tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35656844942324293572024-03-12T21:07:21.586-04:00Light seeking a subjectRedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-55711785210988204942012-02-28T07:20:00.002-05:002012-02-28T07:20:56.849-05:00Act of ValorAs I posted over on <a href="http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=5123">Bob's</a> site:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="comment-text">
I caught it on Friday evening. My initial reaction was similar
to yours. “Those guys are NOT good actors” was the thought through my
head. And for anyone who might be confused by that statement, it’s a
compliment to the cast. They acted like men in those situations would
act, not in some surreal, overly dramatic, phony fashion.<br />
The action was good, it did not let down. As you say, there were a few
times where they’d call ‘frag out’ and then I’d have to ask myself if
they happened to lob the frag beneath an oil tank, or something to that
effect. HE grenades don’t pack the punch some of those bad boys did.
Except of course ‘THE GRENADE’ toward the end. That one was highly
realistic.<br />
Overall I think it was well written, and well executed. If you’re
looking for something with twists and turns in the plot to keep you
guessing as to what’s going to happen, this (intentionally) doesn’t have
it. It is far more realistic and simplistic in the delivery. And it
delivers a quality story, with main characters that are human, have
depth, have relationships with one another which impact their actions,
and have a very clear, very strong moral compass. These are people who
you can easily grow to admire and respect during the course of the
movie.</div>
</blockquote>
I really can't express the sense with which I left that theater. There was an overwhelming sense of humility, to know that there are those who serve in such a way, and have such towering character. there was also a sense of pride, to live in a country where such great men serve. There was also a sense of loss for so many who have made that sacrifice, and there was a sense of hope, for how many there are who continue to step up to "go downrange."<br />RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-50533310822448843382012-01-27T19:38:00.003-05:002012-01-27T19:38:37.499-05:00Low Plank ObliquesFor the record, I hate Low Plank Obliques. On the other hand, picking a Friday after work, after a long week, and fighting a stomach bug all week, and still not being up to 100% to start the Insanity work out is probably not the best decision I've ever made. On the other hand, this is the good kind of hurt.<br />
We shall see how this goes.RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-71745967974670600722012-01-24T07:52:00.001-05:002012-01-24T07:52:53.935-05:00Supporting StarbucksSource:<br />
http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/<br />
<br />
I won't allow this link to be clicked to send you on to the opposition. I don't want them getting 'hits' from me. However, if you copy and paste that into your web browser, you can see why I'm choosing to support Starbucks. They have the anti-rights crowd's panties in a twist.<br />
Essentially they have decided to not ban firearms, and rather are simply following the state regulations on weapons. They are choosing to stay neutral, and not infringe on anyone's rights, on either side. They aren't forcing people to carry weapons into their establishments, nor are they preventing it.<br />
Therefore, I will be visiting a Starbucks on 2/14/2012, somewhere in South-Western PA, spending my hard-earned money with them. I would encourage all of my friends to do the same as well.<br />
<br />
On the frustratingly-humorous side, check out this quote about a Glock:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong><em>It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.</em></strong></blockquote>
So, of course, the gun shot itself that often. Not the person who pulled the trigger. The gun chose to go commit the crime, not the criminal. And the people were defenseless against an inanimate object. If you listen to their arguments, you'd believe that guns were NOT inanimate objects, but beings with minds of their own, able to kill of their own volition.<br />
<br />
Idiots.<br />RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-10624004887736378372012-01-19T11:36:00.000-05:002012-01-19T11:36:01.007-05:00Reasonable Profits BoardSource:<br />
<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits">http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits</a><br />
<br />
My first question, why should any one person or group get to decide what a 'reasonable profit' for any other person or group is? The only times that applies would be...tax payers deciding what politicians should make, or church members deciding what their pastor(s) should make. <br />
This is a very frightening scenario:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board
that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the
sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides
no specific guidance for how the board would determine what a reasonable
profit is. </blockquote>
They want to be able to tax 100% of the profit above a certain amount. Arbitrarily determining what is appropriate for a company to make. <br />
<br />
Imagine you're in a business yourself for a moment.<br />
If you are going to be taxed 100% of your profit above a certain point, would you be likely to lower your prices, or change your reporting and how you determine what profit is?<br />
Another stance to take with this: If profit is limited, won't that lead to less R & D, and therefore fewer advancements in the industry, leading to stagnation, and job loss, as well as higher prices over all?<br />
<br />
As Quinn likes to say, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent."<br />
