3 Boxes of BS

Okay folks, I’ve been trying to avoid Sparky but somethings just aren’t meant to be.

First up is the comment he left here, which I’ve approved (minus the link to his site) to show that I’m not making this up.

My thoughts and prayers are with you too, Bob. Or at least they’re with your wife, for you I’m still hoping you shoot yourself in the foot – just a graze. (please smile at least, man)

Does Weer’d mean his wife is sick too? I may have seen that before but I forgot. Same goes for her. I am a believer and I believe that lots of prayers and good wishes do lots of good.

This “believer”, this husband and former Marine  tries to pass off a wish for me to injure myself as a joke. Sorry Sparky, it isn’t funny — not at all. It really fits in with the meme “Why are anti-gun advocates so violent”.

And by the way, how many people think his well wishes are sincere or just another attempt to troll for blog hits, eh?

And exactly what I have done MikeB302000 to deserve such an injury? Sought to protect my rights, protect my family, protect my wife or enable her to protect herself ? Or do you think that someone who had 4 procedures in a month, is currently undergoing chemotherapy should be forced to fight hand to hand against anyone who wishes her harm?

It shows your true nature when you can not even sincerely wish well of my wife without showing what a hypocritical piece of trash you are.

Second is a blog post he did at his place regarding a 69 year old grandmother who defended herself from a violent thug.

This young man was wounded quite seriously. He could easily have been killed. What if his intentions were not to rape and murder but just to steal the microwave and slip back out the door? In that case, and I know we can’t know that and the lady was within her rights to defend herself, but if the kid wasn’t really a lethal threat, the response was excessive. Am I right?

Wouldn’t there be a middle-ground approach too? How about telling the burglar, “I’ve got a gun on you, turn around and get out.” I know that offends all you letter-of-the-law guys who fantasize about just this kind of opportunity, but putting aside all that macho nonsense for a minute, wouldn’t it have been better if granny had scared the kid away instead of shooting three times at center of mass?

Let’s take this putrid comment in sections, eh?

MikeB302000 seems to be saying that a person’s property doesn’t really belong to them if a criminal wants it. How is that reasonable or sensible?

but just to steal the microwave and slip back out the door?

Think about that….people shouldn’t interfere with criminals if all they wanted was property. Never mind that at 69; it might be the only way she had to cook or that she would have to chose between medicine and replacing property.

Hey Sparky, is there a list of property it is acceptable for a thug to steal (TVs, DVD players, etc)  and a list of property (prescription medicines, family heirlooms, etc) that we can use violence to protect?

Nope, Criminal Enabler MikeB302000 doesn’t want people to stop thugs.

This young man was wounded quite seriously

Maybe if he didn’t want to be injured severely; he shouldn’t broken the law.
The homeowner isn’t a mind reader, she doesn’t know the thugs intentions.

Maybe MikeB302000 would rather the homeowner be subjected to treatment like this:

After Green suggested that Stewart change his life by reading the Bible, he began choking her. She said he ordered her to pull up her T-shirt so he could see her breasts, then unzipped his pants and fondled her while he masturbated.

“He choked me where I couldn’t breathe,” she testified. “I thought he was going to kill me.”

Next MikeB302000 consistently advocates for forgiveness and multiple chances for criminals while calling for single strike laws for gun owners.

These aren’t my words, this are MikeB302000‘s words — all the while wishing harm on me — not serious harm, just a grazing wound.

I really wish this was an aberration for MikeB302000 and his fellow criminally enabling, anti-rights advocating gun control friends — but it isn’t. Neither is the type of crime in either story. Thugs will seek to prey on senior citizens; both for fiscal gain and their own warped goals.
I really wish stories like the one in Fort Worth were uncommon but they are not.

Hey Sparky, can you tell everyone just how a home owner is supposed to know which thug breaking in is JUST a THIEF and which is a RAPIST or MURDER? Or does the homeowner have to wait for the thug to start the rape/murder before defending themselves?

People like MikeB302000 want to deny people the right to defend themselves — note the outcome in the two different stories.

The Senior Citizen who had the firearm – unharmed.
The Senior Citizen who had a baseball — molested in her own home

It leaves no doubt in my mind which side MikeB302000 is on  and it isn’t the side of the senior citizens looking to protect themselves.

Please join the discussion.

Edited to Add

all you letter-of-the-law guys who fantasize about just this kind of opportunity

By the way Sparky, when you owned firearms — legally, were you a “letter of the law” type who fantasized about shooting people?

Is there where you developed your extensive experience with fantasies or was did it develop when you broke the law to own firearms?

