abolish the laws that recognize the right of a law-abiding citizenry to carry firearms.
How about the image of Peter Camplin, who, while drunk and high on cocaine, broke into Donald Narkis' house in Hollis, New Hampshire one night and then proceeded to embark on a crazed, violent rampage destroying Mr. Narkis' living room.
His rampage was promptly brought to a halt when Mr. Narkis and his daughter, who was in the house at the time, held him at gunpoint. He with a .45, and she with a .357 Magnum revolver.
Your side of this "pointless gun debate", Ms. Pike, would rather see a drug-fueled maniac terrorizing innocent people in the middle of the night, than to allow people to be safe in their homes and protect themselves from such assailants.
Remind me again. Who's being "staunchly protective" here?
Certainly not the people who claim Mr. Narkis has no right to keep a gun in his home, because he is not an active member of the National Guard.
Your side, Ms. Pike, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is "staunchly protective" of evil-hearted scumbags like Bryan Gaedtke, Eliezer Encarnacion, and Peter Camplin - all individuals for whom the laws against aggravated assault, breaking and entering, criminal threatening, and attempted murder amounted to little more than a bowl of after dinner mints at the Applebee's hostess station.
"Gee, those look nice, but I'll pass, thanks."
Don't bother reading the rest of her letter, I can sum it up for you quite easily.
You're all a bunch of drunk rednecks who like to sit in the woods and stroke your guns, because you've all got little peckers (or, you wish you had one).
Yaaaaaawn.
Last stop on our mystical journey into the world of irrational fear of inanimate objects is this op-ed piece in Boston Globe, written (originally in crayon, I'm guessing) by James Carroll.
'Open carry' guns at our children's risk
Cries of "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"?
Check.
And, we haven't even made it past the headline.
Even at age 4, I was hypnotized by a gun. The gun was a mystical object, with significance that far transcended any imagined use. Fear, but also consolation. Awe. Trembling.
Gun as magical, mind-altering objects?
Check.
That the gun was my father's was a first clue to potency.
Gun as a measure of one's "manhood"?
Check.
What is it with Americans and guns? "The right to bear arms" is the constitutional dynamo sparking an electromagnetic pulse through every corner of politics.
You're forgetting the words "keep and" there, pal. Where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah, it was Barack Obama saying:
I think there is an individual right to bear arms...
Translated: You have the right to store your guns at a government controlled storage facility, where you would be allowed to sign them out when you wanted to engage in politically correct sporting activities.
But, I digress. back to the subject at hand.
Meanwhile, in the nation's cities, a slow-motion massacre unfolds, with gunshots mercilessly cutting down a legion of the young. Yet in legislatures, bills designed to reduce gun violence are routinely killed by the all-powerful lobbying of the National Rifle Association. Presidential candidates are universally required to worship at the altar of the Second Amendment.
Deliberately failing to differentiate between the actions of the nations millions of law-abiding gun owners and those of the inner-city gang-banging scumbag population?
Check.
Blaming the evil "gun lobby"?
Check.
Using the illegal behavior of the country's street gang population to vilify the country's law-abiding gun owner population is tantamount to blaming collectors of vintage Corvettes for the problems the country faces dealing with drunk driving and illegal street racing.
It simply makes no sense.
But, this is the gun control movement we're talking about. Nonsensical is what they do best.
That last paragraph there should read:
Meanwhile, in the nation's cities, a slow-motion massacre unfolds, with gunshots mercilessly cutting down a legion of the young. Yet in legislatures, bills designed to incarcerate violent criminals and gangbangers for longer periods of time are routinely killed by the all-powerful lobbying of the Sharpton/Jackson Perpetual Victimhood Society. Presidential candidates are universally required to worship at the altar race-based political correctness.
But, what do I know, I'm just a bitter gun-clinger.
Now an "open carry" movement encourages gun owners to wear their weapons ostentatiously on their belts, "to make a firearm," in the words of a Los Angeles Times story last week, "as common an accessory as an iPod." Or, as one open carrier said, "Hey, we're normal people who carry guns."
Get used to it. In most states, there is no law against license-holders cradling a rifle on the street, or holstering a firearm on a hip, like Wyatt Earp.