<br />
I would not be surprised in the least to see the result of something like this leading to higher prices at the pump. This should be discouraged in the strongest language possible. Contact your reps today!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-5854203128968347582012-01-18T10:29:00.000-05:002012-01-18T10:29:10.711-05:00Facebook gives Politico Private Information?Source:<br />
<a href="http://allthingsd.com/20120112/facebook-gives-politico-deep-access-to-users-political-sentiments/">http://allthingsd.com/20120112/facebook-gives-politico-deep-access-to-users-political-sentiments/</a><br />
<br />
The concept is essentially like Google's selling of statistical data. Except deeper and more personal. In theory, no one will be reading what you say in a 'This guy hates our ideas' kind of way. But it does open the door to abuse. It strikes me as a very slippery slope. <br />
<br />
What are your thoughts on this latest Facebook controversy?RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-59196847314786070862012-01-16T13:39:00.002-05:002012-01-16T13:39:45.926-05:00Nothing to AddSource:<br />
<a href="http://www.the-minuteman.org/content/2012/January/15/Open-Response-Joan-Peterson-Barron-Barnett">http://www.the-minuteman.org/content/2012/January/15/Open-Response-Joan-Peterson-Barron-Barnett</a><br />
<br />
Just read it.RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-21647163597885787152012-01-11T14:11:00.001-05:002012-01-11T14:11:40.358-05:00Cranky Chick - Writes to JoanSource:<br /><a href="http://sarahandmom.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/dear-joan-peterson">http://sarahandmom.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/dear-joan-peterson</a><br />
<br />
I found her open letter from <a href="http://www.weerdworld.com/2012/open-letter/">Weer'd</a> and fell in love with it. She expresses very precisely what is on all of our minds. <br />
She understands personal responsibility and true freedom far better than Joan could ever hope to grasp those elements of society.RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-82595350367704240562012-01-11T08:42:00.000-05:002012-01-11T08:42:04.323-05:00Logic vs. Candlelight VigilsSource:<br />Undisclosed.<br />
<br />
I won't link them, they don't need any traffic from me. But, I did make a mistake today. I strolled (clicked?) on over to the CSGV blog to read the post where they 'out' those who had negative things to say about their candle lighting vigil.<br />
I call this a mistake, because the quotes they pull tend to be tremendously out of context. When I decided to post a comment to point out that obvious error, I realized that commenting is disabled. Really? You're going to out people, using their real names and cities of residence, but won't even extend the courtesy of having an open dialog with those people? <br />
OK, I can wrap my brain around the fact that they are desperate enough to be that hypocritical, they are desperate. I can wrap my brain around their being on the wrong side of the issue, not everyone has taken the time to study various issues from a truly neutral standpoint. I can even wrap my brain around their attempting to take a holier-than-thou stance, it IS, after all, what people tend to do when they do not have the moral high ground.<br />
Where I have issues is with them claiming to be honoring those who have lost their lives to 'gun violence.' <br />
Not only is their <a href="http://www.weerdworld.com/category/gun-death/">premise a bad premise</a>, but the very act of mocking those killed in one incident in this fashion is appalling. Yes, I say they are mocking those killed, because they are using the tragedy to further their own agenda.<br />
Let's think about this logically:<br />
Step 1 - Define Vigil:<br />
<ol style="padding-left: 19px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal;">A period of keeping awake during the time usually spent asleep, esp. to keep watch or pray.</li>
<li style="list-style-type: decimal;">A stationary, peaceful demonstration in support of a particular cause, typically without speeches.</li>
</ol>
<br />
Step 2 - Determine their usage of it. <br />
Clearly, they are not using the first definition, as they are not keeping watch over anything, and I have yet to hear any of them invoke the name of our Creator. At least, not in a vain fashion. So, let's look more closely at the second definition. "...support of a particular cause..." <br />
Step 3 - Determine the intent. <br />
What cause? If the 'vigil' is to 'honor' deceased, that's not a cause which needs much intentional support. Step 4 - Apply logic to the method.<br />
Those who loved the deceased honor them as they deserve. Outside onlookers 'honoring' them tend to be a distraction, and a detraction, from any honor being given unto them. <br />
Which means that there's another motive. <a href="http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2012/01/10/dear-ladd-i-know-you-are-pissed-but-you-neednt-lie/">Is it an attention getting motive, as Miguel suspects?</a> I think that's a reasonable direction to go with this. So, really the 'cause' they are supporting here is drawing attention to themselves.<br />
Alternatively, other motives could include, but are not limited to, the following:<br />
<br />
Attempting to thwart their entrance into the dustbin of history.<br />
Attempting to redirect attention from the REAL issue (crime) and topple a straw man they have built.<br />
Attempting to gain monies from people who are too lazy to do the research behind the 'cause.'<br />
Attempting to force themselves into current issues in order to 'feel better' about themselves.<br />
Attempting to use a genuine tragedy perpetrated by a pathetic individual to further their own agenda.<br />
<br />
