The emasculation of America continues as what used to be considered wholesome and normal is now considered creepy and perverse. Add to that a healthy dollop of attempted violations of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, and we ourselves a glimpse into the dysfunction that is today's United States.
If you want to read the ins and outs of this tale, go to the link at the The Blaze, but for the shorter version, here it is:
A dad (who is an NRA-certified firearms instructor; not that it matters) posted on his Facebook page a photo of his 11 year-old son holding an AR-type .22 rifle. Someone reported this apparently horrific crime to local law enforcement, and before you know it, a New Jersey child protective services worker and four local cops show up at the guy's door, and the CPS lady wants to go in the guy's house and inspect his guns. Yes, really!
In no uncertain terms, the guy said "No." Then things got even more interesting. Seriously, click on the link above, and read the whole story.
In the meantime, I can easily up the ante on this one. Forget a still photo; here is a video of my son shooting my .223/5.56mm Smith and Wesson M&P 15 AR-style rifle a couple weeks ago:
Boys holding and shooting rifles used to be so normal, people didn't even think twice about it. Now people like me have to post videos of such a thing in order to desensitize those who now get the vapors from viewing such a shocking scene.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Feinstein's fascist firearm follies fall in flames... but the fight is far from finished
Well, that haggard, demonic woman's dream of reviving a federal "assault weapons" ban was shot down today by her own fellow Democrats in the U.S. Senate. The Dems control 55 seats in the Senate, yet Feinstein's bill could only muster 40 total votes - not enough for the simple 51 vote majority, and certainly not enough to overcome a filibuster, which requires 60 votes.
Now, this is where a lot of us liberty-loving folks tend to take a deep collective breath and rest back on our laurels. DON'T!!!
Keep in mind that there is still a federal gun control bill going to the Senate floor which could still have all kinds of nasty proposals in it, including a universal background check that could easily devolve into universal registration. Also, Feinstein's proposal may not have made it into the final Democrat gun control bill, but her proposal could still possibly see the light of day again as an amendment to another bill. This little Frankenfeinstein's monster of a bill needs to be stomped on continuously until it is dead for good.
Not to mention, gun control continues to move forward in too many states. New York has already gone off the rails with their psychotic governor Cuomo signing their travesty of a bill into law. California's Democrat supermajority legislature and Governor Moonbeam are currently salivating at the thought of all the gun control laws they can pass without any Republican opposition. And tomorrow, Colorado's Democrat Governor Hickenlooper is cracking his knuckles and unscrewing his pen as he gets set to sign a slew of bills that will limit ammunition magazines in that state to just 15 rounds. Gun accessory manufacturer MagPul Industries (maker of the magnificent PMag) is set to begin moving out of Colorado and taking its hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue with it as soon as Hickenlooper signs the the bill.
Keep up the pressure, people! Both at the state and federal level, continue to remind your elected representatives that you have your eye on them, and that you will do everything in your power to make them pay at the ballot box if they so much as hint that they will support additional gun control measures that will do nothing more than disarm the law-abiding, and embolden criminals who have no intention of abiding by any gun control laws in the first place.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
Iraq War (Persian Gulf War II): Ten years ago today
Difficult as it may seem to believe, it was March 19, 2003 (March 20 in Iraq's time zone) that the United States launched an all-out assault on Saddam Hussein's Iraq for a second time. The first time around had gone swimmingly, but when the smoke had settled Saddam Hussein was still in control of Iraq. We did not make the same mistake twice.
The actual invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power lasted only about a month-and-a-half; it was all over by early May. The cost was a relatively low 140 American servicemembers killed. Little did the American people realize that successfully invading Iraq would be the easy part. As usual, winning the peace turned out to be exponentially more difficult than winning the peace.
The United States would continue to conduct combat operations in Iraq until the middle of 2011. When all was said and done, the total casualties for the United States in Iraq was just under 4,500 killed and just over 32,000 wounded. I'm sure you have seen some of the more gravely wounded who will spend the rest of their lives missing some of their limbs, their brain power, or some cases, their sanity.
