Hawaiian Gun Culture

I don't get Hawaii.  It is is a tropical paradise, yet individual freedom is one of the great failures in this state.  For a people with a love of laughter, song, dance, nature, and food--oh yes, the food--they are a state where many rely on the public dole, and worse, allow unreasonable restrictions on their specific enumerated rights under the US constitution.

Many here would argue that there is no Hawaiian "gun culture," that Hawaiians aren't real big on guns and so it isn't a big deal that people in this state must register all of their guns (which, to date, has stopped zero crimes,) must get a permit simply to acquire a gun--including a mandatory 14-day waiting period (even though the federal background check is instant, and even if you already own a gun.)

Gun registration.
There is no proof, anywhere, that has shown that gun registration does anything to reduce crime.  It does, however cost the citizens.  When I went to register my guns, I had to drag ALL of them into downtown Honolulu, to the police station, and let the police inspect them.  Not really sure why they have to do that, as if I had any guns I wasn't legally allowed to own, the LAST thing I would do is bring them to the police station.  Likewise, if I owned a gun that had been used in the commission of a crime, I would never bring it in to the cops.  Criminals aren't entirely stupid.  For that matter, criminals aren't going to register their guns--because they are criminals.

Waiting or "cool down."
This regulation presumes that if you are buying a gun, you might want it for illicit purposes, and imposes a cool-down period.  On its face, I can understand why that might be a good idea, until you put it to the exercise of specific enumerated rights test--should people be required to wait for a specified period of time so that they can exercise their right to speak freely, or freely assemble, or petition their government for redress of grievances?  Of course not... so why should there be a waiting period to exercise their right to keep and bear arms?

Hawaiian "gun culture" of lack thereof.  In 1810, King Kamehameha I united the Hawaiian Islands under the rule of a single monarch.  Anyone want to venture a guess one what technological wonder he used to do this?  That's right woodchuck chuckers, he used muskets.  Muskets given to him by the Ha'ole--the foreigner.
Kamehameha I is venerated as a legendary Hawaiian king for his rule over the island tribes--rule that would never have been gained without the use of guns and cannon.
Further, in 1887, a group of cabinet officials and advisers to King David Kalākaua and an armed militia forced the king to promulgate what is known as the Bayonet Constitution. The impetus given for the new constitution was the frustration of the Reform Party (also known as the Missionary Party) with growing debts, spending habits of the King, and general governance. It was specifically triggered by a failed attempt by Kalākaua to create a Polynesian Federation, and accusations of an opium bribery scandal.   The 1887 constitution stripped the monarchy of much of its authority, imposed significant income and property requirements for voting, and completely disenfranchised all Asians from voting.  When Kalākaua died in 1891 during a visit to San Francisco, his sister Liliʻuokalani assumed the throne.
And of course, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and subsequent fears of Japanese invasion (like they did in China, the and all across the Pacific) saw many Hawaiians armed and prepared to defend Hawaii.

But now you can't own a gun without permission.  Theoretically, you can get a license to carry a firearm but since the law says the chief of police MAY issue a CCW if a person is of legal standing to possess a firearm, not SHALL issue if there is no good reason to refuse, the number of permits to carry is so small as to be statistically irrelevant (I believe that the only ones issued, ever have been to the chief of police and his cronies--use proles don't get them.)  Apply that to any other property you own--take your car.  By itself, it's just a machine.  It does have the ability to kill; people die on Hawaiian roads often enough to prove that.  In the control of someone who wants to kill, cars can be driven into crowds of people, buildings, other cars, etc.  We are required to license ourselves and our cars, and to register them annually and have them inspected--none of which will stop them from being used in the commission of a crime.  However, we allow these dangerous devices to be used daily, by a vast majority of the adult population (even by near-adults aged 16 or older) and don't give it a second thought.  There is no special permit required to operate a car, other than a standard license--there is no restriction on its use, there is no requirement to show cause for use or ownership, you don't have to demonstrate a need to keep your car with you.
I don't think it's a lack of gun culture that makes Hawaiian gun laws so stupid.  I think it's a lack of the true understanding of freedom.  Hawaii was a monarchy until annexation in 1901.  It was another half-century until the territory became the 50th state.  And now the state is a haven for social welfare, the public dole, and people still have no issues with being "cared for" by the state.  This is evident in the simple fact that in Hawaii, you do not have the "right" to defend your property from criminals with deadly force--if an intruder breaks into your home, and you shoot and kill him, you WILL be charged with homicide.  You are under the burden of proof to show that the person you killed had the intent and means to personally injure you or your family.  So you have to demonstrate (somehow) what the intent of the criminal illegally in your home was.  The criminal may not have been armed--but that isn't to say he couldn't have found a weapon in your home--and besides, how are you to know why they are there?  The criminal may just be there to steal your shit--but how are you to know if he might also have it in mind to rape your wife as well?  I suppose you could ask him nicely, and if he says "Oh, I'm just here for the jewelry, DVD player, computer, and other valuables."  Since he is obviously an honorable criminal, you should believe him and go back to bed, secure in the knowledge that your personal safety is assured, because criminals would never lie.
It does make me wonder why bank guards have guns... after all, if I am only there to relieve them of property, and not to hurt anyone...
So, if you live here, and someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, make sure you shoot them until they are dead--because otherwise, you'll have them saying "I was just there for the valuables, brah."  And before the cops arrive, find a nice sturdy weapon from the kitchen or garage and put it in their hands.  Make sure everyone in the house remembers you screaming over and over for them to surrender or leave, and remembers hearing them scream "No way, I'm here to rape everyone and then kill you all, even the dog."

--Chuck

I know where I want to retire

It's this town.

Suspected flag burner pilloried
Alleged offender hunted down, ridiculed after incident at VFW post

By BOB GARDINIER AND HUMBERTO MARTÍNEZ, Staff writer
First published in print: Saturday, September 26, 2009
VALLEY FALLS -- The young man was given three choices: get turned over to the police, go one-on-one in a fight with a seasoned war veteran, or be duct-taped to a flagpole for six hours with a sign around his neck identifying his alleged crime: flag burning.


It was the third option that would still have the small town buzzing a week after a 21-year-old was hunted down and forced to endure a public humiliation with its roots dating to the Middle Ages. Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1938 were incensed enough to tie up the man last Sunday after they accused him of setting the flag in front of their building on fire.