Obligatory "Wild West" reference?
Check.
In despair over unchecked gun-carnage in Chicago schools, Mayor Richard Daley asked, "Why is America turning its back on its children when it comes to gun violence?"
"Unchecked" gun carnage?
In Chicago?
But, the police are the only ones in Chicago allowed to have handguns. Why isn't Daley asking, "Why are so many of my city's police officers shooting innocent schoolchildren?"
The gun is a totemic object, with meanings that drill far below surface arguments about self-defense, the sport of hunting, standing militias, or the intent of the Framers. Children die because these deeper meanings of the gun go unreckoned with.
Sorry, James, but these children are dying because scumbag liberal politicians and judges refuse to put violent criminals in prison where they belong, out of fear of offending their race-obsessed constituents.
Doing the right thing by going after criminals is hard work, and requires people to recognize the presence of evil in the world and to assume responsibility for themselves and their families.
Disarming law-abiding people as part of some feel-good, do-nothing, legislative puppet show requires only the use of one's hand and a pen.
He closes this diatribe by saying that gun ownership is something to be ashamed of, no doubt trying to shame people into surrendering their Constitutional rights (well, just the icky ones), should the Supreme Court fail to take those rights away when they hand down their decision in Heller vs. DC.
Shame yourself all you want, pal.
Come after my guns and my freedom, and you're coming after my right to keep my children safe. It will be the last mistake you make. I promise. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go check my artificial penis collection for surface rust.
Thank Heavens No One Had a Gun!
Someone could have been hurt.
Had this sub-animal sack of hate-infested protoplasm shot the kid, instead of brutally mauling him to death, it would have been one more notch in the bedpost of the "Save the Children - Ban the Gun" Brigade. But, the very notion that this child might have been saved had an armed citizen intervened, is just plain crazy talk to them.
They'll ask you, "Why do you need to carry a gun?" And if you reply, "Becuase I have no way of knowing when I might be called upon to protect my family and my community.", they'll call you a fearful, paranoid nutjob.
With a teeny-weeny pee-pee.
It's what they call "reality-based debate".
As they got closer, the couple saw the man brutally beating the toddler behind his truck and throwing the child on the ground, according to Singh. Two or three other cars stopped, an unusual number to be passing through the remote area surrounded by a dairy, a cow pasture, a cornfield and a farmhouse, he said.
"What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking," Singh said. "They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it."
Had this sub-animal sack of hate-infested protoplasm shot the kid, instead of brutally mauling him to death, it would have been one more notch in the bedpost of the "Save the Children - Ban the Gun" Brigade. But, the very notion that this child might have been saved had an armed citizen intervened, is just plain crazy talk to them.
They'll ask you, "Why do you need to carry a gun?" And if you reply, "Becuase I have no way of knowing when I might be called upon to protect my family and my community.", they'll call you a fearful, paranoid nutjob.
With a teeny-weeny pee-pee.
It's what they call "reality-based debate".
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Oh, Is There a Basketball Game On TV Tonight?
Consider this my obligatory Celtics playoffs post.
With the exception of the one time I actually went to a Celtics game back in '92, it's been well over 20 years since I last watched an entire game on TV.
So, yeah, I'll be tuning in tonight around 11:00 to see how they're doing. If it's a close game, I might even watch it to the end.
So, like, go Celtics.
Or whatever.
With the exception of the one time I actually went to a Celtics game back in '92, it's been well over 20 years since I last watched an entire game on TV.
So, yeah, I'll be tuning in tonight around 11:00 to see how they're doing. If it's a close game, I might even watch it to the end.
So, like, go Celtics.
Or whatever.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Get Ready For the Mass. Trampoline Ban
Boy Hurt In Porch To Trampoline Jump
I blame Halliburton.
5:30 AM???
No doubt, they were just doing some early morning calisthenics prior to embarking on their paper routes.
BOSTON -- A boy who jumped off a third-story porch of a Haverhill building onto a trampoline below was injured Wednesday.
I blame Halliburton.
Police received a phone call at about 5:30 a.m. that three or four boys were jumping onto the trampoline that was about 25 feet below the porch, according to the Eagle Tribune.
5:30 AM???
