“Unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast and that the once-happy plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?” - George Washington, 1777
I swear that the antigun people are completely ignorant of history. They want to tax firearms to the point where they are no longer affordable. Is there a tax that Democrats don't like? This will affect people of color more than it will whites, which is how Democrats define racism. Of course, using taxes to discriminate against minorities is nothing new for them, the Democrats already tried this with poll taxes.
We can't even require that a person prove that they are a citizen by showing ID when they vote, and CNN thinks it is a good idea to draft anyone who owns a firearm. I bet they would shit a brick if it were to come to fruition, and I picked up a belt fed, a grenade launcher, some antitank missiles, half a dozen MANPADs, and a 155mm howitzer.
If the Second Amendment were read like the rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory.
Why do cops on SWAT teams feel the need to wear camouflage? They always seem to wear a pattern of camo that most closely resembles current military patterns. If cops in rural areas wanted to actually hide in their surroundings, they would wear RealTree or some other effective pattern. City cops would try to look like mailboxes, homeless people, or dumpsters.
The purpose of camouflage is to hide by blending in to your surroundings. That isn't what is happening here. These uniforms are actually being worn so that the officers STAND OUT from their background. They WANT to look different. They WANT to look like they are some sort of badass John Rambo SEAL team operators.
By dressing like them, they are engaged in some sort of cosplay fantasy where they are also armed with "cool" guns that ordinary people can't have. Then they go and raid the house of some grandmother, or flip a grenade into a baby's crib. Note that when they guy in the building is actually armed and can mount any sort of resistance, they surround the place and wait him out.
Why do so many people suddenly have a problem with the cops? Watch this video of a grandmother's house. The raid was done because someone from her IP address criticized the police, and they took offense.This meant that a short platoon of heavily armed cops had to use hand grenades against an old woman and her two young grandchildren.
The grandmother sued the police, and won. The court of appeals ruled:
“The members of the team are seen on the tapes impressively clad in body armor and big helmets and carrying formidable rifles pointed forward. It would take a brave criminal to try to fight it out with them, and of course there was no criminal in the house and little reason to expect one to be there,” then went on to compare the police to the "Keystone cops" and called the actions during the raid "almost inconceivable."
The odd part was that the Internet threats came because the grandmother didn't know enough about her Internet router to change the password, and a neighbor was using it to post threats and comments about the police. The neighbor had been convicted in the past for similar actions, and this took police less than an hour to figure that out. The neighbor who actually posted the threats is visible in the video, sitting on his front porch watching the SWAT team pass by on their way to raid the wrong house. Had he actually been as dangerous as they claimed, he could have ambushed and wiped out the entire team.
“It took them only a day to discover that it was indeed he [Derrick Murray] who was responsible,” Judge Posner wrote. “But rather than give him the SWAT-team treatment, the police politely requested that he come to police headquarters, which he did, where he was arrested without incident. … The police department’s kid-gloves treatment of Murray is in startling contrast to their flash-bang assault on Mrs. Milan’s home.”
“The police neglect of Murray is almost incomprehensible. His past made him a prime suspect. A day of investigating him would have nailed him, as we know because a day of investigating — the day after the violent search of the home — did nail him.”
“So while the defendants are correct to point out that a reasonable mistake committed by police in the execution of a search is shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity,” the panel concluded, “in this case the Evansville police committed too many mistakes to pass the test of reasonableness.”
After the court ruling was made, the city settled out of court for $60,000. All paid for by taxpayers and not the cops who screwed the pooch.
And thereby created another few honest citizens who don't like cops. Keep acting like an invading army, and the citizens will eventually treat you like one.
A teacher ran his mouth and said some inappropriate stuff. What he said, while inappropriate, was not a threat. It was hypothetical. "If I were a school shooter, this is how I would do it." Heck, I have made statements on this blog that are remarkably similar.
Anyway, hearing about the statement, the cops went out and got an RPO, went over to confiscate his guns, and ... nothing. He didn't even own any guns. So, in other words, this Red Flag order did nothing.
Or did it?
See, what the "red flag laws" REALLY do is punish unpopular speech. This law does more to gut free speech than nearly anything that has ever been done by government. Say something that someone doesn't like, get reported, and have cops raiding your house within days. The scariest part is that no one will know exactly what speech will trigger an RPO. You won't know that you have crossed the line until the cops arrive at your door.
An old buddy of mine from my Navy days posted the following picture on social media:
I saw this and replied with this picture:
and the flaming began. See, I apparently didn't realize that cops HAVE to do this because if they don't, they will later be targeted by others, and I should understand that. I pointed out that the groups in the original picture are masked for the same reason.
I stated that, with the RARE exception of undercover cops not wanting to be recognized, cops should ALWAYS do their jobs in public, and needn't be masked if they are not doing anything that they should be ashamed of.