Post Commander Nick Normile, a Vietnam War veteran, said the man came into the post's bar Sept. 18 on Poplar Avenue and was eventually turned away for not having a proper ID.

Apparently angered, the young man, who Normile did not want to name, cut the rope of the American flag flying overhead and used a cigarette lighter to set it on fire, Normile and others said.

The man sat pilloried as the village had its fall youth soccer picnic with a long parade of children passing in front of him.

"He'll never disrespect the flag again, I can tell you that," Normile said.

Normile said the flag had at one point flown over U.S. troops in Iraq had special significance.

Veterans, both local and nationwide, responded to the event as accountings were posted online to the official VFW Facebook page and national Web site. Comments posted supported the act and added ideas for further punishment.

Other nearby business owners said they knew of the event but refused to give an accounting. Unconfirmed reports by citizens said the alleged flag-burner was a relative of a previous commander of the post.

Calls made to the alleged flag burner and a spokesman for the national VFW organization for comments were not returned. The Rensselaer County Sheriffs office confirmed knowledge of the event, but said they were not involved. State Police in Brunswick were contacted, but a trooper said no record of the event could be found.

The flag will be disposed of at a formal ceremony, Normile said.

Defense of the Castle

Today was a Good day. Alerted that the denizens of the castle may be under observation, and possibly assault, saw that a demonstration, or possibly a show of force may be needed. I issued a quick Warning Order to the Family Squad, then departed the AO to secure Class V from Cabelas and Class VI from the Class VI store. (No GO #1 at the castle, you see.)
By the time I'd returned, the boss had finished some PT to get her adrenaline up, and the kids were all aflutter. I loaded the weapons into the truck, then das dummer Hund, the boss, the dismounts, all the errata that goes with them, and we were off to the castle.

We started with the tour of the realm, then the showing off of really cool stuff, (which was mostly me and the Armorer, and the Dismounts and The Boss doing their Cavalry Re-certification. I too was re-certified, while das dummer Hund tried to get either stepped on or kicked in the head by the horse.

After the showing of cool things, I was given a grand tour of the Armory, (I am in total awe) and then we moved to the ramparts to conduct a show of force. First, the dismounts practiced their sidearm drills, then the boss showed us all how it was possible to shoot right handed, but use the left eye to aim. The dismounts then demonstrated their sniper techniques.
The Armorer then demonstrated his knowledge of obscura mechanica, firing a weapon that I am sure Saladin himself once used. I then used my mad skilz with the bammy shooty (for you marines who may be using this) and demonstrated to any would-be spies my ability to sling lead and dispense with soul-cleansing flames of 7.62 x 39 wrath and scunion.

The Castle remains free.

Note:* If anyone thinks that my children are too young to do these things, tough. They are my kids. I get to decide that, not you. Just because your slack-jawed mouthbreather can't muster enough sense or attention span to pay attention and learn how to exercise their specific, enumerated right, doesn't mean that my children cannot learn to do so. If you think you can provide a rational, reasoned argument why I should not encourage and teach my children to safely handle firearms, please, by all means, do so. First, explain it to my dog:

Yes that is a pancake on his head. It makes as much sense as you do.

--Chuck

Gift giving

I am trying very, very hard to get to the gun blog rendezvous this year. The biggest hurdle is the Army (right now) giving me the time off to do it. It means I have to add work on an already heavy workload ahead of time, AND keep up with my work while I go, but it's worth it.

I went two years ago, when they selected Valour-IT as their charity to raise money for that year. Since then, they've added Valour-IT as their permanent charity.

Like I said, I'm trying really hard to get there. There's a donate button over there on the left side of the page (it's the big yellow one that says "Donate") that will help me pay for the trip, which is gonna run about $800 for air+hotel. The best part? Any donations going there go thru paypal, which in turn is going to result in my writing about guns, shooting guns, encouraging other people to buy, shoot, and carry guns.

I am going to be addressing the gathered bloggers, journalists, groupies and sponsors about several things, primarily Soldier'sAngels and Valour-it, as well as Why I serve, and how they can continue to help.


As many of you have read here, this year they are selling raffle tix for a gun, ( a very, very nice gun) a training session at frontsight, and well,

a Para USA GI Expert that you need not be present to win! In that same drawing, you can win a certificate for four days of training at Front Sight in Nevada. Valued at $2,000, you can use it for one four-day class or two two-day classes.

IF YOU ATTEND you can purchase raffle tickets that might win you another Para pistol, or a Hi Point 9mm Carbine. Or you might win a framed Heller Kitty t-shirt autographed by Alan Gura! Other sponsors include (but are not limited to):

Steel Challenge Shooting Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Brownell's

GLOCK

Dillon Precision

Lucky Gunner Ammo

Natchez Shooter's Supply

Midway USA

Remington

Nosler Bullets
Remember, Paypal is asshats, but : luckygunner is now handling the online auction tix sales.

And please, hit that donate button.

--Chuck

Girls with guns

Why I carry

Which reminds me, I have a post to write about "starter" guns, and continuing to build the nation of riflemen.

And Code Monkey, I got the BOC, you continue to crack me up. Still, for what you paid for your macbook, you could've gotten this:
and this:and either of these:
Heck we could've even got you one of these:

This came from Sarah at Tryingtogrok: (and if you aren't visiting her regularly, shame on you.)

Anyone want to try to answer Sis B's question?

I know I have a bunch of Republican readers and close friends, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what any of you think about actual issues. It's all hidden behind snark and namecalling and eye rolling and back patting and I seriously, honestly, to my core, want to know what you believe and why. I want to know what you think about how the government is supposed to work. What does a functioning government look like to you? Please, if you care to answer this question, do so without saying words like "libs" or "dems" or hippies, commies, fags, or any derivative thereof. I want to know what, if any, moral authority government should have. What is the government's purpose in relation to the economy? What powers should the government be allowed to have and what should be limited? What is your view of the constitution? What are your beliefs about ALL the amendments within the Bill of Rights, not just the second?

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I came here from sarah's place to answer your question re: the purpose and function of the gummint.

Ahem.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's why we have a government in DC.

As to what I want them to do, that is outlined in the specific, enumerated powers of the US constitution.

The most important thing the framers established in the constitution was the idea that rights were not granted to the people, rather rights belonged to the people, and could not be taken away by the government, either by force or legislation.

They even went further, to say that any right not specifically enumerated in the constitution was left to the states, and if the states didn't cover it in their constitution, then it was left to the people.