Please, comment below with your own ideas of what their motives or goals could have been. I'm curious to see what we can come up with!<br />
<br />RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-88008102004812889522012-01-10T13:27:00.001-05:002012-01-11T13:55:52.380-05:00Personal Experience: Carwash Ambush This isn't the first time I've had to use a firearm in self-defense. It's merely the first since I started blogging. But, several things come into play which I want to emphasize to anyone who happens to be reading this.On Sunday, I was hanging out with my daughter at my fiance's house. My future in-laws were there, the ladies doing wedding planning, my daughter and I watching a Narnia marathon, and a relaxing day being had by all. After the snow fall of the week prior, I decided it would be a good idea to wash the salt from the car before it had any more chance to corrode my paint and undercarriage, and make me another victim of the steel buckle of the rust belt.<br />
As such, I asked my daughter if she would like to accompany me to the car wash. Her eyes lit up, and after the Narnia movie which was playing at the time ended, we were on our way.<br />
Upon pulling into the parking lot, I noticed two young guys sitting on a curb along the back portion of the lot. They didn't strike me as significantly out of place, as there is a fair amount of pedestrian traffic there. This is not a bad part of town by any stretch of the imagination, and there are always people milling about.<br />
As I rounded the back end of the car wash, I asked my daughter whether we should use the 'spray it yourself' or the automatic wash. She chose the automatic, as she enjoys watching the machine do the work. Since this particular car wash has no brushes or rollers or other 'things-which-hold-dirt-from-other-cars-and-use-it-to-scratch-mine' I conceded, and proceeded to the far end of the building, getting in line behind a dark purple Pontiac Grand Am.<br />
At this point, I noticed that the Grand Am was a significant distance behind the next car up in line, but attributed that to the driver having the vehicle in park while waiting for others to move up, and being in no hurry, so I brushed it off. I looked into my mirror to chat with my daughter, and noticed out of the corner of my eye movement in my passenger side-view mirror. As I shifted focus to that mirror, I saw the aforementioned young men walking in the direction of my car, from behind. I then noticed that they both had their hands clutching things in such a way that I could not see what was in them. At this point, my senses went into overdrive, and I started taking in every detail of what they were doing.<br />
They split up behind my car, one coming to the driver, the other remaining on the passenger side. At this point, I knew hesitation COULD prove to be a problem, and taking a simple precaution would cause no problems. So, without interrupting my daughter (who was talking about something which for the life of me I can't remember now), I drew my firearm from my holster, and held it against my chest, with the barrel directed at the driver's window. As the kids reached the front doors of my car, they turned to face it from both sides. I turned to look at the one on my left, made eye contact, raised my gun ever so slightly. His eyes widened, and he turned to run. I then looked to my right, and saw what was in the hand of the kid on the other side of the car. An <a href="http://images.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/asp/images/asp52211.jpg">ASP</a>. At this point, I started to swing my firearm in his direction, expecting to have to fire it after he broke the glass. As soon as he saw what was in my hand, however, he also bolted. After he ran, the car in front of me (remember that dark purple Pontiac?) turned a tight turn, and booked it around the corner.<br />
The kid who had been by my driver's side door ran through one of the DIY carwash stalls, shoving the guy who was washing his car. I watched him on the other side, as the other kid reached him, and then the car. They jumped in, and took off up the street.<br />
My daughter, meanwhile, was blissfully unaware of the encounter. As a parent, I'm exceedingly grateful that I was not only able to protect her, but I was able to do it in such a fashion that she never had to feel any fear, and was able to continue her story with only a slight pause when she noticed the guys run from the car.<br />
The entire incident took a very short amount of time. I couldn't begin to guess how long it did take, but even reviewing the slow-motion capture in my head, there was very little time involved.<br />
<br />
Remember I said I wanted to point out a few things? Well, here are they key factors:<br />
1 - It was broad daylight.<br />
2 - It was in what is considered to be a safe area. A 'good part' of town.<br />
3 - This area, on the whole, has a lower crime rate than most of the rest of the USA.<br />
4 - I was not out looking for anything, instead trouble found me.<br />
5 - If I did not pay attention to my surroundings, things could have gone very differently, especially if I was not already preparing as they were approaching.<br />
6 - They did not have (that I was able to see) any firearms of their own. That would not have prevented them from perpetrating violence upon myself and my daughter.<br />
7 - If I had been unarmed, or prevented from owning or carrying a weapon, it would not have ended so peacefully.<br />
8 - One person against many doesn't stand a chance, without something to balance the odds. The threat of violence was sufficient to bring resolution to the situation without the need to follow through with the threat.<br />
9 - I hope the thugs who sought to ambush me (or whoever happened to pull into the lot behind their getaway) will reconsider their plans, and realize that their victims may not be willing to be victimized.<br />
