Around the Web

This image has been going around the net for a while. My son T.R. sent it to me a couple of days ago.

Many people (mostly anti-rights cultists) are shocked to find out that the Supreme Court ruled that criminals don’t have to register their firearms .

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.

Yep, the case was U.S. v Haynes.
I wonder if the antis really want to keep calling me an “unconvicted felon“?

Please join the discussion.

Teaching Kids

In yet another not so stunning announcement we see the decline of our civilization spelled out.

A Cincinnati high school is paying its students to go to school.

The Dohn Community High School, a charter school in Ohio, started a program this week that would pay seniors $25 weekly and underclassmen $10 weekly in Visa gift cards for showing up to class every day, being on time and behaving in school. The move aims to encourage students to stay in school and graduate from the school where 90 percent of its students live in poverty. Fewer than 20 percent are in two-parent households.


This isn’t going to teach kids it is important to go to school; it is going to teach kids that they should get paid for doing what should be a basic expectation.

I wonder if the next step is to pay them by the answer on each quiz or homework assignment. Oh, let’s pay them for eating breakfast, lunch and dinner. We can (and remembering some fellow students from my high school days) pay them to actually bath and groom themselves.


This isn’t teaching them responsibility, it is teaching them that society owes them for just showing up.

Meet the next generation of Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Please join the discussion.

Ironic Quote of the Day

From the “Occupy Dallas” group:


“I know we’re supposed to be helping the 99 percent, but they need to help us help them by not being a drain on our resources,” said Otto Wagner.

Emphasis mine — so is the laughter.

Freedom and Responsibility — “should he be allowed to die”

Jay Livingston from Montclair Socioblog doesn’t think that the issue I previously discussed (here)  is about “the right to die”.

I am certain that Blitzer did not mean that his hypothetical victim of illness wants to die any more than a careless driver who gets in an accident wants to die.

Which is hard to understand since he phrased it this way in his original post:

The question is not whether he should have bought insurance – of course he should have.  The question is: given that he doesn’t have insurance, should society just let him die.

Should society let him die?

Well he made his choices didn’t he? I respect a person’s freedom to choose. That is the most fundamental right we have.

One of my favorite quotes comes from the incredible story of Viktor Frankel:

Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.

Our freedom — our freedom to choose whether or not to do what it takes to stay alive. If you deliberately and knowingly chose to fore go the actions need to keep you alive, aren’t you choosing to die?

Shouldn’t we respect your right to die?


Medic Morgan has other thoughts on the subject:

That is not the argument at hand. Ron Paul was asked if a 30 year healthy male who had CHOSEN not to purchase health insurance suddenly became a vegetable on life support–racking up at least $1,500 in intensive care–should we just let him die? He can’t posthumously pay his hospital bills for being kept on life support.

First, lets note that Wolf Blitzer kept changing the question.

After setting up the person deliberately chose not to purchase insurance, Wolf statedAll of the sudden he needs it, he goes into a coma”. Later after Ron Paul tried to answer, it was “needs intensive care for 6 months”.

Well, very few people just drop into a coma. Most are conscious when they go to the hospital, wouldn’t you agree?

Every time I’ve entered the hospital, I’ve sign a statement of financial responsibility. I or my estate is obligated to pay for any and all charges occurred in my treatment, right?

So actually he can posthumously pay his bill.
And unless he has specified otherwise, every person knows that a hospital will do all it can do to save a life, up to and including being kept on life support
(I strongly encourage everyone to have a medical power of attorney and medical directives on record by the way. It is the responsible thing to do.)

This man, who could recover or could be a vegetable on life support forever, did not choose to die. He chose not to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for something he almost surely would never need. Are you saying that he did choose his fate? He chose to die by choosing not to get health insurance?

This is absolutely going to sound cold and callous but the answer is yes.

This hypothetical man chose not to take the steps need in order to insure his survival.

The idea that medical care is “something he almost surely would never need. “ is false. At one point or another everyone is going to need medical care.

I don’t care how you pay for that medical care. You can have comprehensive insurance, you can have catastrophic care insurance, you can pay for it out of your savings, heck…you can even put it on your credit card for all I care.


Or should the tax payers foot the bill for this man’s unlikely misfortune?

Needing medical care isn’t “unlikely”. If you can imagine yourself not needing medical care, you can imagine the opposite. In choosing to not take responsibility you are choosing the consequences. It really is that simple.

Please join the discussion.


By the way….Medic Morgan is a new blogger — just starting EMT -B and recently purchased her first firearm. I hope everyone will add her to their bookmarks or blog rolls. I’ve already bookmarked her blog.