How amazing is that? Anything they or the states didn't think of, is your right to do! Gay Marriage? is it illegal on the books? Then go for it! That was the idea the framers had. The government that governs least is best, we should be left alone to live our lives at our peril. We should be responsible for our own actions, and our own choices, and however good or bad those choices are, it should be left up to our communities, through charity, to help us should we fail.

The framers thought the idea of a federal tax on the people directly should be abhorrent, as even a 1% tax could some day, some how, be raised to 2%! What would they do if they saw our current tax rates? Their idea was that the fed was funded by the states. The states elect the president, not the citizens. It wa sup to the states to decide how their votes were cast, either through popular vote, fiat, or whatever means that individual state's citizens chose.


Having said all that, what do I want my government to do?
I want them to stop social security and all other social welfare programs. Let local charities do that. Let people be responsible for their own lives.
I want the government to get out of the classrooms. I want schools to teach the ethics of the community.
A note on morality. All morality is wedded to religious beliefs. Government should never talk to morals, only ethics. Same goes for schools. Kids need to learn morals at home and at church.

I don't want the federal government ever considering "bailouts." What right does the government have to give my tax money to a private company? It's why we have bankruptcy laws.

Moreover, I want a government that realizes they have no place in the economy beyond printing the currency. The free market is the surest path to success, as it is the only path that leads to constant innovation and growth.

I want a government that is accountable to its citizens other than during campaigns. I want politicians who are humbled by the responsibility of public service. I want federal politicians think "how is this best for the country" before they think "how will this get me reelected?"

I don't want a government that tells me what I can or can't put into my body, I want a government that ensures I have the means to know what I am putting into my body and lets me decide on whether or not to do it. (This applies to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and Twinkies.) I want a government that knows it has no business in a woman's uterus. I want a government that doesn't care what you do in the bedroom, as long as all parties consent to it, and it stays in the bed room.

I want a government that defends our borders and national interests, that works to establish favorable trade with other nations, that encourages trade between the states, and places the needs of our nation before the needs of any other.

I want a government that doesn't shy away from enforcing its own laws because the task is too hard. I want a government that realizes that NASA was a great idea, but the government has no business reaching out to the stars. Sputnik worried us because it meant the reds could range us with MIRVs. We can do likewise. Everything after that (including manned space flight) should be in the hands of private industry. How many times has the government just shrugged and gone back to the drawing boards when a multi-billion dollar craft carrying multimillion dollar satellites just goes up in smoke, or crashes because someone forgot to convert meters to feet?

How many times would that happen if the project was being run by a private company? (Good luck finding investors after posting a multibillion dollar loss. It generally teaches us to be very, very demanding and exacting in our results.)

I want the government to protect all of our rights. When is the last time a politician supported speech control?

Mostly, I want a government that is afraid of its citizens. A government that knows if they so much as try to impede on our rights, we will either imprison them or hang them.

I want a government of, by, and FOR the people. Not a government that exists for itself.

--Chuck

Best arguments to carry a gun

I've found these to be the best arguments to carry a gun
1. law-abiding citizens do just that, they abide by the law. Their carrying weapons is no threat to any other law-abiding citizen.
2. if your daughter or wife were being raped, or your child abducted, would you rather I shoot the bastard, or call the police and give them a good description of the "suspect" and then help your wife or daughter to the hospital?
3. If you think people shouldn't keep loaded guns in the house, because the threat of home invasion is so low, do you lock your doors before you go to bed?
4. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
5. The Supreme court of the united states has decided and upheld the decision that the police are NOT responsible for your personal security. If they were, they would be liable every time a crime was committed.
6. When I carry open, people stare at me because they aren't sure if I am a threat. When I carry concealed, they don't even know if a threat is there (why open carry should be the law of the land, or concealed carry made as common as open carry--better a criminal doesn't know you are carrying, make them wonder about the threat to them.)
7. Anyone willing to depend on the police, or the National Guard, or the Military, or any other government organization for their personal safety has already surrendered their personal freedom to the government, and is the antithesis of what our founders considered to be the most American of Ideals: A Truly Free person.
8. "I'm carrying a gun and can kill you any time I want. How long do you think it'll take the police, military, or other gummint agency to get her to stop me? Since I have a gun and you don't, you have the rest of your life to answer. "

*(regardless of individual state statutes, laws, or regulations, I retain my individual right to self defense, and will not allow neither myself nor my family to be deprived of life or liberty by a criminal, nor by a nanny state which deems my gun any more dangerous than the oil-filter wrench in my garage. Tried by twelve vs. carried by six, and I will not stand idly by and watch my family harmed.)

I've sacrificed life and limb for these rights, and I will not tolerate their erosion or infringement. For any government to do so is to blatantly proclaim that everything I have sacrificed was for naught.
--Chuck

Why service members don't really matter to any candidate.

There are 511,102 US military personnel stationed in, or deployed to foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
155,000 in Iraq
33,000 in Afghanistan
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines,
196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,

116,000 in Europe,
1,000 in Kyrgyzstan

38 in Georgia
In the Middle East (excluding the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.
700 in Guantanamo,

413 in Honduras,

147 in Canada,

and 16,601 Afloat.

These soldiers, sailors, marines naval infantry, and airmen are all over 18, very few (if any) have felony records, roughly 40% are married, and all are encouraged by their chain of command to vote, are provided with everything they need to request and submit absentee ballots, and even a voting officer, whose job it is to ensure that every last one of us who wants to vote is able to do so.

Roughly 120 million voters pulled the lever in 2004. In the big picture, with a similar turn-out, that means .5% of the vote would be the military's absentee ballots.

Big deal--that's only going to matter in a tie-breaker, right?

Not so fast, mathmagician.
Precincts report vote tallies throughout the day on election day.

As tallies are reported, when the state reaches the number of registered voters equaling a percentage of the vote (for example: we have 100 registered voters, when we have 50 votes turned in, we're 50% done, and can begin casting electoral votes.)

You see, the way the electoral college works the POTUS and VP are decided by an election of the states, not the public, and the electors votes are based upon the laws of each state's constitution. State A may have all electoral college votes go to the winner of the popular majority, State B may have their votes split according to the ratio of popular votes, State C may have their votes cast based on where the cow flop lands, etc.

Worse still, electors ballots are secret, so if any elector casts a vote NOT in accordance with the state law, it's still counted, and the state may pursue legal action after the election is over, and the damage is done, but the ballots are secret, and although written, may not be used to determine how a delegate voted.