<br />
This is just another reason why we have a 2nd amendment. Personal responsibility. Only I am able to protect myself and my family. I cannot rely on anyone else to do so.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: I spoke with the police, and let them know about the event. I provided as detailed a description of all the actors as best as I was able, and they have filed it as something for which to be alert. No incident report, nothing else exciting.RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-1502290321211032452012-01-10T07:43:00.001-05:002012-01-10T07:43:45.425-05:00Humbling NoteI needed something to kick-start me out of my lull in blogging. I think I found it with <a href="http://agirlandhergun.blogspot.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-anti-gun-folks.html">this article</a>. It's not written about blogging, but rather about the gun community. <br />
<br />
It really is a humbling thing, to be part of something so big, yet so small in how we treat one another. I really do have a tremendous amount of joy for this group of people all across this country. And while I will never be able to say it so succinctly or effectively as she already has, I will say that it is an honor to be a part of it!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-67705983727820288922011-12-12T12:42:00.002-05:002011-12-12T12:42:43.839-05:00Pittsburgh Post Gazette BiasSource:<br /><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195751-109-0.stm?cmpid=newspanel">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195751-109-0.stm?cmpid=newspanel</a><br />
<br />
So, his entire premise is sexist. Not to mention that he ignores simple, basic logic. <br />
My first question to the author of this article would have to be: "What about people who are legitimately weak? If your premise is that men don't need guns to be men, what about those with infirmities, women, kids at school, and other people who are at a physical disadvantage?" <br />
The usage of simple logic dictates that if we do away with firearms, the people with the most ability to use force will be those with the most force available. His goal is to return us to a day of inequality, where women were domineered by men, and other social injustices abounded. <br />
He also makes an enormous blunder when he references the Cullen report in Scotland. Their logic is that if the number of gun owners is decreased, the level of gun violence will decrease. This just makes no sense when you actually apply the logic of the real world to it. When you look at Scotland, which is well known for it's anti-gun laws, you see an INCREASE in violence, including gun violence. You see a higher per-capita rate of being a victim, and other things which indicate that disarming the populace serves the exact opposite purpose of it's stated intent.<br />
He also says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
The emphasis is on resolving disputes through force -- physical force initially, lethal force ultimately.</blockquote>
He misunderstands the intent completely. The emphasis is not on resolving disputes through force (if that was the case, there would be many more men in prison, businesses would contain boxing rings, and we'd see fist fights in stores over prices of goods.), rather it is on being prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones if someone else chooses to use force against us. It has nothing to do with disputes whatsoever. The reason I carry a gun is not to give me the upper hand in a dispute. It is to provide the even footing required to be safe if the unthinkable happens.<br />
Additionally he states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
Then there's the concomitant vigilante mentality and the belief that the
righteous gun owner may have to fight the government itself if his
Second Amendments rights (as he sees them) are not respected.</blockquote>
Firstly, he couldn't be further from the truth. We won't fight the government ONLY for our Second Amendment rights. Our founding fathers often made reference to the need to balance the government, and the only way to do that is with an armed citizenry. Again, the goal is not to go out looking for this lack of respect, it's to respond when our rights are violated. It's a reaction to an offense, not the initiation of offense.<br />
<br />
Lastly, and what I find most amusing, is that he is a professor of poetry. While I would try to avoid name-calling and such, I figure 'he started it' so I might as well make the comment demanding to be made. That isn't the sort of profession which is very 'manly' anyway. I think he has some pretty perverse ideas of what manhood is all about. He chooses to ignore logical reasoning and the consequences of living in
the real world to defend his own fear of inanimate objects. Not the
behavior of any real man I know.<br />
<br />
I firmly believe that only people who have knowledge and understanding about a topic should be published addressing said topic in such a fashion, as his complete lack of understanding about the firearms community, and what it means to be a man, makes him look exceedingly foolish, and is a heavy mark against the Post Gazette's credibility.<br />
<br />RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-58658086739926041032011-11-23T11:13:00.001-05:002011-11-23T11:14:14.101-05:00Upcoming PostsAmidst the business of life, the being sick, the lighting a new set
at church, the getting the car back after I was hit on the highway, and
everything else that has been happening, I did manage to get my hands on
a new holster.<br />
I will have a full review with pictures and such
shortly. I have one minor issue with it which I'm going to attempt to
contact the maker to see what he can do about it for me. A friend of