That is one of the favorite memes of the Anti Rights Advocates mistakenly called “Gun Control Advocates”.

In what appears to be a complete shift of gears, I want to mention one of my favorite television shows, Spike TVs “The Deadliest Warrior”. Does anyone else watch it?

It pits, through computer simulation, different warriors against each other. I enjoy learning about the arms and armament some of history’s most famous warriors used.

So, let’s get back to busting the Lies of the Anti’s shall we
(lots of videos below the fold so I don’t run all the other posts off the page)

Continue Reading

That’s right boys and girls, it’s no longer your property that you have a right to do as you want with, it is now a potential revenue stream for the city of Dallas.

City managers have floated the idea of charging $5, as a way to help balance next year’s tough budget…

Jasso and Caraway estimate the fee could bring in $500,000 next year, and they recommend the money go toward senior dental services, cultural affairs programs, graffiti removal and animal services.

Think about that for a minute.

You would  no longer be allowed to sell your stuff, on your property, when you want to without giving a cut of your money to the city.

Oh, and they get their cut before you sell a single item. Heck at least the mob waits until you’ve sold things.

Please join the discussion.

Instead of Jerseys for the kids

The system was introduced Tuesday. When at the school, students will wear a jersey that has a small radio frequency tag. The tag will send signals to sensors that help track children’s whereabouts, attendance and even whether they’ve eaten or not.

How about they just run them through a line and give them one of these.

I’m starting to rethink my political affiliations; I can really see joining the “Party Of NO”, of course, I would have to put a sentence enhancer in front of NO

I can not wrap my mind around the way some people think. I try. I really do.

Seek First to Understand, then Be Understood.

For a very long time, I’ve used this as a guiding principle and I usually have success. Even if it takes a while.

But I’m failing miserably with the mentality displayed by so many Far Left Nanny Staters.

For example, (emphasis mine below)

3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents.

While an array of legal and logistical obstacles present themselves, the math is staggering. It’s time to sort out the regulations and rates that would facilitate the solution: turning empty houses into homes for those in need…..

I’m not advocating giving houses away — such a move would create a host of political and fiscal problems — but government should be working toward a solution to match up the empty homes with those who need a roof to live under.

A homeless population equivalent to the size of Los Angeles is unacceptable, and with over five times as many empty houses, we have not only a moral obligation but also an economic imperative to come up with a creative way to fix this travesty.

I have some questions that might just illuminate how bad of an idea this is.

1. Ever hear of the concept of private property Bub?

It’s not about taking a residence from someone who can’t pay his or her bills and giving it to another person who can’t make payments either, it’s about using resources we have in excess.

The problem with your idea Bub, is “we” don’t have the resources in excess. Someone actually owns that property, someone has their money tied up in it. Just because it isn’t being used at this moment does not mean you or anyone but the owner can arbitrarily decide how it gets used.

2. Ever hear of the Constitution Bub?

It limits just exactly what the government can do and I’ve read that document — no where is there power to allowed to do what you want.

3. Ever think about the cycle you mentioned Bub?

the market will follow the same cycle: demand, saturation and then glut.

Taking houses out of that cycle will keep prices artificially high — meaning fewer people will be able to afford housing. Isn’t that a little self defeating?

4. Ever hear of Reality Bub?

Without someone to take care of it, a property will decline steeply. But with someone living in the house…actually taking care of them…well, that’s a far better situation.

Most people (again the caveat is most people, there are a few this doesn’t apply to) aren’t homeless because of one bad decision, one careless mistake.

Most people are homeless because they continue(d) to make bad decisions over and over again.

Giving a house to someone /unable/unwilling to make good decisions doesn’t guarantee they will ‘take care’ of the house. Far from it.

Look around that the public housing that is currently available, look around at the shelters, look around where the homeless people stay.

Do you see those areas getting better or worse?

5. Ever think that most “homeless people don’t need or can’t afford a home to take care of, Bub?

One researcher who examined a sample of homeless persons over a 2-year period found:

• Most, or about 80 percent, exit from homelessness within 2 or 3 weeks. They often have more personal, social, and economic resources to draw from than people who are homeless for longer periods of time.
• About 10 percent are homeless for up to 2 months, with housing availability and affordability adding to the time they are homeless.
• Another 10 percent are homeless on a chronic, protracted basis, for as long as 7 or 8 months in a 2-year period. Disabilities associated with mental illnesses and substance use are common. On any given night, this group of homeless persons can account for up to 50 percent of those seeking emergency shelter.

90% of homelessness resolved within 2 months.

How is ‘giving them’  a house going to help?

Never mind the fact that, out of the long term homeless, many have mental illness or substance abuse issues that make them ‘less the ideal home owner candidates’ shall we say?