But what happens when of those 100 registered voters, 10 were absentee ballots, and 25 registered voters just didn't vote that day? Only 85 votes are tallied, and so only 85% of the vote determines how the electoral college votes.

Seems fair, everyone who showed up or sent in a ballot had their votes counted, right?

Not so fast. lets look at one state as an example of all 50, since I don't have time to review the absentee laws in every state.

California law provides 28 days after the election for election officials to count ballots and finalize election results.

So, 65 voters come in. 25 stay home. 10 don't get counted for the next 27 days. Of the voters who came in, 30 voted for candidate A, and 35 voted for candidate B. The electors cast their votes with 100% of the polls closed and reporting in, and candidate B wins, and in the news all over the globe, Candidate A concedes, Candidate B claims victory, and there is much rejoicing.

27 days later, the other 10 votes are counted, and candidate A got 9 more, and candidate B got one. The result is now 39-36 in favor of Candidate A. But now, a month after the elections, is anyone going to say--wait, nazzo fast. The president-elect, isn't him, it's him (or her.)

Now, what if that only happened in California? Well, that's 55 electoral votes, 14 more than the second most in NY. Given that that there are 538 electoral votes, and a candidate only needs 270--a majority of ONE vote, even if this scenario happened in Delaware, D.C., Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming (each has only 3 electoral votes) then in any race with a margin of less than 55 electoral votes, this is a very real possibility.

So, now I've proven that it is possible for absentee ballots to change the outcome of elections.

Absentee ballots can't be required to be in before election day, but may be required to be in on election day. Some states start counting them early, but can't report results until election day, others leave them sealed and start counting them on election day, etc.

How many states didn't complete vote counts of polling station votes within 24 hours of election day in the last election? (Ohio.)

Now, lets assume the following: any government bureaucracy will only function at the minimum capability or capacity necessary to maintain or improve their funding levels, or at the very minimum to keep from being fired? If you can wrap your head around that maxim (think about your last trip to the DMV) then it isn't hard to conclude that not all absentee ballots get counted before the last day they can be counted by law.

So, with <500K votes out there and available, and with the military likely representing the largest single demographic of voters (aside from senior citizens who probably think it's a slot machine) why do our candidates not do a lot more with troops than simply use them for photo-ops and backdrops? Because our votes may not be "really" counted. Sure, they'll be read and registered, and counted and tallied and reported, but no one, and I mean no one, is going to go on TV 28 days after being referred to as "Mr. President" and concede the election to the other candidate. Even if all the votes were counted, and the popular vote did, in fact sway a clear majority of electoral votes to the other guy, the electoral votes have already been counted and tallied, and cannot be changed.

My recommendation? Another constitutional change, but a necessary one, since our founding fathers never really intended a standing full-time globally-deployed Military. And the best part, is that it is such a simple idea, too. The military gets its own electoral college votes, based on the number of registered voters there are in the military in proportion to the number of people in the military. The more we participate in the process, the bigger our voice gets. Congress sets the size of the DoD in the budget, but they still have to leave us large enough to defend our country. All military absentee ballots go to the military electors, and they cast their ballots accordingly. A military primary election will determine the distribution of the electoral votes, either as a ratio, all for one, or somewhere in between. All electors from the military are chosen at random, by the military, and their identities are kept confidential.

It's time we had an equal voice in our government. Equal to the folks who liv behind the wall we stand on.

Now, since that isn't ever going to happen, I am going to tell Larry, Moe, and Curly how than can, in a single day, lock up the vote of 90% of the military, and score a huge PR victory at home.

Go be with the troops. Share their stories, their ideas, and their risks.

Time in the chow hall is one thing. Great, you got to meet the chain of command, get a brief, and dine with the top 10 soldiers in the unit.

Want mad respect and props that would spread by word of mouth and blogosphere hotline like ringworm at a wrestling match? Go to Iraq, unannounced. Go to a random COP, or FOB. Suit up, in uniform, no bodyguards. Grab a rifle, helmet, and vest. Go on ONE patrol. Man ONE checkpoint for a few hours. Raid ONE house. Build ONE swingset on a playground. Pass out ONE truckload of school supplies.

Do any of these missions right alongside the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine, without body guards, cameras, pomp or circumstance. Let the troops take your picture to send home. You'll still be on CNN by the end of the day. The difference is that even if you spend the day there and don't see anything but goats, flies, and a naked guy walking his pet chicken (he lives on Blue babe highway just past CP 33 , near FOB Gabe. Trust me.) You will have shouldered the exact same burden you are asking them to share for you, someday. If you get into a firefight, or get hit by an IED, you will be able to beat your chest and brag how you were able to perform under fire, at risk of life and limb, etc. If you get wounded, you can even use that to distance yourself from the others, "I risked life and limb, and luckily, all I lost was limb. What have you risked, douchebag?"

You will show those 0.5% that you don't consider yourself, their wanna-be Commander in Chief as above the risk, above them, or place a higher value on your life than you do on theirs. You may have already served in a war, maybe even distinguished yourself there. But each war is different, sacrifices are different, and during an election you need to work to get my vote, not rest on your laurels and expect my vote. Show your support not with words, but with actions.

Really, it's the least you can do, since two of you don't support the military at all, and one of you is just there for the photo-op. (And you're still an asshat, John McCain.)

--Chuck

We, the little people

An open message for all Americans to send to their respective party leadership, regardless of their political stance.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, the little people want you, our elected leadership to do just that, and only that.

form a more perfect union.
establish Justice.
insure domestic tranquility. *
provide for the common defense.
promote the general welfare.
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves** and our posterity

Those are the things that are charged in the preamble to the constitution, from which you derive your authority to legislate.

We don't want you wasting your time, or our money making proclamations which do not serve us--for example, things like recognizing "Cuba solidarity day," Honoring Arnold Palmer for his distinguished career in the sport of golf and his commitment to excellence and sportsmanship, Recognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation, National Day of the American Cowboy, Congratulating Albania and Croatia on Talks with NATO, et cetera. If you come across a resolution or proclamation that sounds good, but has no real impact on our lives, don't bother with it.

We, the little people, are paying you for a service. The service you provide as a member of the legislative branch is to work as hard as you can to make our lives just a little bit better, within the bounds of the constitution. We don't want you to use the money we give to the government to "create" jobs, as a capitalist democracy, we want you to encourage the free market to create jobs.