mine ordered one, had a 'customer ordered something then realized he
should have ordered it differently' moment, and this guy had the
customer service priority to get it resolved for him.<br />
So, I'm
hoping he can help out with my 'Huh, because I'm built like so, and want
to wear my gun here, this is awkward, can you adjust it?'<br />
Also, first deer-hunting event in many years for me coming up on Monday,
so I'm gearing up for that. I'll write that up as well next week after
it's all said and done. <br />
In the mean time, I hope you all have a fantastic Thanksgiving, and get to spend some time relaxing with your loved ones.<br />
<br />
Be safe, and as Weer'd says, Carry your guns!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-9668018691609651202011-11-16T07:53:00.001-05:002011-11-16T07:54:59.706-05:00Bullet Hit the White HouseSource:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28fB_kWmumM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28fB_kWmumM</a><br />
<br />
So according to the Secret Service the round which hit the glass is 'not associated with Friday's incident.' This tells me it's two different happenings. I've been nosing around on the web, and I'm unable to find any sort of ballistic information regarding the round which was found, or casings, or anything else. If any has any info, or knows of any useful sources, please share!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-10308000848172906162011-11-04T11:22:00.003-04:002011-11-04T11:23:05.990-04:00Highway Shakedowns in TN - 4th Amendment is History<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sources:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnUL8Do7wjc">News Channel 5</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673883/policing-for-profit-summary-of-dice-activities-2010">http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673883/policing-for-profit-summary-of-dice-activities-2010</a> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not the first to write about this, nor will I be the last. In fact, this isn't even my first post on the topic. <a href="http://cemeterysgunblob.com/">Cemetery</a> had his <a href="http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2011/11/02/car-searched/">car searched</a> for no reason, and is left with little recourse. The governments are finding more and more ways to get around the protections we have of our rights, and it is costing us dearly. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And clearly, if you watch the video, you can see that they do not care one iota about actually stopping the drugs. They are focused on the cash. If this really was about the drugs, there would be many more instances on the East bound side, and the officers would be facing that direction, looking for the contraband. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The war on drugs has done more to damage this country than most people realize. Daily it's costing us more and more, not just financially, but in far more important ways. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #c27ba0;">But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and,
sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that
the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug
dealing at all.</span> </div>
</blockquote>
Moral of that story is that if you want your money, you need to hire a lawyer to get it back. They will keep it until you take legal action. That is outright THEFT from civilians, especially when those civilians are charged with no crime, and have done nothing to justify that seizure of their property. <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When do we draw a line in the sand which shall not be crossed? To allow them to continue to trample our rights is to invite tyranny into our nation, not just turn a blind eye to it, and pour it a nightcap before we go to bed, ignorant of the schemes of tyrants.</div>RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-55807240772106757852011-11-03T14:47:00.000-04:002011-11-03T14:47:14.998-04:00Taxation without representation!Source:<br />
<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11307/1187126-68-0.stm">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11307/1187126-68-0.stm</a><br />
<br />
Pennsylvania is at it again. There has been talk about this, and I understand why. However, any tax added without it being passed through the legislative and executive branches is unenforceable. I'll be curious to see if they do start attempting to enforce this, how well it holds up in court when the population of PA objects, and files suit.<br />
<br />We're already in a bad economy, and some nitwit bureaucrat thinks it's a good idea to increase the tax burden on the citizenry. When will they grasp that this form of idiocy is NOT the answer?RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-86495589646352421582011-11-03T14:35:00.003-04:002011-11-03T14:35:45.427-04:00Which wrong(s) make a man guilty?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Source:<br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oregon-man-found-with-gun-sniper-book-after-football-game-held-without-bail/2011/10/31/gIQA0Q8LaM_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oregon-man-found-with-gun-sniper-book-after-football-game-held-without-bail/2011/10/31/gIQA0Q8LaM_story.html</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my perusing of news reports, I came across this gem. Clearly this individual was 'up to something' in this scenario, but what justified the move by police to intercept him in the first place? Also, notice on which events the Washington Post places more weight. It isn't the fact that he's already committing a crime by possessing a controlled substance. It's not even the fact that he had a firearm on school property. No, they mention and emphasize FIRST his activities as a 13 and 15 year old kid.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His age at time of arrest? 26. That's 11 years. 11 years of no (mentioned) charges. 11 years of being a productive member of society. (Or at least not being a drain on the system, from what we're able to tell.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From the story:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke said the weapons and the books, each by