6. Ever stop and think there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this right now Bub?

Not a single solitary thing but your desire to spend other people’s money on your ideas .

Honestly, I think I’m going to start calling the Far Left the “Other People’s Money Party”.

Let’s examine the concept here in a different light — Skippy gets together with some of his like minded friends and pools their money. Skippy and friends goes to the people who own the vacant houses and offers them a good price. Skippy and friends invite homeless people to live in those houses.

Homeless situation resolved without the government getting involved, without property being seized, without the laws and Constitution being violated.

But that isn’t what Skippy wants now is it?

From Richard Warnick at One Utah

Yes, like everyone in the middle class I have more than I need. Also, like everyone in the middle class under 65 I’m working without a net– I could lose those surplus assets almost overnight. For example, when Bush crashed the economy the assessed valuation of “my” house (that the bank owns) went down 40 percent!…

I pay Comcast about $100 a month for cable TV and Internet (which is outrageous).

To Sobeale discussing the flooding in Pakistan

I’m a little shocked and surprised that despite the growing humanitarian crisis in Pakistan, the disaster there hasn’t dominated our news cycle in the same way crises in other nations have. Where are the telethons and Twibbons and nightly stories of daring rescues and calls for massive aid to the flood-ravaged country. (emphasis mine – Bob)

Who responded to my comment with this:

Pretty weak, Bob S. Hypocrisy? Don’t think so. I’m a blogger writing about how it’s interesting that no one seems to give a damn about Pakistan and you call me a hypocrite for not organizing a telethon?

Right-o

Yes, I do Sobeale, I really do think it is hypocritical of you to complain about there not being enough in the news when you aren’t doing things to put the crisis in the news.

Yes, I think it is hypocritical of Richard to want to tax the ‘rich’ to provide a safety net he is unwilling to sacrifice a little to provide for himself.

Yes, I think it is hypocritical of Skippy to want to take other people’s money or property when he’s doesn’t seem to be willing to spend his own money.

So, if you think there is a problem; do you have a responsibility to act on it before you recommend spending other people’s money without their consent?

Please join the discussion.

Or Our Federal Government at Work Slacking off?

Really, folks — let’s think about our priorities here.
Federal agents have identified people in the country illegally, good.
They’ve processed the paperwork to start the deportation court proceedings, good.
Then the Obama Administration makes a decision to review those cases, Uh-Oh.

The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.

Every time I think the Obama Administration can’t do anything else to leave me dazed and confused, they prove me wrong.

Gonzalez said DHS attorneys are conducting the reviews on a case-by-case basis. However, he said they are following general guidelines that allow for the dismissal of cases for defendants who have been in the country for two or more years and have no felony convictions.

In some instances, defendants can have one misdemeanor conviction, but it cannot involve a DWI, family violence or sexual crime, Gonzalez said.

Given how often cases are plea bargained down, charges dismissed; this really doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy sense of comfort.

Patterns of criminal behavior usually don’t just stop and change for the better so I’m a little concerned about such a generous criteria being used.

I wondered why the administration would do something like this, then I read these two paragraphs.

Gonzalez called the dismissals a necessary step in unclogging a massive backlog in the immigration court system. In June, there were more than 248,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the country, including about 23,000 in Texas, according to data compiled by researchers at Syracuse University.

In a June 30 memo, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton outlined the agency’s priorities, saying it had the capacity to remove about 400,000 illegal immigrants annually — about 4 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population in the country. The memo outlines priorities for the detention and removal system, putting criminals and threats to national security at the top of the list.

So instead of stepping up our ability to remove people who are in the country illegally, let’s put a cap on the number of people we deport each year….a paltry 4%????

I don’t see any other conclusion for this other then it is a step in the process to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Maybe the should take the time, energy and money being spend on BackScatter Vans and add a few more people to ICE or even change the law removing firearm licensing requirements and add those people to immigration control.

Please join the discussion.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It isn’t just when it is convenient for the government to get a warrant, it’s all the time.

AS&E’s Reiss counters privacy critics by pointing out that the ZBV scans don’t capture nearly as much detail of human bodies as their airport counterparts. The company’s marketing materials say that its “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.”

And the Airport Scanners weren’t supposed to be able to get that much detail or store images either — why don’t you try pulling the other leg!

“From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.

How about until there is sufficient enough evidence that I’ve committed a crime what is in my car, my house or on my person is none of your frakkin business Bub???

Technology will always advance but the principles of privacy and limited government reach will always remain the same.

That is why the fight for our rights has to be fought now and every day.

Please join the discussion.