Because I didn't immediately bend down and lick their boots, I was instantly labelled as anticop. I support cops most of the time, but when they are wrong, I also point that out. So I responded with:
Cops always try to say that criminals are going to hunt them down, as if they are living in some cop drama television show, but the actual facts never bear that out. Just like the claim that a NY cop needs to carry a gun in Florida because they are on duty all the time and might be attacked by some ex-con they put in jail a decade ago, or perhaps they will need to arrest some criminal while on vacation. How can you be on duty and making arrests in a state where you don't even know the law?
So along comes a cop who says:
Guys like this, we don't fit into their box brother. And they hate it
I replied with:
I have long said that times are changing, and you either adapt and worry about image, or you will get steamrolled. If police lose the support of the public, they can no longer do their job. Some police appear never to have heard of Peel's policing principals, and that is why they are losing so much respect. Stop acting like an occupying army as many police departments are doing, and the public will stop seeing you as the enemy.
I was blocked from the conversation at that point. The police need to stop demanding absolute loyalty. When a police officer screws up, admit it and take care of it yourself. If you don't ALL of you begin looking like a street gang with a badge. The more of the public that you alienate, the more difficult it becomes to get your job done.
I said the same as a firefighter. There is a group that calls themselves the "Fraternal Order Of Leatherheads" society (FOOLS). I wrote about this dangerous trend about six years ago. Our public safety personnel are looking at the public that they are sworn to serve, and all they see is the enemy. This is a VERY dangerous trend, indeed.
It's getting worse.
EDITED: I left out an entire sentence. Sorry. It was there in my head when I was writing it, but somehow never made it to my fingers as I typed it.
A government employee whose job it is to tell gang members to give up their guns turns out to be one of the gang members he is supposed to be fighting. This is one of the reasons why I will never turn in my guns- the very people who are asking me to are the ones who would use my disarmament to their advantage.
Here is the story of how a 51 year old man was murdered by a 28 year old man who punched him in the head. It wasn't gun violence, so the Democrats don't care.
We still keep hearing how the Second Amendment is useless because a citizen militia cannot possibly beat the might of a modern US military that is armed with Abrams tanks, F16 fighters, and nuclear weapons. I have blogged before about what a monumentally stupid statement that is. Anyone who makes such a statement has no idea about how the military, armed conflict, or asymmetrical warfare works.
When I was a firefighter, the government spent a lot of money training me in counter terrorism. I also took a fair amount of college classes on the tactics of terrorism and the weaknesses of the nation's infrastructure. There are millions of people who have done likewise. Police, firefighters, and emergency managers, to name a few. Now I don't want anyone to construe this post as a threat, because it is not. I am simply pointing out that there are a lot of weaknesses in America's underbelly, and there are a lot of people who know where those weaknesses are and how to exploit them. Frankly, it surprises me that no one has yet tried.
For example. one class required us to find a weak point in US infrastructure. Here is the one I wrote about:
There are nine major gas pipelines and two crude oil pipelines that pass from Texas and Louisiana, with less than 10 miles separating five of those pipelines where they pass over the Mississippi river, at a point that is less than 5 miles from the I-40 bridge in Memphis. Those pipelines carry most of the petroleum and natural gas to the northeast corridor and Ohio valley. Think of how many large cities are served by these pipelines. These pipelines are unguarded and virtually unmonitored.
If these pipelines were destroyed, the short term disaster would be huge. NASA has estimated that gas line ruptures and the ensuing explosions at that point would be so large that their reflections would be visible on the other side of the planet as the light from the fireball bounced off the moon. Since these pipelines are within the Memphis metro area, casualties would be high from the large explosion and ensuing confusion.
In the long term, the loss of five of the nine gas pipelines from the Texas/Louisiana gas fields to the industrial areas of Chicago and the Ohio valley would likely cause widespread disruption of energy and heating service in those areas. Loss of the I-40 bridge in Memphis could potentially cause transportation delays, as the loss of this bridge would cause land traffic detours of more than 300 miles and make the Mississippi impassible to water transport. Transformers lost as a result of failures to the electrical grid could take eight to twelve months for replacement.
Imagine what the loss of electricity and the majority of the natural gas to the entire northeastern US would do to the US economy. Since all 6 of those items are within 10 miles of each other, it could be accomplished by one small group of skilled attackers. The entire US economy would be brought to its knees. While this is happening, do you really think that India, China, and Russia will sit idly by and not take advantage of the power vacuum?
So to those of you on both sides of the debate, please take a moment to think about what you are pushing us towards before it is too late. A year or more of sitting in the dark without heat in Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, and other major cities.
The Democrats would have you believe that the US is a fundamentally racist country, and that white men are mostly racists who benefit from the fact that they are white. The next time someone tries to tell you that, remember that every single day there are white male firefighters who risk their lives to enter burning buildings to rescue black children. I did that for over 22 years.