themselves, did not make Amoroso a danger. But taken together — along
with his arrest at age 15 for shooting a pellet gun at a passing boat
filled with tourists on the Rogue River, and writing on a classroom desk
at 13 that he wanted to kill teachers and students — there was enough
evidence to show he posed a danger.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is it really that difficult a concept to consider that someone participating in a sport is going to take it seriously, do research, purchase equipment, and the like? I know hunters who consume sniper-related material like water, simply because it's a passion for them. The challenge of learning how to make shots which seem impossible, the tricks and tools used to calculate the ballistics, and other factors readily turn this into an exciting hobby for many. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the magistrate judge and the post both look to this person's past. What makes it so hard to believe that a 13 year old boy would feel anger toward other students and teachers? Perhaps he was bullied, or had bad grades and was frustrated. Perhaps he was just a normal kid, who made the mistake of writing what he was thinking. And that was half his life ago. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let's move up a few years, find something more recent. He was a 15 year old with a toy pellet gun. 15 year old kids aren't known for making the best choices across the board. It might have been beneficial to him to have had somewhat 'closer adult supervision' than he had that day. But again, once incident, shooting pellets at a boat, and years later it's being brought up as a sign of how dangerous he is.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's not until they go through all this that they bother to discuss the crimes he was ACTUALLY COMMITTING at the time of his arrest. These are plenty reason to lock him up for a while, and press charges. While I absolutely understand the logic behind eliminating the war on drugs, and legalizing them for various reasons, that isn't the reality in which we live. As such, his possession of drugs is a viable, legitimate charge. As is his possessing a weapon on school property. Again, I understand the reasons for wanting that foolish law repealed as well, and I whole-heartedly support that movement. But that's not reality. The law is still there, so it is still a crime. But they still can't, in their biased minds, differentiate between the actual crimes, and perceived crimes:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
Police found a loaded pistol, hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition,
marijuana, a camouflage jacket, and a novel about a sniper attack on a
football game in his car.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What about having rifle ammo in his car is so bad, especially when the only firearm found in the vehicle is a handgun? What about a jacket that happens to be a certain color scheme is so terrible? Why is possessing a book so evil? Should we burn all books that mention the word 'sniper' or 'gun' to protect people? Are we really at that point?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I get that adding all this up, the guy looks suspicious, and frankly he's a bit of an idiot for his behavior, but let's not start a witch hunt over perceived wrongs. Let's focus on what he ACTUALLY did, and let the justice system do it's job. There are enough straw men around, we don't need to be building more out of excessive paranoia.</div>RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-48752141723753212102011-11-01T07:57:00.002-04:002011-11-01T07:57:50.462-04:00Theif or Victim to blame?Sources:<br />
<a href="http://snarkybytes.com/2011/10/31/just-stop-right-there/">http://snarkybytes.com/2011/10/31/just-stop-right-there/</a><br />
<a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8367794">http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8367794</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Alan is exactly right. The blame for guns being stolen lies with no one but the criminal performing the act of theft. That would be like saying someone who had their car stolen is to blame for not putting their car in a safe. Someone who had their jewelery stolen is to blame for not wearing all of their jewelery all the time. This makes no logical sense whatsoever. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anytime you hear anyone suggest that there is any fault whatsoever with a gun owner for a theft of their weapon, remind them of the first rules of logic, and direct them to understanding that the victim is the victim, and the criminal is the criminal, not the other way around.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bear in mind this is Australia, and their numbers are different than ours. Specifically they are more alarming, and look worse. And that's with the excess rules, laws, and regulations regarding firearms ownership. </div>RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-74872918878351360312011-10-28T07:52:00.003-04:002011-10-28T07:52:56.368-04:00Hangun Ban Support Graph - 50 Years of Positive TrendingSource:<br />
<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx">http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx</a><br />
<br />
