This was a good video Jeff K. sent out today. Thought I'd post it since Danny R. was too lazy to do so... :) sorry Danny...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
It's a little long, but good points made.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thought for the day...
Good morning to everyone. Thanks to Jeff for sending me this email. Thought I'd share with everyone... Good points on the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS!!!
"The firearm in Civil Society Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100- pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living i n a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Posted by Marko at 7:06 AM)))))))))))))))))))))))))TRYOTE #896
That sums it up for human interrelationship - personal defence - national defence, and the fools who think that the bad and the mad can be made good by making the majority of people, their potential victims.I am able to pen these words - have an occasional rant etc, not because police or doogooders were there to protect me, but because reasonable law permitted me to have the effective means of self defence against those who do not abide by, rather exploit others who abide by law."
"The firearm in Civil Society Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100- pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living i n a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Posted by Marko at 7:06 AM)))))))))))))))))))))))))TRYOTE #896
That sums it up for human interrelationship - personal defence - national defence, and the fools who think that the bad and the mad can be made good by making the majority of people, their potential victims.I am able to pen these words - have an occasional rant etc, not because police or doogooders were there to protect me, but because reasonable law permitted me to have the effective means of self defence against those who do not abide by, rather exploit others who abide by law."
Thursday, October 18, 2007
More sense, from a black man at that!
Ok. I'm glad to see someone else saying what seems to be common sense to me. And even more glad to see it coming from a black reporter, so Mr. Sharpton doesn't come out with another white-conspiracy theory... (I won't copy and paste the entire artice, but here's the link)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7343980?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=5
I agree 100%!!! This stupid hip-hop/gangsta image that some folks think is cool, and even more actually use as a way of life is killing any creditbility a black man has. If Mr. Sharpton ever wants to get his point across to the masses in a respectable way, he's gonna have to get that part of the community to wake up and ditch this mentality and way of life.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7343980?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=5
I agree 100%!!! This stupid hip-hop/gangsta image that some folks think is cool, and even more actually use as a way of life is killing any creditbility a black man has. If Mr. Sharpton ever wants to get his point across to the masses in a respectable way, he's gonna have to get that part of the community to wake up and ditch this mentality and way of life.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Hot ghetto mess...
Sometimes people wonder where I get some of the stories of the people I deal with on a regular basis, and this is a funny video of a true situation. I have customers that act very much this way, and sometimes alot worse. But enjoy all the same, and be glad you don't have to deal with this lady on a regular basis... ( and pray for those of us who do!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGrqW3nx5HM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGrqW3nx5HM
Way to go, God!
I heard about this last week, and glad to see the follow-up report on it today...
LINCOLN, Neb. - A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.
"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!" Friend said.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.
"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.
Attempts to reach Chambers by phone and at his Capitol office Thursday were unsuccessful.
___
Associated Press Writer Anna Jo Bratton in Omaha contributed to this report.
LINCOLN, Neb. - A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.
"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!" Friend said.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.
"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.
Attempts to reach Chambers by phone and at his Capitol office Thursday were unsuccessful.
___
Associated Press Writer Anna Jo Bratton in Omaha contributed to this report.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Wait, WHAT????
I just read this article, that made me think the American medical system is not nearly as bad as we all complain about it to be...
"BANGKOK, Thailand — A cancer patient lying on a gurney waiting to be treated was fatally bitten by a snake, a hospital in western Thailand said Friday."
Here's the rest of the story. If you chose to read it... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296038,00.html
I guess the old saying" it could always be worse" would apply to America. But if it were me in that bed, I'd stroke out before the venom had a chance to work!
"BANGKOK, Thailand — A cancer patient lying on a gurney waiting to be treated was fatally bitten by a snake, a hospital in western Thailand said Friday."
Here's the rest of the story. If you chose to read it... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296038,00.html
I guess the old saying" it could always be worse" would apply to America. But if it were me in that bed, I'd stroke out before the venom had a chance to work!
Thursday, September 6, 2007
JUST A RANDOM THOUGHT
GOOD MORNING FOLKS! I WAS JUST SKIMMING THROUGH THE DRUDGE REPORT, AND NOTICED THIS SPOT...
Stevie Wonder is the entertainment at Oprah's Obama party, sources tell DRUDGE.... Oprah is having a post party dinner for 200... and her favorite Ethiopiean chef, Mollie, will cook... She is inviting her friends to come early and meet Barack and his wife... The most successful fundraisers on the finance committee will also be there, for some face time with Oprah... Developing...
UH, AN "ETHIOPIEAN CHEF"??? I THOUGHT ETHIOPIEA WAS A STARVING NATION???
ALL THE COMMERCIALS I GREW UP WITH WITH SALLY STRUTHERS BIG OL' SELF SELLING CHILDREN SPONSORSHIPS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT? DID ONE OF THOSE KIDS GROW UP TO BE A FAMOUS CHEF?
OH WELL. CAN'T FAULT OPRAH FOR BEING DIVERSE, I GUESS???
BUCHANNAN/NUGENT 2008!!!
Stevie Wonder is the entertainment at Oprah's Obama party, sources tell DRUDGE.... Oprah is having a post party dinner for 200... and her favorite Ethiopiean chef, Mollie, will cook... She is inviting her friends to come early and meet Barack and his wife... The most successful fundraisers on the finance committee will also be there, for some face time with Oprah... Developing...
UH, AN "ETHIOPIEAN CHEF"??? I THOUGHT ETHIOPIEA WAS A STARVING NATION???
ALL THE COMMERCIALS I GREW UP WITH WITH SALLY STRUTHERS BIG OL' SELF SELLING CHILDREN SPONSORSHIPS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT? DID ONE OF THOSE KIDS GROW UP TO BE A FAMOUS CHEF?
OH WELL. CAN'T FAULT OPRAH FOR BEING DIVERSE, I GUESS???
BUCHANNAN/NUGENT 2008!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