No doubt, they were just doing some early morning calisthenics prior to embarking on their paper routes.
Friday, June 13, 2008
58 Is Way Too Young, Damn It
Hands down, my favorite Tim Russert moment:
The man knew his baseball.
After declaring his allegiance to both the Red Sox and the Yankees, [Bill] Richardson joked: "This is the thing about me: I can bring people together. I can unify ... "
"Yankees fans and Red Sox fans?" interviewer Tim Russert asked.
"Yes," Richardson asserted.
"Not a chance," Russert shot back, laughing.
The man knew his baseball.
A Father's Priorities
I'm sure Katherine Patrick takes great solace in the fact that her Dad doesn't believe gay people have the right to defend themselves from violent, gay-bashing bigots.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Is This the End of My Rope?
When John McCain joined forces with Russ Feingold a few years back, and took a big piss on the First Amendment by passing a law restricting political speech in the days and weeks leading up to an election, I thought "What a jackass!"
Then, about a year later, when he and Teddy Kennedy decided to take a runny dump all over the sanctity of American citizenship and the concept of national sovereignty, I thought, "Well, there goes that jackass McCain again."
Then one day, said asshole decided to run for president. I thought, "No worries, there'll be other candidates to choose from. Run, Fred, run!"
But, now I had to ask myself, "What if this guy gets the nomination?" Given the choice of voting for McCain or Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee at the time, I thought, "Well, I guess I'd be holding my nose and voting for McCain." After all, anything would be better than putting that socialist wench back in the White House.
Then I hear him give a speech one day, sounding like he was reading from one of the Reverend Al Gore's pamphlets from the Church of Man-Made Global Warming, and telling us we all need to give in to a whole host of governmental regulations and personal lifestyle changes to save the planet from burning up...or freezing to death...or whatever.
I though, "Aw, shit, please don't let this jerkoff win the nomination." But, at the same time, I had to tell myself, "OK, given the choice between him and Hillary (or this Obama guy who was starting to raise a ruckus), I suppose I could hold my nose and wear a Tyvek suit to protect against MCain cooties, and vote for the guy. After all, anything would be better than putting either of those socialist boobs in the White House. Right?
So, the weeks and months pass.
Fred Thompson's campaign implodes.
I realize that none of the entrees left on the buffet table really look all that appetizing, but hey, anything's better than putting Clinton or Obama in charge, right?
I mean, how bad could a Huckabee presidency really be?
Well, I never got a chance to work that one out in my head, as McCain managed to pull enough primary victories out of his ass and knock Huckabee and Romney out of the race.
So, now that McCain's got the nomination wrapped up, what does he do? He goes and takes a dump all over the concept of free market-based capitalism, and starts talking about how the federal government needs to do something about regulating how much money some people working in the private sector should be allowed to earn.
But, I do what I'd always done. I look at the alternative and say, "OK, I guess I can hold my nose, don a protective suit, vote for McCain, and spray myself with an industrial strength disinfectant afterward. After all, anything would be better than seeing Clinton or Obama in the Oval Office. I mean, come on, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama? I don't think so.
By now, I've all but sold my soul to Satan, and flushed the last of my principles down the toilet. But I gotta do what I gotta do. Right?
Wait, what's that, you say?
McCain just came out saying he'd be willing to look at imposing a so-called windfall profits tax on American oil companies? A move that would inevitably make it more expensive to produce oil and gasoline, and drive the price of gas up well past the current price of four-plus dollars a gallon?
And, he's flat-out opposed to actually going after the oil WE ALREADY HAVE in the ground, right here in the United States of (what I fondly remember as once being) America???????
Well, damn, that would increase the supply of oil! Don't do that! I like skimping on my daughters' birthday presents, and eating leftover pasta all the time. In fact, if gas could make it to the $8-a-gallon mark before year's end, I'd be so freaking ecstatic, not even a stack of Helen Thomas swimsuit pics could make my happiness subside!
Damn, I'm glad we've defeated all our real enemies abroad, so we can finally go after these evil corporations who hire thousands upon thousands of American citizens and pay billions upon billions in tax dollars to the federal government.
Drive those fascists into the ground!
Saudi oil workers need jobs too!
JESUS CHRIST, this senile old prick is really trying my patience!