The natural question many are asking was if it was worth it to invade Iraq. Just today, Barack Obama's slimy little press secretary, Jay Carney, had no choice but to give credit to George W. Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power after being pressed on the issue by a reporter. But what if Saddam Hussein was still in power today? With all the craziness in the Middle East and North Africa, what with Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and the never-ending showdown between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis, would Saddam's Iraq really matter all that much?
I believe that perhaps we should have not gone into Iraq at all, or at least left after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Just like we should have gotten the hell out of Afghanistan as soon as we removed the Taliban from power. The United States has always been very good at winning wars, but our record on nation building is spotty at best.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
The actual invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power lasted only about a month-and-a-half; it was all over by early May. The cost was a relatively low 140 American servicemembers killed. Little did the American people realize that successfully invading Iraq would be the easy part. As usual, winning the peace turned out to be exponentially more difficult than winning the peace.
The United States would continue to conduct combat operations in Iraq until the middle of 2011. When all was said and done, the total casualties for the United States in Iraq was just under 4,500 killed and just over 32,000 wounded. I'm sure you have seen some of the more gravely wounded who will spend the rest of their lives missing some of their limbs, their brain power, or some cases, their sanity.
The natural question many are asking was if it was worth it to invade Iraq. Just today, Barack Obama's slimy little press secretary, Jay Carney, had no choice but to give credit to George W. Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power after being pressed on the issue by a reporter. But what if Saddam Hussein was still in power today? With all the craziness in the Middle East and North Africa, what with Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and the never-ending showdown between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis, would Saddam's Iraq really matter all that much?
I believe that perhaps we should have not gone into Iraq at all, or at least left after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Just like we should have gotten the hell out of Afghanistan as soon as we removed the Taliban from power. The United States has always been very good at winning wars, but our record on nation building is spotty at best.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Boy pushes disabled girl out of a moving school bus, and his punishment is....?
While I admit that all I have to go from on this story is what a local news outlet wrote about it, I have spent enough years as an educator to get the gist of what was going on in this incident, and whatever the finer details of what happened, I was astonished by the very last line of this article.
From New York City comes the story of a disabled 13 year-old girl who was being bullied on a bus. After being spit upon and having books thrown at her by one male student, she was told by a "matron" (whatever the hell that is) to move away from her tormentor to the back of the bus. When the girl got to the back of the bus, another bully pushed the girl out the back of the bus, even though the bus was in motion.
The bullied girl suffered a broken collar bone from her fall.
And now to the coup de grace. The very last line of the article said, "Officials said the boy who pushed her is being disciplined and may be placed on another bus route."
There is so much that is said and unsaid in that simple little sentence.
What about the first boy, whose taunts and torment necessitated the girl's move toward the back of the bus in the first place? Will he be disciplined?
Why didn't the matron do more to intervene besides telling the victim to move? Or did she? The article is a bit short on details.
And most of all, why will the boy who actually pushed the girl out of the bus and broke her collarbone be placed on another bus route? Would his actions not justify kicking him off the bus for the rest of the year?
Would the pusher's actions not justify expelling him from the school, let alone the bus route?
If this is a school for the disabled, what kind of disabilities are we talking here? Physical, emotional, or both?
If the pusher's disability is emotional and that is what is keeping him from being expelled, then I have always thought that it is a travesty that emotionally disturbed students cannot be expelled for their actions. I see this at my school, where we have general population-type students, but we also have special education (SPED) students both in regular classrooms (RSP) and in self-contained classrooms (SDC). If an RSP or SDC student exhibits chronically disruptive or violent behavior, that student must have a "manifestation" meeting where big-wigs from the district office confer and decide whether or not the student's behavior is a result of the student's disability, whether it be physical or emotional. If the manifestation meeting determines that the student is acting that way because of his/her (usually his) disability, then that student cannot be suspended any more, let alone expelled. The student is free to run roughshod over his fellow teachers and students without the fear of any consequences. One of my administrators has a name for this select group of students. He calls them "Untouchables."
Whether or not the pusher in this news story turns out to be an Untouchable, I don't know. But an educational and legal system that allows this scenario to exist is a broken one indeed. And people wonder why our educational system has gone to hell in a handbasket.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
From New York City comes the story of a disabled 13 year-old girl who was being bullied on a bus. After being spit upon and having books thrown at her by one male student, she was told by a "matron" (whatever the hell that is) to move away from her tormentor to the back of the bus. When the girl got to the back of the bus, another bully pushed the girl out the back of the bus, even though the bus was in motion.