We, the little people, don't want anyone in our nation to be denied basic needs of food, water, shelter, and clothing. We would rather donate our monies to charities that can assist those less fortunate, than to an enlarged government bureaucracy that does the same thing, just not as effectively.

We, the little people, are sick and tired of our elected leaders playing shell games with the budget, by attaching riders to bills to fund pet projects. If you are unwilling to introduce a bill for a specific project, because it is unpopular or fiscally irresponsible, then you shouldn't do it.

We, the little people, realize that their are functions of the government that must remain secret, because to publicly air every function of our security would leave it vulnerable to attack. We trust that you will oversee these security measures with us, your constituents, our lives and our freedom, in mind, and not the effect on "global opinions" of other nations.

We, the little people, could give a rat's ass about steroids in sports, spying between sports teams, and all the other entertainment-related minutiae you continue to hold hearings on. Sports and recreation are entertainment, you should only get involved if through their actions, we, the little people, get screwed.

We, the little people, simply ask that the roads don't have many potholes, the lights come on when we flip the switch, we can afford to fuel our cars to take us to work and back without needing a second mortgage, that our food, water and air are healthy, that our borders are secure from foreign invaders, that we are as secure as possible from terrorism, that we are able, at all times to defend ourselves from violence, that criminals are punished commensurate with their crimes, that our military is the best trained and equipped military in the world at all times, and that our elected leaders maintain transparency in their actions.

We, the little people, simply wish to live our lives as we see fit, deciding for ourselves what is best for us, and not what is best for our neighbor. We want our government to impede on our lives, liberty, and property as little as possible. We ask only that our government stay within its constitutional boundaries and only do the work they are required by our constitution to do, without seeking to expand their powers.

Finally, we, the little people, want our government to realize that our rights are not "granted" by the constitution, our rights are inherent in us, inalienable, and not for debate. Our constitution tells our government what they can do, and that first and foremost, they cannot do anything to abnegate those rights. We, the little people, paid for our freedom for generations with our lives, and we will do so again, against any foreign or domestic enemy who chooses to try and limit our freedom. We, the little people, want our government to fear us, and not because we could vote you out of office. We want you to fear us because you know that if you don't do the job you are supposed to do, we are likely to decorate the trees in the mall with you.

Respectfully,

Joe A. Citizen
American Lumber and Rope Company
USA

*"Insure" is to take out a policy. "Ensure" is to make sure something happens. This means our laws should quell public discourse, not encourage it.

**secure the blessings... to ourselves means we, the little people want to enjoy the blessings of liberty; not that we exist to provide the means for you to do so.

I'll have to stop

calling spades spades, apparently.

Article 88 of the UCMJ states:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

Since this is a neither a purely private conversation, and I have made personally contemptuous comments about some of the less "honorable" actions of some members of the congress, I am still okay because I never call the whole of congress on the carpet. I select members based on their individual actions and hold them up to the light. (Unlike many members of congress have done with individual actions to represent the entire military.)

I have always been of the impression that this blog is one of personal (and not official) opinion, and that any commentary I make here is done as a private citizen, exercising free speech rights. I never say anything disparaging about my command, or commander in chief, because they are in charge. I've long held the belief that congress was fair game, because they just pay the bills, as it were. I understand now that the individual members of congress are fair game, but I cannot call them out for stupidity as a whole organization.

So I will continue calling select members of congress asshats, douchebags, cocksuckers, etc. when they show blatant disrespect for the armed services, ask for resolutions to surrender, waste our tax dollars on frivolity, and try to play hide the pickle in the men's rooms. I can call them out individually, but cannot use the collective "congress."

Why when planning for peace, you prepare for war.

if this happened to my family, I would be in jail (temporarily) for the murder of every last one of these asshats. Mostly, because I'd be armed when it started, and temporarily, because they attacked my wife and child. I'd also shoot each of the attackers in the face, just to make sure thay had closed caskets.

Iraq War Veteran and Family Assaulted!

April 22, 2008

Peace Fascists, College Professors and Hillary Supporters assault Iraqi War Veteran and Family while citizens do nothing to intervene.

Edinboro, PA, Apr. 22

For the second time in as many weeks, an Iraq War Veteran and his family held a Support the Troops rally across the street from the weekly “peace” protest in this college town. This week the true nature of the ‘peace’ activists was revealed for all to see. When the veteran’s 14 year old son crossed the street to videotape the protesters and their signs, the protesters became agitated and began harassing the boy. The right to record video in any public venue is long established in law and any attempt to interfere with that right is a violation of civil rights.

Seeing the escalating tension across the street, the veteran and his wife crossed over, leaving their three youngest children on the other side for safety while they went to retrieve their eldest son. Two of the female ‘peace’ protesters then attacked the veteran’s wife. When the veteran pulled one of those attackers off his wife he was jumped by four or five of the ‘peace’ people and knocked to the ground where they held him while beating him and smashing his eyeglasses.

The son pulled the remaining attacker off his mother, but the attacker managed to get in one last kick to his mother’s head with her boot. She then punched the son in his face while his mother called the police.

This all took place at a busy intersection, the mother had been knocked into the street in bumper to bumper traffic. People were visible in the windows of shops and a bar nearby. One might think someone would intervene to put a stop to the assault. One would be wrong. In a scene eerily reminiscent of the Kitty Genovese tragedy in New York, the bystanders and passers-by refused to stand up to the ‘peace’ thugs. Displaying a craven cowardice one would not have expected in middle America they would rather go on their way thankful that it was not them being assaulted. It was NOT them, today, but what about tomorrow?

When the police arrived they reviewed the video of the incident and then, astonishingly, refused to make any arrests, even when one of the ‘peace’ thugs spit in the face of the 14 year old boy right in front of the police and they did nothing! Officers, that is an assault! I don’t know where or how they train police in Edinboro but they obviously need some refresher courses!

One of the police was very aggressive toward the veteran and his family as if they were the attackers!

I think it is long past time for the people in this country to wake up to the violence of the ‘peace’ movement. I think it is long past time for them to realize that not standing up to the excesses of violence will only beget more violence.