But, what the hell? Give me the Tyvek suit. Sew my nose shut. Empty a bottle of Clorox on my head. Submerge me in a vat of Lysol. Election day's coming up.
And, oh yeah, tell Satan I hope he enjoys what's left of my soul.
Sucker.
I mean, anything would be better than watching President Obama nominate Hillary Clinton to a spot of the Supreme Court and appoint that scumbag ambulance chaser, John "Look at my humongous mansion!" Edwards, as the country's Attorney General, right?
Right?
Right?
Screw this. I need a drink.
[pauses to drink eight cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon]
There, I think I've calmed down some.
I still think McCain's a complete piece of crap, but anything's better than...
Huh?
What's that newspaper you're waving in front of my face?
Gimme that.
Oh, that's real nice.
McCain's now saying he wouldn't rule out Michael Bloomberg as a possible running mate? Are you kidding me? We are talking about the same Michael Bloomberg here, right? Michael Bloomberg, the very embodiment of the Nanny State? The same Michael Bloomberg who has made it his life's mission to bury the firearms industry under mountains of costly litigation?
And, McCain doesn't have the sack to say "No way!" when asked if he'd put that authoritarian bunglerocket on the ticket???
He must have finally deluded himself into thinking he's sitting so high on the hog here that can tell the country's gun owners to go screw themselves in such a manner.
Screw him.
I won't even call him senile at this point, as that would be an insult to senile people.
If you're looking for me on election day, I'll be at the range, with my soul restored and perfectly intact, burning through Winchester white boxes like nobody's business.
Anything would be better than casting a vote in support of either of these a**clowns.
Obligatory caveat (and you'd best be listening, you "maverick" meathead): If McCain pulls his head out of his wayward backside long enough to select a running mate who actually believes in the principles of limited government, lower taxes, a free market economy, border security, and respect for our Second Amendment rights, I may just dust off the Tyvek suit and grab a clothespin for my nose when election day rolls around.
Otherwise, he's on his own.
Consider my earlier McCain endorsement "suspended".
Then, about a year later, when he and Teddy Kennedy decided to take a runny dump all over the sanctity of American citizenship and the concept of national sovereignty, I thought, "Well, there goes that jackass McCain again."
Then one day, said asshole decided to run for president. I thought, "No worries, there'll be other candidates to choose from. Run, Fred, run!"
But, now I had to ask myself, "What if this guy gets the nomination?" Given the choice of voting for McCain or Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee at the time, I thought, "Well, I guess I'd be holding my nose and voting for McCain." After all, anything would be better than putting that socialist wench back in the White House.
Then I hear him give a speech one day, sounding like he was reading from one of the Reverend Al Gore's pamphlets from the Church of Man-Made Global Warming, and telling us we all need to give in to a whole host of governmental regulations and personal lifestyle changes to save the planet from burning up...or freezing to death...or whatever.
I though, "Aw, shit, please don't let this jerkoff win the nomination." But, at the same time, I had to tell myself, "OK, given the choice between him and Hillary (or this Obama guy who was starting to raise a ruckus), I suppose I could hold my nose and wear a Tyvek suit to protect against MCain cooties, and vote for the guy. After all, anything would be better than putting either of those socialist boobs in the White House. Right?
So, the weeks and months pass.
Fred Thompson's campaign implodes.
I realize that none of the entrees left on the buffet table really look all that appetizing, but hey, anything's better than putting Clinton or Obama in charge, right?
I mean, how bad could a Huckabee presidency really be?
Well, I never got a chance to work that one out in my head, as McCain managed to pull enough primary victories out of his ass and knock Huckabee and Romney out of the race.
So, now that McCain's got the nomination wrapped up, what does he do? He goes and takes a dump all over the concept of free market-based capitalism, and starts talking about how the federal government needs to do something about regulating how much money some people working in the private sector should be allowed to earn.
But, I do what I'd always done. I look at the alternative and say, "OK, I guess I can hold my nose, don a protective suit, vote for McCain, and spray myself with an industrial strength disinfectant afterward. After all, anything would be better than seeing Clinton or Obama in the Oval Office. I mean, come on, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama? I don't think so.