This should be obvious by now, but we are clearly making significant headway in the public realm. Especially see the first graph. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
For the past 50 years, we have been making positive headway with people understanding that they should not infringe on the right to own firearms. It is becoming common sense, and accepted logic that freedom is the way to go. <br />
Let's keep the pressure on the antis, let's keep making their jobs more difficult, and let's keep working toward more freedom, and the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-10627715953461783642011-10-26T11:48:00.000-04:002011-10-26T11:48:20.190-04:00Privatization Report!Source:<br /><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11299/1184947-454.stm">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11299/1184947-454.stm</a><br />
<br />
Finally, a report on the privatization of the sales of alcohol in PA. This is one of the best things possible for the state to do at this point. The profits of the PLCB have been in decline recently, and their overhead and government-style control have been having nothing but negative effects on the process.<br />
We've needed this for a long time, and it's finally being taken seriously.<br />
One thing I have to laugh about are the unions, touting their usual ignorance and anti-freedom propaganda. For instance:<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
Mr. Young also argued that the report all but ignores the negative
impact that privatization, which could eliminate up to 5,000 state jobs,
would have on the state's economy.</blockquote>
Mr Young clearly either is biased and WANTS government control, or he is a clueless buffoon who doesn't grasp simple math. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
The report suggests selling off 1,500 licenses, which in Philadelphia
would quadruple the number of retail outlets from the current 55 stores
to 219.</blockquote>
So, to quadruple (or in the case of the Pittsburgh area, only double) the number of licenses, means that many more stores. If we quadruple around the state, and the stores all higher a 1-1, that's 20,000, if we only double, that's 10,000 jobs. So, splitting the difference, we're looking at possibly 15,000 jobs. Now that's not a scientific calculation, it's just simple logic. <br />
<br />
Mr. Young, if you are sincere in your concern about jobs for the people, why don't you support an idea which will provide jobs for 3 times as many jobs as there currently are? I challenge you to stand for jobs and economic growth, and do the right thing, rather than selfishly fighting to keep only a few jobs for just your closest friends!<br />RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-2460067810715758932011-10-26T07:53:00.005-04:002011-10-26T07:53:52.402-04:00Treating the 1st Amendment the Same as the 2nd AmendmentSource:<br /><a href="http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4601">http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4601</a><br />
<br />
I don't really have anything to add to Bob's writeup here. It's a great read, and a great comparison of our rights. <br />
<br />
Thanks, Bob, keep the good stuff flowing!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-23946409670375025902011-10-25T10:50:00.000-04:002011-10-25T10:50:09.650-04:00Hermain Cain - Presidential Material?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Source:<br />Undisclosed</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know my readers are intelligent enough to find this video if they are motivated to do so, I do not want a direct link from my blog to her. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm listening to a broadcast by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in which she is viciously attacking Herman Cain. Her problems with him include being associated with Americans for Prosperity, seeing a disproportionate number of times he encounters the number 45 in his day to day life, and some other random things. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In short, he notices a number appearing more often than others, so she calls him a numerologist, and compares him to Nancy Regan controlling President Regan's schedule based on astrological readings, saying that he is associated with the Koch brothers, and that he thinks David Koch is a patriot makes him crazy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the most delicious bit of irony is when she said:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #c27ba0;">"Herman Cain was one of the public faces of Prosperity 101. It is a workplace seminar program that business use to educate their employees about the dangers of things like health reform, and taxes on millionaires, and regulations on businesses. So your boss tells you to sit through this lecture, you sit through the lecture, message received, your boss essentially just told you how to vote. In other words this Prosperity 101 thing is another the Koch brothers are funding a means by which businesses can get their way politically. </span><u style="background-color: #c27ba0;"><b>Intimidate your employees into voting for your bosses interests too</b></u><span style="background-color: #c27ba0;">."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Emphasis mine above. The irony is that this is exactly what the unions do. They force their employees to attend 'educational' events which attempt to brainwash them to voting for the left. They go so far as to make threats, and want to have a voter card for union members. The unions take this concept to extremes which are inhumane and anti-liberty. Yet an independent organization which attempts to educate people about reality is touted as intimidation? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rachel, you really are living in your own fantasy world. You need to either wake up and join the rest of society, or get off your soap box: You make yourself sound more and more unintelligent and uneducated every time your trap opens.</div>RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-77833212172249131292011-10-24T14:37:00.001-04:002011-10-24T14:37:49.297-04:00Learn from History<div style="text-align: justify;">