You will be asked to sign an agreement regarding treatment consent and financial responsibility for expenses for which you are responsible, including services not covered by your insurers. Please read it carefully.


One of the problems I have with many ultra-liberals/far left folks is the contradiction regarding freedom to choose.

The question is not whether he should have bought insurance – of course he should have.  The question is: given that he doesn’t have insurance, should society just let him die.

“No . . .” Paul starts to say.  But you know those Republican debate audiences, especially the Tea Party folks.  When it comes to righteous death, they’re just so darned irrepressible.  Sure enough, a few of them shouted, “Yes.”  Go to the video  and listen, if you can, to the enthusiasm for letting someone die.


Watch the video:


The enthusiasm was for the freedom to choose. The enthusiasm was for personal responsibility.

To say that people were cheering for letting someone die is a distortion at best, a lie in reality.

Listening carefully I heard only 2 — two people yell yes. Hardly an overwhelming enthusiasm, wouldn’t you say?

I find it interesting that many liberals are so willing to require everyone to accept a person’s choice — Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Transgender, Abortion, Drugs, Vegan, etc — but will not accept a person’s choice in if they die or not.

(I also have problems with the conservatives views on choice also, don’t get me wrong).

I think Ron Paul had the right answers in this case.

Please join the discussion.

Illustrating the Differences

While Gun Banners, Gun Control Groups, Anti Rights Cultists try to portray all uses of firearms as the same, a simple perusal of  news will quickly show the difference

Out in New Mexico, the Governor shows the values of one side of the argument.

(by the way doesn’t shooting steel like that look and sound like fun?)

Her spokesman, Greg Blair, said Martinez’s personal and professional experiences motivated her to arm herself.

Not only was she a prosecutor, but her husband, Chuck Franco, was undersheriff of Dona Ana County.

“Since she and Chuck both made careers out of taking on dangerous and violent criminals, she decided to get her concealed-carry permit for personal protection, especially when traveling alone or at night on the campaign trail,” Blair said.

As governor, Martinez has a security detail, but she still chooses to carry a weapon, Blair said.

Then there is the other side.

Stewart was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery in July, two days before Ninham pleaded guilty.

According to prosecutors, Stewart and Ninham ran up behind the victim Dec. 22 and knocked him to the ground. Ninham kicked the victim and Stewart punched him in the face, breaking his glasses, before the victim handed over the seven cents in his pocket, prosecutors said.

The two teens had handguns, which Stewart later said were BB guns, prosecutors said.

So in the face of these two diametrically opposed views on violence, the anti rights cultists respond by purposing restrictions on those who seek to protect themselves.

And they have the nerve to try to call what they seek “common sense”?


Time for a Policy Change?

Except for law enforcement officers required to carry firearms within their jurisdiction, firearms shall not be brought on camping, hiking, backpacking, or other Scouting activities except those specifically planned for target shooting under the supervision of a currently certified BSA national shooting sports director or National Rifle Association firearms instructor.

That is the official Boy Scouts of America policy. To me, I read it as disarming any non-law enforcement adults.

The rationale, I’m sure, is to keep Scouts and Scouters safe. It doesn’t always work.

The assistant scout leader, Arthur L. Anderson, of Kokomo, Ind., was with another male adult and two boys Sunday afternoon on the Nickel Plate Trail in Bunker Hill when he was stabbed in the neck in what witnesses told police was an unprovoked attack. Authorities and medical personnel responded to a 911 call, but he died at the scene.

76 years old and the Anti-Rights cultists say he should engage in hand to hand combat with a 22 year old; either that or try to run away. Not sure how well running away would work when you are trying to protect 2 youths though.

One minute before getting the 911 call about the stabbing, state police say Golitko’s mother, Valerie Henson, called 911 to report that her son had assaulted her during an altercation at their home, about 150 yards south of the trail.

That really stood out to me. The law enforcement officials were informed of a problem but not in enough time to respond to the next problem.

That isn’t a knock on the police; there is no way they could have physically responded to the notification of the first attack in time to prevent the second.

I understand that the Scouting organization does not want every camp out or hike to turn into an impromptu skeet match or Scouts to set up makeshift rifle ranges but there should be clear exemptions on the lawful carry of firearms for self defense.

Anderson had been involved with scouting for 50 years, police said.

After all, if you are going to trust adults with the safety of kids, shouldn’t you let them be effectively armed to keep the kids safe?

Please join the discussion.