By now, I've all but sold my soul to Satan, and flushed the last of my principles down the toilet. But I gotta do what I gotta do. Right?
Wait, what's that, you say?
McCain just came out saying he'd be willing to look at imposing a so-called windfall profits tax on American oil companies? A move that would inevitably make it more expensive to produce oil and gasoline, and drive the price of gas up well past the current price of four-plus dollars a gallon?
And, he's flat-out opposed to actually going after the oil WE ALREADY HAVE in the ground, right here in the United States of (what I fondly remember as once being) America???????
Well, damn, that would increase the supply of oil! Don't do that! I like skimping on my daughters' birthday presents, and eating leftover pasta all the time. In fact, if gas could make it to the $8-a-gallon mark before year's end, I'd be so freaking ecstatic, not even a stack of Helen Thomas swimsuit pics could make my happiness subside!
Damn, I'm glad we've defeated all our real enemies abroad, so we can finally go after these evil corporations who hire thousands upon thousands of American citizens and pay billions upon billions in tax dollars to the federal government.
Drive those fascists into the ground!
Saudi oil workers need jobs too!
JESUS CHRIST, this senile old prick is really trying my patience!
But, what the hell? Give me the Tyvek suit. Sew my nose shut. Empty a bottle of Clorox on my head. Submerge me in a vat of Lysol. Election day's coming up.
And, oh yeah, tell Satan I hope he enjoys what's left of my soul.
Sucker.
I mean, anything would be better than watching President Obama nominate Hillary Clinton to a spot of the Supreme Court and appoint that scumbag ambulance chaser, John "Look at my humongous mansion!" Edwards, as the country's Attorney General, right?
Right?
Right?
Screw this. I need a drink.
[pauses to drink eight cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon]
There, I think I've calmed down some.
I still think McCain's a complete piece of crap, but anything's better than...
Huh?
What's that newspaper you're waving in front of my face?
Gimme that.
Oh, that's real nice.
McCain's now saying he wouldn't rule out Michael Bloomberg as a possible running mate? Are you kidding me? We are talking about the same Michael Bloomberg here, right? Michael Bloomberg, the very embodiment of the Nanny State? The same Michael Bloomberg who has made it his life's mission to bury the firearms industry under mountains of costly litigation?
And, McCain doesn't have the sack to say "No way!" when asked if he'd put that authoritarian bunglerocket on the ticket???
He must have finally deluded himself into thinking he's sitting so high on the hog here that can tell the country's gun owners to go screw themselves in such a manner.
Screw him.
I won't even call him senile at this point, as that would be an insult to senile people.
If you're looking for me on election day, I'll be at the range, with my soul restored and perfectly intact, burning through Winchester white boxes like nobody's business.
Anything would be better than casting a vote in support of either of these a**clowns.
Obligatory caveat (and you'd best be listening, you "maverick" meathead): If McCain pulls his head out of his wayward backside long enough to select a running mate who actually believes in the principles of limited government, lower taxes, a free market economy, border security, and respect for our Second Amendment rights, I may just dust off the Tyvek suit and grab a clothespin for my nose when election day rolls around.
Otherwise, he's on his own.
Consider my earlier McCain endorsement "suspended".
Another "What Would You Do?"
Today's "What would you do?" is based on this story (with a happy ending, thank God) out of Salem, New Hampshire.
Police: Woman Leaves Child In Car In 90-Degree Heat
Your scenario is much the same:
You're in a shopping mall parking lot, walking toward the mall, when you notice a child locked in a car with the windows "slightly cracked".
It's 90 degrees and sunny.
You knock on the window and the child is unresponsive.
For the sake of argument, you have a cell phone with you and a tire iron in your vehicle that can be used to break a car window.
What would you do?
Here's my answer.
First, I'd call 911 and give them as much information as I could. In addition to getting emergency medical personnel dispatched to the scene as quickly as possible, this will help document the incident.
While part of me would want to smash the car window right away to get the kid out, I'd want the police to be aware of what I was doing, so that when the call comes in from the person two rows over reporting someone breaking into cars at the mall, the police will already know what's up.
Or else, tomorrow's headline might read:
Man Arrested Trying to Abduct Toddler From Car
No thanks.