Source:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/white-house-to-announce-major-home-lending-revamp/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/white-house-to-announce-major-home-lending-revamp/</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly, either our president doesn't learn from history, or he does and he hates America and wants us to fail. I'll let you decide that on your own. Take a look at the article. Here are some of the winning parts of it:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
The revamped Home Affordable Refinance Program, which aims to avert
foreclosures, is expected "to encourage new, lower-cost loans" to more
homeowners who are paying more than the value of their properties, a
senior administration official said ahead of Obama's Monday
announcement. </blockquote>
So we learned from history that you can't force banks to give loans to people who can't pay them, it will backfire. Today, he wants to force banks to give out loans to people who are having trouble paying for them...<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
The three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program was supposed to
allow refinancing for up to 125 percent of a home's value on mortgages
owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but has been stuck on
tight eligibility rules, including excluding people with high credit
scores or other attractive risk offers. </blockquote>
Here we go again. Same plan, different names, different wording, different packaging, but same failed ideas that sunk us already.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #c27ba0;">
The changes to the loan programs are specifically intended to bypass
Congress, which is stalled on agreeing to new plans to increase jobs and
jump-start the economy. But it won early support from Democratic Sen.
Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of
Georgia. </blockquote>
So, dodging congress. That is the act of a dictator. He might as well say, "What I want is what matters, forget checks and balances." Also, Republicans, take note of the name of a traitor to the cause. Sen. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, way to go failing the people who voted you into office.<br />
<br />
If people aren't outraged by the ego, the arrogance, the Marxist ways of this man, then we have fallen very far indeed from the America which once was so great.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-48997826404601721412011-10-24T08:45:00.000-04:002011-10-24T08:45:13.687-04:00TSA Expanding to Highways!Source:<br />
<a href="http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide">http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide</a><br />
<br />
And here I always thought Tennessee was one of the free states. This is absolutely disgusting.<br />
Take a look at the article and video. Then come back and tell me what you think about it. Is there a reason for this? Will it really benefit anyone? Do we want to see lines of traffic on the highways that resemble the security lines in airports? How many miles will we need to stop again and again and again? How many other questions come to mind regarding this institution of oppression? <br />
I have no doubt that there are those who genuinely think this is 'for the best.' But, anytime you restrict, remove, deter, subdue, or otherwise violate the individual person's liberty, you are losing the fight. The very fact that the TSA exists, and keeps expanding it's roles, is proof that the terrorists are winning more every week, than they ever could have by waging outright war on us.<br />
<br />
What ever happened to the America where I was raised?RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-8510613331819337582011-10-18T09:26:00.002-04:002011-10-18T09:26:46.138-04:00OverkillSource:<br />
<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11291/1183002-100.stm">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11291/1183002-100.stm</a><br />
<br />
Police calling in excessive force is nothing new these days. It just happened again locally. This time the civilian who experienced an overdose of justice is a 75 year old woman. With a mental problem. Who they know.<br />
<br />
I understand that police officers need to take steps to protect themselves. But, doesn't it seem strange to call out SWAT ("...a nearby special response unit...") for 1 lady? It strikes me as a severe case of overkill, and it does nothing to give me confidence in those who are supposed to serve and protect us.<br />
<br />
<br />The really ironic thing is that I am well known as quoting <a href="http://store.schlockmercenary.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=P-R37">Rule 37</a> from Schlock.RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3565684494232429357.post-29705186415173974162011-10-18T09:14:00.002-04:002011-10-18T09:15:54.146-04:00CatchupOK, so I hope to soon be back to posting regularly, if not daily, again soon. The garage claims I will have my car back by early next week at the earliest, the house was closed on this past Friday, the crazy week at work has passed, and things are starting to settle again. There are a few other things up in the air, but I'm not ready to discuss them here yet.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned though, more excitement to follow!RedeemedBoydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537550376137560145noreply@blogger.com0