Another War

On That Mr. G Guy's Blog there's a post up entitled Obama's War.

After quoting from the UN Resolution giving the good countries permission to attack one of the bad countries, which everyone knows is a thinly disguised charade to pretend the US is not behind all this world policing, Mike (Mr. G Guy) had this to say.

That is the ultimate irony…that Obama who was sooo against the “Bush wars” would turn around and involve the US military in another war without even asking the Congress for approval. Obama wears his hypocrisy like a General wears his combat ribbons.

I'm in total agreement with that, after having been an Obama supporter and defender long enough. That period of my life ended when he announced an escalation of the Afghanistan action in the West Point speech a year or so ago.

The only thing I might question is the use of the word "hypocrisy." I'm not sure that's exactly right, I was thinking more like, "behaviour spineless, wishy-washy, political lackey who does what the hell he's told," as George so clearly explained.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Interesting Health Statistics from Kaiser health news web site

I came across this site online from Kaiser while researching a quite different topic for a penigma post, and thought it would be appropriate here.  I was researching how red states compare with blue states for effectiveness of political ideology as measured by various statistics in comparison, like crime and population in prison.

This is an interactive map, by clicking on state you can see that state's gun death statistic.  It is worth noting that the highest rates for gun deaths are among the red states, but not all of them - for example South Dakota and Nebraska are also among the lowest gun death states. 

In that red state blue state series, one of my commenters suggested there was greater freedom in higher gun ownership.  I argued back that there is no great freedom - or safety - in putting greater numbers of people behind bars, or in being dead from a shooting.

Check out your state!

John Lott on the Obama Statement

via Big Government

Included in a list of items proving that Obama is still and always the gun-rights Antichrist, John had an innovative way of explaining the National Parks legislation which is one of the few concrete gun decisions made during Obama's presidency, and one which is clearly pro-gun.

In fact, Obama allowed the change in regarding the guns in national parks, not because he supported the idea, but because it was a very popular amendment to a bill that he wanted, the “Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009.”

It's creative ideas like that which make Prof. Lott stand out among gun bloggers. Then presuming his superficial arguments have been convincing, and that contrary to evidence we now believe the president has been pushing for "more gun regulations," he goes on to say this.

Obama’s push for more gun regulations begs a question he refuses to address. When have any of the laws that he has supported previously reduced crime rates? It would be nice if some in the press, including Dionne, would actually ask whether the previous background check changes reduced crime rates. Yet, again, may be they don’t ask the question because they already know the answer.

Talk about creative, talk about innovative, was that a slick way to link to one's own book on Amazon or what?

The fact is, what "they already know" is that "more guns, less crime" is a ridiculous idea that is only supported by biased gun owners desperate for justification.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

A Compelling Argument for Guns on Campus

NECN reports

A woman sexually assaulted in a campus parking garage by a convicted killer and rapist told state lawmakers Friday that she could have defended herself if she were allowed to carry a concealed weapon at the University of Nevada, Reno.

"I would have at some point during my rape been able to stop James Biela," Amanda Collins told the Senate Committee on Government Affairs during emotional testimony.

Collins testified in favor of a bill sponsored by Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas. The bill would remove a requirement that people who hold a concealed weapons permit obtain permission from a college or university president to carry a gun on campus.

It's certainly hard to argue with that. But, isn't using the emotional appeal what gun control folks are supposed to be doing? It's funny how the more you read these stories the more you see the hypocritical double standard employed by the gun rights movement.

Getting beyond the emotional appeal of this woman's testimony, we find ourselves back with the same old arguments. Would guns on campus do more good than harm?

My questions run something like this:

1. Aren't forced rapes, like what happened in the parking garage in this case, only a tiny percentage of the violence done to women, most of which is done by acquaintances?

2. Wouldn't allowing guns on campuses, which might be useful in extremely rare incidents, also increase the numbers of gun-theft, negligent discharges and blatant misuse?

3. Wouldn't the presence of guns impede open dialogue between student and teacher which is often heated and passionate?

For me the answer is clear and no emotional appeal, however tragic, can change it. Guns are bad news for college campuses.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Winston Dorian on the Obama Statement

On his blog, 2nd Amendment, Shooting and Firearms Blog, Winston didn't really have anything new and interesting to say, but a couple things struck me as noteworthy.

What he chose to do this week is to make a thinly veiled call for gun owners to willingly give up our rights by calling on us to seek “agreement on gun reforms.” But gun owners will not be fooled by this cynical ruse.

"Cynical ruse?" Is that what he meant? Maybe that's one of those lawyer expressions, but I just don't get it.

He goes on to repeat much of what we've heard from the pro-gun side these last days. But the final paragraph is pretty amazing.

NRA has responded to the President’s op-ed (click here to read our response) and has declined the invitation to join in any discussions that have the obvious intent of diminishing our rights. And NRA will continue to decline any such invitations as long as President Obama’s anti-gun actions contradict his misleading campaign rhetoric.

Maybe I'm the last to know, it wouldn't be the first time, but is old Winston an NRA Board Member or does he speak for them in some other capacity. He referred to the official NRA statement as "our response." Of course he could be just a dues-paying member, but expressing it like that would be a bit over-blown, don't you think?

But the best thing about the summation paragraph is the description of Obama's actions.

as long as President Obama’s anti-gun actions contradict his misleading campaign rhetoric

What anti-gun actions do you suppose he's referring to? As president, the only actions taken have been pro-gun, the National Parks and the Amtrak trains. Even the president's inaction has been pro-gun, one could say. So what is Winston talking about?

I suspect that even Winston himself doesn't know.  It seems to me he's doing what so many pro-gun bloggers do, he's repeating the NRA talking points without even considering their merit.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Reporting Multiple Sales

Winston Dorian has the story.

The BATFE is demanding the authority to require all of the 8,500 firearm dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report all sales of two or more semiautomatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines. Yet, under existing law, the bureau has full access to every record of every firearm transaction by every licensed dealer, whether during a bona fide criminal investigation or simply to enforce compliance with record keeping requirements. This reporting scheme would create a registry of owners of many of today’s most popular rifles–firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes.

You'd think that guys like the gun-rights folks, who continually accuse their opponents of lying, would strive to keep it a bit cleaner themselves. But, you'd be wrong. In fact, all their accusations are just a smoke screen. The most mendacious and the best manipulative spinsters are the pro-gun fanatics themselves.

Example:The last sentence in the statement above which describes the dangerous attempt on the government's part to record multiple sales.

If they were a bit more honest, it would have said this:

This reporting scheme would create a registry of owners WHO BOUGHT TWO OR MORE IN A FIVE-DAY PERIOD of many, BUT NOT ALL, of today’s most popular rifles–firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes.

But they didn't say that. What they said was designed to give the impression that the government wants to compile a list of ALL gun buyers, which triggers the expected knee-jerk reaction of resistance on the part of the gun owning public.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Unarmed Hero

via Norwegianity from Nick Coleman's The State We're In

Mohamed Sawky is 39 and a U.S. Army veteran who is studying for a Master’s Degree in Organizational Leadership at St. Catherine’s University, with a concentration in Dispute Resolution. As the thief shouted at him to get out of the way, Mohamed resolved to end this particular dispute right here, right now. “No,” he told the guy. The guy then shoved Mohamed and sprinted for the door. Mohamed turned and sprinted after him. He nabbed him on the sidewalk, holding on and ducking as the thief tossed wild punches at him, landing a couple of hard ones before Mohamed wrestled him down on the sidewalk. It wasn’t easy.

Lucky for this thief, and the rest of the Starbucks customers, that no armed men were in there. That would have made things worse, don't you think?

Please leave a comment.