For my entire life, I have heard that being fat is the cause of diabetes. I was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 45. Yes, I was overweight, but I disagree that my weight was the cause. I always felt that being overweight was a symptom of the same disease process that caused the diabetes. Let me explain:
- Family history
My grandmother had type 2 diabetes. So did my Father, and my sister. So does my son. My brother does not.
All of us were overweight, except my son, who was diagnosed two years ago at only 28 years old. (My brother was overweight until he lost 30 pounds as a result of his recent cancer diagnosis.) At the time, he has six pack abs. So there are plenty of people who are fat and not diabetic, and there are people in my family who are diabetic and not overweight.
- My entire life, I have been a person who is famous for getting HANGRY. That is, when I am hungry, I get more and more surly eventually becoming rather difficult to be around until I eat.
Now that I am a diabetic, the doctor is constantly telling me that I need to watch my diet and exercise. I do both, but it is difficult to lower your A1C levels without medication when your fasting blood glucose is 140 when you wake up, after being only 120 when you went to bed the night before. When I am not taking medication, my morning blood sugar is in the 160s. Nothing I eat seems to change that, only medication.
During the day, diet and medication lowers that to the 100 level, but I still can't control what happens while I am sleeping. It is my opinion that this is a genetic issue.
Many have blasted the deputy in south Florida for refusing to enter the school while children died. I agree with them. However, in the interest of intellectual honesty, this story certainly explains why you wouldn't want to.
The officer involved was shot in the head during the Pulse nightclub incident. Even though his helmet prevented the bullet from killing him, he did receive a closed head injury that has prevented him from returning to work. The Orlando police department has a rule that officers must return to work within a certain amount of time after being injured in the line of duty. If they do not, they must be examined by a doctor of Orlando PD's choosing to qualify for a medical pension, or they will be fired. OPD does not have a doctor that can do the exam, so this officer will be terminated on September 30.
Now picture that you are a cop who is standing outside of a shooting incident, and you know that you could be killed or injured. You also know that your family would not be cared for if anything happened to you. Many people are willing to risk their own health and well being, but not those of their wife and children. Do you think that this is more or less likely to make you want to enter the building and risk it all for a public that will likely weasel out of their responsibility to you and your family?
Before you say that this is what cops sign up for, remember that the small risk of being hurt on traffic stops is different from charging an enemy in an entrenched position while under direct fire. That is more like combat than police work. Even worse, since combat troops have tools at their disposal (grenades, suppressive fire, air support, etc.) that police do not. On top of this, many insurance companies will not pay out if you are killed in a terrorist incident. You better believe that a cop's insurance company is going to look for ways not to pay up, in a situation like this.
I was on Facebook the other day and there was an editorial cartoon:
The comments were ridiculous. There were talks of bans, including one person who said that anyone who wants a gun is too mentally ill to be allowed to have them. There were the claims about limiting in rights, and the tired old saw about "fire in a theater" and taxing cars came up. I refuted them in turn, using facts and logic.
I told them that gun owners would not stand for confiscation. I was called every name in the book: insane, racist, stupid, etc. Finally, I replied with:
Exactly. COME AND TAKE THEM. I dare you. If you think that you have the votes to amend the Constitution, do it. Pass the law that follows, and join the people on the confiscation teams. If even one percent of gun owners decided to veto your decision, the casualty count would dwarf the civil war. Over 100 million adults own more than 800 million guns and several billion rounds of ammunition. How do you think that will play out?
I received a 24 hour suspension for violating community standards. The notice said:
If you request a review, we'll have someone take another look at the comment.
Except there is no review button. This is my third stint in FB jail. I don't see how I violated community standards, and the people calling me names and threatening me were not.
Yesterday I was at my school for the first time this school year. The fence that is now required around all schools was about half complete. One of my fellow teachers complained: "See that fence? That is the raise we should have gotten, right there. I could have saved them some money by putting up a sign that says 'We shoot back.'"
I pointed out that we can't shoot back, because teachers can't carry. She replied that she didn't think teachers should actually have guns, but the students who saw the sign wouldn't know that we were unarmed. The sign would be a deterrent.
biological male athletes who identify as females won't 'end' women's sports: 'Trans women are WOMEN'
Let's say that I believe myself to be a gorilla. No matter how strongly I believe it, I am still not a gorilla.
Let's say that I take pills to make myself grow more hair to look more like a gorilla. I am still not a gorilla.
If I hire a surgeon to perform an operation to make myself look more like a gorilla, I am still not a gorilla.
If I get a million people to say that I can be whatever I identify myself as, and declare than I am a gorilla, I am still not a gorilla.
If I were to believe myself to be a gorilla and took the steps above, people would say I am crazy.
Why doesn't the same thing go for trannies? Just because you think that you are a woman doesn't make you a woman, it makes you crazy.