While on the phone with the 911 operator, I would tell him that unless I see a police cruiser or ambulance approaching in the next30 15 seconds, I'm breaking the window.
I don't know what the response from the operator would be. In a just world, it would be something along the lines of "What are you doing wasting time talking to me? Break the window already."
On the other hand, you could get the type of 911 operator who directs people to put their guns away while they're holding a couple strung-out, carjacking methfiends at gunpoint. Something tells me the "Please, do nothing, sir. Professionals are on their way." response wouldn't go over to well with me.
Regardless, I'd be breaking the window. As the saying goes, when seconds count, help is only minutes away. And, if this wouldn't qualify as a "seconds count" scenario, I don't know what would.
Beyond opening the car and ensuring the child stayed in the shade, I'm not sure what additional steps I'd take as I wait for the paramedics to arrive.
This, of course, could bring us to Scenario #2:
The child's mother returns from the store to see you reaching into the door of her car where her child was sitting.
She sees the shattered glass and the tire iron on the ground.
She has a Glock 26 in herpurse hand.
Now, what, Mr. Samaritan?
Police: Woman Leaves Child In Car In 90-Degree Heat
SALEM, N.H. -- A Massachusetts mother may face charges after witnesses saw her 3-year-old child left in a car during 90-degree weather, police said.
Salem police said they received a call at about 2 p.m. Tuesday that a child was in a car in the parking lot of a Babies R Us store. The windows of the car were slightly cracked, police said.
"We got a call from a woman walking through the lot at Babies R Us," Lt. Ron Peddle said. "She stated that she noticed the child in the vehicle."
Police were in the area and said they responded quickly and found that the woman had returned to her vehicle. They said the child appeared to be in good condition, and they decided not to take the child into protective custody.
Your scenario is much the same:
You're in a shopping mall parking lot, walking toward the mall, when you notice a child locked in a car with the windows "slightly cracked".
It's 90 degrees and sunny.
You knock on the window and the child is unresponsive.
For the sake of argument, you have a cell phone with you and a tire iron in your vehicle that can be used to break a car window.
What would you do?
Here's my answer.
First, I'd call 911 and give them as much information as I could. In addition to getting emergency medical personnel dispatched to the scene as quickly as possible, this will help document the incident.
While part of me would want to smash the car window right away to get the kid out, I'd want the police to be aware of what I was doing, so that when the call comes in from the person two rows over reporting someone breaking into cars at the mall, the police will already know what's up.
Or else, tomorrow's headline might read:
Man Arrested Trying to Abduct Toddler From Car
No thanks.
While on the phone with the 911 operator, I would tell him that unless I see a police cruiser or ambulance approaching in the next
I don't know what the response from the operator would be. In a just world, it would be something along the lines of "What are you doing wasting time talking to me? Break the window already."
On the other hand, you could get the type of 911 operator who directs people to put their guns away while they're holding a couple strung-out, carjacking methfiends at gunpoint. Something tells me the "Please, do nothing, sir. Professionals are on their way." response wouldn't go over to well with me.
Regardless, I'd be breaking the window. As the saying goes, when seconds count, help is only minutes away. And, if this wouldn't qualify as a "seconds count" scenario, I don't know what would.
Beyond opening the car and ensuring the child stayed in the shade, I'm not sure what additional steps I'd take as I wait for the paramedics to arrive.
This, of course, could bring us to Scenario #2:
The child's mother returns from the store to see you reaching into the door of her car where her child was sitting.
She sees the shattered glass and the tire iron on the ground.
She has a Glock 26 in her
Now, what, Mr. Samaritan?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I Guess It All Depends...
...on one's definition of balance.
Needless to say, I am endorsing the candidacy of Joe Kenney for Governor. Let's hope he gets his you-know-what in gear and kicks Lynch to the curb.
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Gov. John Lynch has signed a law that authorizes New Hampshire to borrow the money needed to balance its budget.
Needless to say, I am endorsing the candidacy of Joe Kenney for Governor. Let's hope he gets his you-know-what in gear and kicks Lynch to the curb.
Massachusetts: Felon Factory
I'm all in favor of police and prosecutors enforcing the law, cracking down on lawbreakers, and seeing them brought to justice, but this seems a tad excessive.