Last Fourth of July, in New Jersey, one of these ‘peace’ people walked up to a young veteran of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan and shot him in the heart just because he was in the military. Last month another person or persons unknown detonated an improvised explosive device at the Armed Forces Recruiting Station in Times Square. Today a veteran and his family were assaulted in plain daylight on a public street in view of dozens of people and not one lifted a hand to help. This is not the America I grew up in. This is the Amerika the ‘peace’ crowd is bringing to your town and neighborhood.

Dan Maloney
NY State Coordinator
Gathering of Eagles

Ping!

We are at a critical juncture in the war on terror. After seven years that we've been actively, and overtly fighting (the other side has been for the last fifty, in one form or another) the sweaty-eyed bringers of jihad, the winners (that's us, so far) are ready for a break.

An unconcerned nation is "ready for change."

I have said many times that we are a military at war, but not a nation at war. Want proof?

Helicopters are made from titanium. (well, certain parts are, anyway.) I remember some helicopters being shot down in the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq, back in 2003. Before that, we'd lost some aircraft in Afghanistan, either through direct action or just from the age, wear, and stress on the airframe.

Anyone care to venture a guess on how many helicopters have been built to replace the ones lost? Remember, helicopters are pacing items in divisions--their operational readiness and maintenance is the top logistical priority within the division. So how many have been built?

Not one.

Why? Remember what I was saying about titanium? It is a very strong, lightweight metal. It has many uses, and is hard to make and machine, so there aren't that many places that work the alloy. Currently, the manufacturer of the titanium parts that we need for these helicopters has other contracts to fulfill. Defense contracts? U€m, not exactly. The products they are currently making are golf clubs. Specifically, titanium drivers for everyone from Tiger to the millions of other idiots who spend perfectly good afternoons chasing little balls around a manicured lawn, often at exclusive clubs, and who spend hundreds, or thousands of dollars for the privilege, instead of just a few hundred dollars, plus ammo, for a real man's sport. (One that requires more skill, concentration, focus, and balance than golf does. After all, I drink when I golf, but only after I shoot.)

Digressing again. Back on topic. Our nation isn't anywhere near running out of helicopters. But all airframes have a useful life before they must be rebuilt. For every bird that is down, the others have to fly instead, or the mission doesn't get flown. So either a dustoff doesn't happen (okay, never heard of that one) or there are no airplanes for air support (had that happen a few times). Eventually, all of the fleet wears out faster--and since they aren't getting replaced, the rest wear out exponentially faster. All so that a bunch of rich white guys can hit a little white ball farther than they could before (albeit not any more accurately.) Hopefully, before the last Apache falls from the sky, it will fire its last hellfire missile at a foursome on the tee.

The thing that galls me most about our nations leaders (especially the legislative branch) is that they have somehow gotten it into their thick heads that they are supposed to set policy about how a war is prosecuted. I thought their job was to write laws--you know, legislate. I know that they are also responsible for the purse, and as such are responsible for ensuring the money spent on defense is spent wisely and not squandered (which is also the job of the GAO.) Congress confirms the promotion and selection of general officers. After that, they really out to spend more time legislating than blustering for camera time.

The question the generals on measures of success--on what the real story is like, what the ground truth is. But how many of them have gone on their little beloved "fact finding missions" to see for themselves? How many have spent the night in a battalion toc, somewhere south of baghdad? How many have gone to Iraq to really spend some time with the troops, instead of just flying from FOB to FOB (remember, airframes only last so long). How many have actually gone out on patrol? Not a overly secured, canine and equestrian theater patrol, but a real, mundane, road clearance (or, a "lets go find a bomb designed to kill us" patrol.)

Of the liberal "out of Iraq now!" crowd, How many of them realize that Iraq is one of the very few middle eastern cultures that, thanks to us, allows women to vote?

Speaking of the changes we've made, Iraq is the ONLY middle eastern country to EVER throw a noose around the neck of a despot, after electing a government, and then holding internationally monitored trials. Ever.

But I wonder... how do you measure success in Iraq? When is it safe enough? When is self-sufficiency apparent, when is the right time to leave, before the citizens of Iraq throw us out as occupiers instead of embrace us as friends. To be sure, some are ready to see us go. And not all of them are the bad guys. Some want us to go and life to stabilize--one way or another. Either the wahabbi win, or the democracy flourishes, or another country (Iran) moves in and becomes the new leadership. Was the military ever given clear cut performance indicators, or measures of success for what we had to do in Iraq? Anything less obtuse than "Destroy military, find WMDs, oust Saddam. After that, we'll see." And then later on, "hold local, regional, and national elections, establish a provisional government, protect the country from devolving into civil war, then hold national elections for a permanent government once the provisional government writes and ratifies a constitution. Completely rebuild and repair the country's infrastructure, rearm, equip, and train the military and police forces, get them to go after the insurgents, terrorists and the other foreign fighters (Iran, Jordan, Syria) operating in Iraq. And oh, by the way, get the Iraqis to take the lead on all of that, make it seem like it was their idea, too."

Well, although our "leaders" in the congress never so much as put any of those ideas in a memo, (other than to malign our progress) they have no compunction with questioning our success.

And for the record, we have done every last one of those things. Also for the record, the WMDs are in Syria, and we've proof of that, too.

But, according to evil party, the people are "ready for change." Perhaps they are referring to the spare change people will be getting for paychecks, once they emplace socialized medicine under the guise of universal healthcare. Maybe we'll all be safer when the porous borders become policy, and even more foreigners enter illegally for the health care. In turn, this will drive the costs up, and the level of care down, but we'll just pay for it like we do social security, right?

I, for one, am ready for change. I want a candidate for president who doesn't speak in platitudes. I want a fiscally responsible government, not just in terms of spending, but also in terms of taxing. I want leaders who see their duties and responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution, and don't go beyond them.

Yeah, I want a change. I want the majority of my countrymen turned away from military service, because we have plenty of people to fight our wars, instead of cubed scores of recruiters offering every possible benefit of society just to garner service. I really want change in the minds of our society, to stop following the trends of junk science, and listen to logic. Stop making the assumption that just because it sounds like it makes sense, and feels good, it has to be right.

I want real change. I want a government led by people who don't think that things like climate change, gas mileage, or nature can be legislated. I want a government that realizes the true benefit of alternative sustainable energy development, and what should be its ultimate goal, is to marginalize and neutralize our dependency on foreign governments. We cannot be a beacon to the world, lighting the path to freedom and democracy, when someone else controls the amount of oil in the lamp. If we didn't have to pay so much for oil, then the house of Saud, et al, wouldn't be funding their war on freedom with our dollars.