The bullied girl suffered a broken collar bone from her fall.
And now to the coup de grace. The very last line of the article said, "Officials said the boy who pushed her is being disciplined and may be placed on another bus route."
There is so much that is said and unsaid in that simple little sentence.
What about the first boy, whose taunts and torment necessitated the girl's move toward the back of the bus in the first place? Will he be disciplined?
Why didn't the matron do more to intervene besides telling the victim to move? Or did she? The article is a bit short on details.
And most of all, why will the boy who actually pushed the girl out of the bus and broke her collarbone be placed on another bus route? Would his actions not justify kicking him off the bus for the rest of the year?
Would the pusher's actions not justify expelling him from the school, let alone the bus route?
If this is a school for the disabled, what kind of disabilities are we talking here? Physical, emotional, or both?
If the pusher's disability is emotional and that is what is keeping him from being expelled, then I have always thought that it is a travesty that emotionally disturbed students cannot be expelled for their actions. I see this at my school, where we have general population-type students, but we also have special education (SPED) students both in regular classrooms (RSP) and in self-contained classrooms (SDC). If an RSP or SDC student exhibits chronically disruptive or violent behavior, that student must have a "manifestation" meeting where big-wigs from the district office confer and decide whether or not the student's behavior is a result of the student's disability, whether it be physical or emotional. If the manifestation meeting determines that the student is acting that way because of his/her (usually his) disability, then that student cannot be suspended any more, let alone expelled. The student is free to run roughshod over his fellow teachers and students without the fear of any consequences. One of my administrators has a name for this select group of students. He calls them "Untouchables."
Whether or not the pusher in this news story turns out to be an Untouchable, I don't know. But an educational and legal system that allows this scenario to exist is a broken one indeed. And people wonder why our educational system has gone to hell in a handbasket.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
Friday, March 01, 2013
Vice President Biden transitions from stupid to dangerously stupid
Seriously, if Joe Biden were a conservative/Republican, we would never hear the end of it from the Left. Instead, they ignore or explain away the absolutely absurd actions and statements of this clown.
Biden's greatest hits used to be his infamous goofy gaffes like telling a man in a wheelchair to stand up and emphasizing that three letter word: J-O-B-S... jobs. Or his latent racism where he praised candidate Obama in 2008 as being articulate and clean, or when he said you can't work in a 7-11 store unless you have a slight Indian accent.
Biden has now topped all of that with his dangerous, illegal, and outrageous advice regarding all things shotgun.
In an effort to downplay the effectiveness of an AR-type defensive rifle, Biden has spent the last couple weeks trying to sell the American people on shotguns. The problem is that his advice has been something that will get you arrested.
First, Biden told a citizen questioner during an online townhall meeting that the best thing to do for home defense is to get a double-barreled shotgun and fire it into the air. Just hearing my description of his advice isn't enough; you have to watch and listen to this fool as he dispenses his madness:
The last I checked, discharging a firearm into the air is quite a no-no. Not to mention, what the hell is Slow Joe talking about with his wife having to arm herself? The VP and his family live on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory near Washington D.C. with round-the-clock Secret Service protection. As if Slow Joe hadn't stepped in it badly enough with his fire-the-shotgun-into-the-air comments, he then doubled down and dispensed some more dubious advice. In an interview with Field and Stream magazine, Biden said, "[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."
One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is to know what your target is and what is beyond it. Apparently, Biden doesn't know about this rule, nor, apparently, did South African "blade runner" Oscar Pistorius. He is currently sitting in a South African jail on a murder charge for doing exactly what Biden suggested. Pistorius's girlfriend, who was on the other side of the bathroom door through which he shot was unavailable for comment.
As the statist narrative against defensive rifles begins to fall apart, the Obama administration, along with other federal and state totalitarians, are getting more and more unhinged and shrill as they try to sell their execrable position against Constitutionally protected self-defense to the American people. Few officials are doing a more bang-up job of this than Slow Joe Biden.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)