They're having a hard enough time putting dangerous, violent criminals in prison in Massachusetts for any appreciable stretch of time. Does anyone think they're going to start locking up people for misusing handicapped parking placards?
On second thought, don't answer that.
(link via Eric the Viking)
He lives in one of Wellesley's most exclusive neighborhoods, owns a $1.8 million Nantucket vacation home, and has a small fleet of luxury cars at his disposal. But when Gerald Hamelburg drives downtown, he doesn't like to pay his way, according to investigators with the state inspector general's office.
The Boston lawyer, they say, uses his deceased mother's handicapped placard to park his Mercedes convertible, free of charge, at meters near the High Street firm that bears his name.
"It's a particularly obnoxious example of abuse. You use a fake placard to park in any space you want anytime you want to? It's absurd. It's horrible," said Inspector General Gregory Sullivan, whose office pursued Hamelburg for nearly two years as part of an investigation into the misuse of the placards.
[...]
After state officials vowed to crack down on the abuse, the Registry began cross-checking with Social Security to ensure that placards are taken out of circulation when a driver dies. The Patrick administration also filed a bill making it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to use a counterfeit or altered placard. That bill was given initial approval Thursday by the House.
They're having a hard enough time putting dangerous, violent criminals in prison in Massachusetts for any appreciable stretch of time. Does anyone think they're going to start locking up people for misusing handicapped parking placards?
On second thought, don't answer that.
"What are you in for?"
"Got three years for raping a kid. You?"
(link via Eric the Viking)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Obama-Love in a Nutshell - Vol. 2
DJ Drummond has a post up at Wizbang, listing some of his specific reasons for not voting for Barack Obama. He then asks Obama supporters to provide him with some of their reasons for voting for Obama.
I'll save you the trouble of actually having to click on the link there by providing this handy Cliff Notes version of the ensuing comment thread.
As if you needed further proof that voting for Obama is a lot like opening a MySpace account. If you're over the age of 25 and doing either of those things, there's something wrong with you.
But, what do I know, I'm just a bitter retard.
I'll save you the trouble of actually having to click on the link there by providing this handy Cliff Notes version of the ensuing comment thread.
"Why do you want to vote for Obama?"
"Because...um...Bush sucks!...and...you're a retard!"
As if you needed further proof that voting for Obama is a lot like opening a MySpace account. If you're over the age of 25 and doing either of those things, there's something wrong with you.
But, what do I know, I'm just a bitter retard.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Worth a Shot
Anyone got an extra bearing retainer to a Snapper 38" mower deck that they're not using? This one's got a slight problem.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
I Should Take My Own Advice More Often
Drove past a gas station this morning, paying no mind to the sign that said $3.899 on it, thinking "How much higher could it be at the gas station closer to my house?".
Answer: $4.099
Let's see...half a tank, that's 11 gallons at a difference of $0.20 per gallon...carry the 2...that's 4.75 cans of PBR at Wal-Mart!
Damn it.
Answer: $4.099
Let's see...half a tank, that's 11 gallons at a difference of $0.20 per gallon...carry the 2...that's 4.75 cans of PBR at Wal-Mart!
Damn it.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Remember, Kids...
...guns simply have no place in a civilized society.
Thank God neither of the victims was carrying a gun! Someone could've been hurt.
Now, I know hindsight is 20/20, but I gotta think getting out of the vehicle might not have been the best thing to do. On the other hand, had he plowed right through thepeacefully assembled group of choirboys murderous mob to escape to safety, which I'd probably have done as soon as the brick came through the window, there'd be some in the community Perpetual Victimhood Society who would call for him to be prosecuted for hate crimes.
Macomb County Sheriff Detectives are looking for 20 to 30 young men who attacked and robbed a motorist Saturday night may also be responsible for several other crimes that took place the same night.
The incident took place when a 29-year old man, and his wife, were driving on North River Road when more than two dozen men wearing ball caps and baggy shorts spread out across the street and blocked traffic. The victim tried to drive past them and someone threw a brick in his window. He stopped his car and got out to see what happened and was beaten unconscious and left with a fractured skull.
Thank God neither of the victims was carrying a gun! Someone could've been hurt.