I really want change. In a capatist society, anyone who even proposes a "windfall tax" because a company or individual is wildly successful would be dragged out into the street, hung by their feet, and fed to pigs. In other terms, a windfall tax, just like any scaled taxation, is a penalty on success. Those who would impose it are those who believe that the state should provide everything for the people, and in return, the people should provide everything to the state. We, the people, are supposed to be of a stock and character that believes the government should only exist to provide for the common welfare and intrude into the lives of its citizenry as little as possible.

I think the true fall of our society, like the fall of Rome, is going to come from within. We can't come to terms with external threats, we can't, as a nation, rise up and fight against those who have sworn to destroy us.

At least when we do fall as a society, when that day comes, as it inevitably will, whether it is next year or in the next millennium... at least we'll have plenty of golf clubs.

--Chuck

So this guy...

Decided to crawl out from whatever rock he was living under (or abortion clinic he was picketing) and start posting in the comments section of my post, where I asked people to pray for my sick son.

This is the condensed version:

...when you ask people to pray, you should say please.

...take this opportunity to gage just how much you care for your son

...contemplate the idea that the child could be lost.

...consider the irony as you ask people to pray for your son, which I did gladly, when you will not stand in defense of his children in the womb yourself.

...Atheists, Honest to God, don't count, in terms of what they have to say, or don't have to say. You can ignore them, and not lose anything of value.

..."For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." (Mark 13:22) Anyone who goes to fight for the victory of freedom in Iraq, is part of the elect.

You can read it all in the commentary of my previous post, but I thought I'd bring it up to see the light day in its own post.

First question for Stephen: Exactly how many children have you adopted, or offered to adopt, from mothers who were contemplating abortion?

Since you like bible quotes so much, wrap your noodle around this one, and then tell me how God will punish someone who has an abortion and later, believes it to be a sin, asks God for forgiveness:

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (resurrection).

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."

Romans 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Timothy 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

1 Charles 3:7 Verily I say unto you, thou doth be an asshat! 2 Go forth from this place of derision and fight thine windmills, for they be dragons. 3 Do not judge others unjustly, or take such upon yourself to tell others how the lord your god shall judge them, for it is impetuous and boastful to claim to speak for your lord and master, when you have not been given that authority.


Now then, face the wrath of my loyal readers, as they take you to task for your stupidity and your blathering.

--Chuck

I want my children...

...to attend this school.

Read the whole thing. Best part: "[They]...managed to stab several students before armed school counselors arrived and shot them dead." {emphasis added}.

Someone please explain to me what would have happened had this been a "gun free zone?"

--Chuck

Religion and Politics

SFC Swartzy hits the nail on the heard re: rivalry. Service rivalry always exists, including during times of war, and right up until the bullets fly. Then it stops, until the bullets stop, and it starts right back up, including who fought harder, lost more, won more, etc.

As for mormonism, I never claimed to not like Mormons. I would serve under one, would haver them work with and for me. Would treat them just like anyone else, (well, except for buddhists and amish) But I wouldn't vote for one to be my president. Wouldn't vote for a scientologist, atheist, or a clinton either.

People can bluster all they want about it, but I won't let anyone tell me how to vote, or what I should or should not let sway my decisions.

I have an innate fear of religion that bans the use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and encourages the sparing consumption of meat. Christ made water into wine at Cana, just to keep a wedding reception rocking. Ideas about conservative dress are also screwy. They range from the monochrome of the mormon messenger to the head-to-toe burkha of the muslim. Why are these religions so worried about seeing the beauty in the human form? God made us in his image, why is looking upon it, bad? (Okay, I understand the lust argument, but the sin is lust, not the flesh. It's the lack of discipline, of control over self that is sinful.) As for limiting the intake of meat, God must've put the wrong teeth in my head, because the majority of my teeth are designed for the tearing and chewing of meat--otherwise we'd have teeth like cows.

So is it god, or the mormon church, which is fallible here?

I really do like the LDS focus on family, community, and missionary work. But, get this, I've read the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants, the pearl of great price, and even the King James Bible . Then, I did pray on it--The answer I got was "if it leaves you confused and questioning, and you aren't sure, then it isn't for you." I accept God on faith. I accept the church, any church, on fact.

But I am not going to debunk mormonism.

I say again, It isn't for me, and it isn't the way I choose to believe. But it also doesn't mean that it's protected from my freedom to a) make fun of it or b) make it a criteria for choosing a candidate.

Why include religion in a discussion of politics? Religion is the single most important choice a person makes. We vote based on how we perceive the beliefs of the candidates--in essence, we want them to share our beliefs. If their most important belief differs from ours, why would we vote for them?

--Chuck

Lamentations

Berkley. Toledo. Verizon. Hilton. The list goes on endlessly.
More and more often, those of us in uniform are being shunned. Reading commentary on news articles, it’s apparent that many view the military as a dreadnaught, bent on the eventual establishment of a military dictatorship. Many feel we should be kept separate from the population—left to train, fight, and live away from civilians. They feel that our training to conduct Stability and Support operations is secretly planned to “desensitize” the population to accept military presence and eventually, military rule.

Lately, I wonder if the country is worth defending, let alone saving. People refer to posse commitatus as cause to keep the military away from civilians. PC is really a law that says we can’t be used AGAINST the citizenry and can’t be used to conduct Police action against citizens. Granted, there are times when the military is used for civilian population control—LA, Watts, Chicago—and disaster relief (Katrina, Hugo, Andrew)—and even to fight forest fires. These are extreme conditions that require the use of our specialized abilities. Abilities like manpower, communications, logistical and medical support, and WAY down the list is law enforcement.

I think what bothers me most is the distrust of the defenders. People posit that the military would follow orders to establish some kind of police state. In effect, they believe that we are all brainwashed to follow orders without thought. They believe that we are incapable of free thought, that we will follow any order, regardless of its legality.

Truth be told, even if the law changed to make it legal, I wouldn’t follow an order like that. I am a citizen first, soldier second. All of us wearing the various uniforms of the DoD are citizens first. We were not dragged from our homes by recruiters, we willingly joined the service and took our oaths. But people don’t see us that way.

Once we put on the green, or blue, or khaki, we immediately lose our free will, individuality, and ability to follow reason or logic. We become the mindless automatons of future fiction, Orwellian monsters bent on control. Toledo brought this to a point with me. Commentary ran along the lines of “The marines don’t belong among us.” Those Marines are Americans, too. They don’t belong among other Americans?

This complete lack of understanding within the population of who and what we are is appalling. It really highlights the separation we face, as 1/300th of the population. There are 1 million Military personnel, defending 300 Million citizens. Veterans and Memorial holidays are all but meaningless, little more than an opportunity for businesses to advertise and politicians to blather on about “supporting the troops” whether they support the mission or not. People exchange the ribbon du jour for a yellow one, or a red-white-and blue ribbon, and wear it until the next cause or holiday comes along. Businesses are sure to slap their banners, slogans, and ads on every moving or visible stationary object… where they can get the maximum exposure to their customers. Sure, they’ll give support to the parade committee… for some opportunity to have “face time” with the crowds. As long as they get something out of the deal, it’s a good idea.

What do we, as a county, really do to honor Veterans and memorialize the sacrifices of others? Most people can’t really explain the difference between 11 November and the last Monday in may—except to know it’s another day off, to be spent at the sale racks and the backyard barbecues. Most people don’t even bother to attend the local parades. And military and veteran’s hospitals are virtually ghost towns on three-day weekends. I know, I’ve been in them for many holidays.

The country has grown away from its defenders. We are seen as outsiders in our own land, unwanted, unwelcome, and only kept as a necessary evil. We are the red-haired stepchildren that our own countrymen really wish would just fade into the background noise of society. We’re the most silent minority, bound by duty and honor to protect a population from the world, at cost of our own lives and fortunes, and we will accept every slight, every disgrace, every act of bigotry against us from our own citizenry—even the worst assault—that we willingly waste our lives, and are held as objects of scorn and ridicule.

I still believe in the ideals of our founding fathers. I believe in our military and its missions. I believe in the potential greatness of our society and nation. I believe in everything except the support of the overall population. I know there are many who support the nation’s defenders. I am honored to know many of them, who will sacrifice all they have for those who serve. They are the ones who I fight for—the ones whose freedom I will die for.

The contrarians—the people who malign the military, who repudiate us, who see us at best as a necessary evil—they may have numbers equal to our supporters. Their numbers may be greater, may be fewer, but they are just as vocal in their detraction as our supporters are in their ovation. They refuse to stand up and be counted, so it is hard to gauge their numbers, and determine if this country does or does not stand behind its defenders.

Worse still are those who are lukewarm. Who show support when it is fashionable, and rail against the government and military when that, too is en vogue. They truly don’t concern themselves otherwise with us; we don’t really have any affect or effect on them and their observable world. As long as the bread sustains them and circuses entertain them, we simply don’t matter, or even exist.

I would be hard pressed to convince my son or daughter to defend them.

And so I am left a soldier who holds a large part of his nations’ population in contempt rivaling the scorn they hold me in; a toxic situation that may someday devolve into active aggression. Good thing we’ve got the really cool guns, and these same asshats are usually the ones wanting to take guns out of civilian hands.

I pity them, I really do. Many are so blind with hatred and rage that they are incapable o reasoning or rational thought. They malign and impugn our president, our government, the military, big business, and anything else they know little about as evil and bloodthirsty.

I’m spent. I am exhausted mentally and physically drained as well. Pain and medication both take their toll, wearing me down until I just don’t want to resist any more… just want the niggling pain to disappear, instead of simply being kept at bay. I want to sleep without dreams, without memories that leave me breathless and awake; my heart pounding so hard I feel it will erupt from my chest. And then alone, awake, with my thoughts, fears, and regret, to suffer until I can at long last collapse—hopefully too tired to dream.

It must be the brainwashing and mind-control beams again… time to buy more Reynolds’s wrap.

--Chuck

Just one question...

The Great Joe Huffman, of boomershoot fame, asks just one question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

There are three possible answers to this question.

1. "I don't know." In which case my response is, "Come back to the debate when you can answer 'Yes' or 'No'."
2. "No." In which case my response is, "Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don't want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again."
3. "Yes and here is my demonstration."

Can anyone here give answer #3?

/crickets

--Chuck

Good thing they don't allow handguns there

Dinna hear about this elsewhere, the brit news failed to mention that guns are absolutely a no-no in chi-town.

It's a good thing, too. Because it means people are safe from this sort of thing happening.

--Chuck

Who should we really celebrate today?

Of course, MLK was an iconic figure of the 1960's. He was a civil rights leader who is directly responsible for the formative years of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan. He fought against racial hatred and helped break through the second-class citizen status suffered by Niggers Nigrahs Coloreds Blacks Afro-Americans African-Americans People of Color whatever the PC term is for people with brown skin that may have ancestors originating in Africa, and may be related to former slaves, so that hey may see themselves now as "more equal" than others and "more deserving" due to the past transgressions of dead white people over dead brown people.

Of course, the good Dr. King had the right intentions. He can't be held accountable for the "good ideas" of his followers after his death. (Kinda like Malcolm X, L. Ron Hubbard, Karl Marx, and Jesus Christ.) if nothing else, he did manage to bring the bus service in Selma, Alabama to its knees.

Now, before anyone plays the racist card, let me say this: save it. I don't take issue with MLK because of his color. My umbrage lies in his legacy, which has boiled down to a day off in January (although we can't get a day off for the one guy who completely emancipated the slaves, he's lumped in with the rest of the Presidents--Filmore, Clinton, Wilson, etc.) and a street in every city that is lined with chicken and waffles stands, liquor stores, payday loan/pawn/catalog shoppes, and other "enterprises of dubious nature" that provide vice- and homicide- squads overtime from coast to coast.

Of course, Hillary knows who really made change in the civil rights era:


























My vote: lets celebrate the original protester, or protestant, as the case may be. Taking on the status-quo in America is one thing, taking on a church that controls your immortal soul, and its access to the afterlife is another. Sure, he didn't approve of evil joos, but that was de riguer for the 16th century, and he had to choose his battles. (I doubt anyone would say he took the easy way out by going after the Papacy instead of championing God's chosen people.)





















I don't think we should NOT celebrate Doctor Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s achievements and eventual martyrdom, but I think we should also celebrate the legacy of man who took on the church, who questioned the fallibility of the pope, the right of the common man to read and interpret scripture, who saw God in Nature, and who, if not for his championship, the seeds of Protestantism, Individual rights, and even the very seeds of our forefather's understanding of life, liberty, and happiness would never have been cultivated.