Now, I know hindsight is 20/20, but I gotta think getting out of the vehicle might not have been the best thing to do. On the other hand, had he plowed right through the
Friday, June 06, 2008
New Bumper Stickers On the Way?
I'm thinking of having a bunch of new stickers made, to help beef up the ammo (and gasoline) fund. I was thinking of "Vote Democrat: Because Saudi oil workers need jobs too!", but will most likely settle on something a little completely different.
One for handgunners:
One for riflemen (and women, of course):
I'm not leaving out anyone's favorite caliber, am I? Space is somewhat limited.
UPDATE: Also on my "short list"...
One for handgunners:
One for riflemen (and women, of course):
I'm not leaving out anyone's favorite caliber, am I? Space is somewhat limited.
UPDATE: Also on my "short list"...
NH Dems "Lynch" the Democratic Process
God help us if we don't vote these people out of office in November.
From NHLiberty.org forums:
Well, the voters who handed these money-grubbing liberals their majority status in 2006 were promised "change". Unfortunately, it looks like we're getting just that.
Union Leader story here.
From NHLiberty.org forums:
*Legislative “Special Session” Trashes Representative Govern-ment*
Citizens of New Hampshire who fail to follow the activities of their state government do so at the peril of their freedom and property. A stark demonstration why took place this week.
On Wednesday, June 4th , Governor Lynch invoked an obscure, nearly obsolete provision of the New Hampshire Constitution to call a “special session” of the Legislature, to convene that very day, a day in which the Legislature was already scheduled to meet in regular session and was in fact actually assembled in Concord and conducting business when his proclamation was officially issued. Why did he do this?
He did it because House and Senate rules prevent the introduction of new bills this late in their regular annual sessions unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. Governor Lynch wanted a new bill introduced that would allow the borrowing of over $100,000,000 in order to cover the record budget deficit he and his fellow Democrats in the Legislature have run up. He realized that House Republicans, who comprise over one-third of its membership, would never accede to such a bill; that we would instead demand dealing with the deficit by rolling back the Democrat spending spree of the past two years that has created it. But if he were to call a “special session” of the Legislature, not only could a new bill be introduced, but new rules of procedure, stifling inquiry of and opposition to it and guaranteeing its immediate
passage, could be adopted by simple majority vote.
And so it came to pass that immediately after completing the business of Wednesday’s regular session, we were called into special session, and all the normal safeguards to open government and mature consideration of proposed legislation were summarily jettisoned. The Governor’s bill, which few of us had even seen before we were required by our newly-adopted rules to debate and vote on it that very day, was not referred to a committee; was not given a public hearing; and was not discussed, voted on and forwarded to the full House with a committee’s written recommendation. So outraged were House Republicans by the resulting caricature of representative government that we staged a walkout that brought matters to a standstill for two hours, before yielding to the inevitable and watching the Undemocrats have their wicked way with Lady Liberty.
I had never expected to witness such an egregious, cynical display of raw political power in the Legislature of this state, and I hope never to again. The Lynch administration and legislative Democrats would do well to heed Alexander Hamilton’s warning: “[N]o man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice by which he may be a gainer today. And every man must now feel that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.”
Gregory M. Sorg, R-Easton
Member of the NH House
Well, the voters who handed these money-grubbing liberals their majority status in 2006 were promised "change". Unfortunately, it looks like we're getting just that.
Union Leader story here.
From the Bad Idea Hall of Fame
What could possibly go wrong?
File under: Lucky to be drawing breath.
Fire Chief Richard Arruda says the couple had about 45 gallons of gasoline in nine plastic jugs stacked in a closet that also housed an air conditioning unit.
File under: Lucky to be drawing breath.
A Small Favor To Ask
Could I get someone to print this out, take it to John McCain's office and stick it up his ass? I'll gladly reimburse your paper and printer ink expenses.
Money quote:
Read the whole thing. It's a bit on the long side, so top off your coffee and get comfy.
Money quote:
I would like to point out that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended. I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle. Yes, this is absurd, but the deeper one looks into this global warming juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes and the more denial is evident.
Read the whole thing. It's a bit on the long side, so top off your coffee and get comfy.
