Happy Independence Day

Enjoy the Holiday!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    🙂

  2. The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
    George Washington

    Happy 4th of July, American people 🙂

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    Today is the one day a year where we should focus on the promise of America and all the beauty it represents for human kind.

    There really is no need to focus on the blemishes and ignore the rest, unless one simply wants to tear down. Not for this one day.

    You see, by celebrating the good and the righteous and the promise, it helps us all REMEMBER what those are. It can help us take a deep breath and reaffirm our resolve to reach that place where the promise stands waiting.

    Freedom………………..Liberty………………..Justice

    Live Free my friends and today remember what LIBERTY means and how dearly many before us paid to keep it.

    Fill yourselves with love of Liberty and determination to make sure it survives. Here in the one and ONLY Nation ever formed under that principle.

  4. Happy Birthday, America … it won’t be long before you realize true greatness and end the oligarchic rule of the 1%.

    In the meantime, while we’re toasting revolutions and are “alleged” love of liberty, lets not forget another revolution we opposed to the point of sending 50,000 plus (most of them poor and disproportionately minority) to their death for no good reason the planet.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      So in your mind ANY Revolution is worthy of support because it is a revolution?

      • Revolutions occur when the top shits on the bottom for too long and/or too hard … so, yes, I’m always for a people’s revolution, even if I abhor how they might handle it. Revolutions don’t occur because the masses of people are happy about their lives and treatment. Or are you suggesting the Vietnamese should’ve continued letting France rape their resources and culture? If so, why fuck with England back in the day?

  5. What is Obama going to do now that the Egyptian military is arresting his Muslim Brotherhood buds?

  6. charlie said: “last week minorities were stripped of their protections from 1965”

    Can you clarify this? What specific protections did “minorities” loose from 1965?

    • “Can you clarify this? What specific protections did “minorities” loose from 1965?”

      Individual states can now pull the shit they did prior to 1965 … not that the voting rights act stopped Florida and some other southern states keep minorities from having to wait on lines for several hours.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/2012-voting-lines-study_n_3039410.html

      • Don’t worry FLP, the left have managed to OK the Black Panthers to intimidate white voters up North, so it might be a draw 😆

      • Hey there, my friend……first of all, please stay off Huffpo or at least understand they are not a favorable reporting source……

        That said…….you keep fighting the War Between the States……you keep referencing “southern states” without referencing the much larger discrepancies of the northern states in equal rights. The only area that I can take sympathy and agree with you is the American Indian and their treatment…..although they are getting much more favorable treatment now more so than all others combined.

        Voting lines?…..this is your measurement ? How about in Chicago, not reported by Huffpo, that many did not get to vote….the “minority” polling places shut down lines while people were in them….same in Detroit and the same in Philadelphia……

        In Texas, the same voting machines are in place in ALL voting places. Texas is not a Southern State….we are a Republic (or want to be again)….but there were long lines for two reasons……we require voter ID’s and you must be able to read, meaning that the voting machines are in English and you must follow instructions. Now, if you are saying that requiring ID’s and expecting responsible voters to be able to read well enough to follow instructions is discriminatory, then we shall stand GUILTY AS CHARGED….and proudly so.

        One of the complaints was that not being able to read and follow instructions created SNAFU’s in some areas. My answer to that is…….learn to read. And, no Charlie, do not even go down the road of substandard education…..everyone has the same opportunity all the way through college…..especially the last two generations. There is not one single school district in Texas that does not provide transportation to and from school, free meals (including breakfast, lunch, and DINNER), ample classroom size to pupil ratio……so learning is a matter of preference and not a matter of availability.

        Hope your 4th was a safe one.

        • Buon giorno, Colonel!

          too many areas in your post to refute, but here it is in very brief:

          1) HuffPo was reporting facts … don’t see what that is such a problem for the right … then again, you guys touted Sarah Palin 🙂

          2) I am not fighting the war between the states (I suspect many of you are) … the 1965 voting rights act was doing that (which was the reference to FLP’s question, sir.

          3) I have no doubt minorities are mistreated across the wide birth of this country … I’m the one who believes it is institutional racism they suffer.

          4) voter ID, etc. … I can’t speak to that particular issue (not sure what the specific problems are about that … nor do I have a problem with people needing to be required to read … but to suggest (in your next para) that everyone has the same opportunity right through to college, colonel, you’re viewing this country with some very rose-filled colored glasses … and I’d have to ask, “Are you kidding me?”

          🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Charlie

        You are just repeating the DNC Race Baiting Talking Points.

        “Individual states can now pull the shit they did prior to 1965 … not that the voting rights act stopped Florida and some other southern states keep minorities from having to wait on lines for several hours.”

        The SCOTUS decision does NOT eliminate the 15th Amendment nor the Voting Rights Act which authorizes the Fed Govt to prosecute and enforce the 15th Amendment.

        So the statement that those included in the VRA as “targets” can now return to past behavior is simply a LIE.

        Furthermore, standing in line is NOT a violation of the 15th Amendment. Not to any rational person anyway. This would be discrimination only if it were proven that the ONLY places with reduced voting places were in known Black precincts.

        The lines the last two elections were largely the result of the get out the vote effort by the Dems.

      • charlie, there are no laws or policies regarding voting in Florida that singles anyone out my skin color. Everyone is treated equally. Can you refute that? Can you name any voting law or policy that effects a legal American based on their skin color?

        As for long lines in Florida, there were more people than just “minorities” waiting in line, anyone that ignored the opportunity to vote early got stuck in line..it was their own choice. I personally voted early to avoid the lines that any intelligent person knew would happen.

      • Sometimes I have to wait in line in New Jersey. There comes time when things must end. If there are real, not imagined efforts to suppress voter turnout, there are still mechanisms to deal with it. If you are from any Northern City you know how the game is played and yet, we are, pardon the pun, “Whiter than White” up here and the south is full of troglodytes?

        In an effort to “shorten” the lines we re now stuck with “early voting” or weeklong voting or some other atrocity. If you care, really care about the franchise, is it too much to ask to stand on a line once a year?

        • Better yet, if the process was legitimate (at all), why not a national holiday for national elections? Why not make it as easy as possible to assure genuine voter turnout? I think I’d be in favor of a national ID card at the point … or maybe ID in general … but if the process is supposed to be legitimate, make it accessible …

          When half the population doesn’t bother to vote, I think that would answer your question as to whether it’s important or not? Nobody believes in this government except those who get to manipulate it (on both sides) … those who milk it and those who use it to reap the greatest profits.

  7. Charlie, Slavery back in the 17 and 1800’s was not as huge as you make it out to be. In retrospect, the hundreds of millions of married Muslim women could be considered slaves under your definition today, but you echo not a peep about their life of slavery, care to explain?

    • Gman…….leave him alone. He is still fighting the war between the states…..remember, he is the “master of pushing buttons”……he cites Huffpo a lot…..but I know Charlie well enough to know he does not believe the majority of that claptrap.

      Sorry, Captain Canoli,……but I have not given away all your secrets.

      • But Colonel, that war is long over and the outcome will not change not matter how hard he continues to fight it. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear him argue against present time slavery, just as hard as he did for those people who have long ago been buried? This doesn’t show him to be a “master” of anything, except living in the past of course 🙂

        I hope you and yours had a great Holiday!

        • Yes, the conflict is over……and atrocities corrected and still being corrected…we are barely 200 plus years old………still in knickers and we have surpassed the world. Trust me….if there was a better place out there, all of our nay Sayers would be there.

          We are closely watching the border…..the Mexican border cities are swelling in anticipation of immigration amnesty….some towns have grown from 10,000 to 30 and 40 thousand in two weeks. We are preparing.

      • Make no mistake, Colonel … I have no doubt you’re NOT a racist … but G? No doubt he is one. He keeps picking at the civil war scab the exact same way racists in Florida did in 1940-50’s (JAC, too, for that matter) … any accusation of racism back then in Fla was met with the same nonsense G pulls. I choose to ignore it … that arguing with a dining room table issue 🙂

    • I’ll quote Barney Frank here, G:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      I am not sure how you can claim Slavery was not “as huge” as Charlie makes it out to be.

      Slavery affected millions of lives did it not?

      It was the single most divisive political issue of the time. It was the reason our Constitution contains the “grand compromises” in Representation and regulation of trade.

      You need to explain your comment a little further me thinks.

      • Sorry JAC, I was thinking about the big picture of slavery throughout past and what I call slavery today. Slavery is always a horrible thing, We just can’t go back in time to change the past. So, I ask, why isn’t Charlie pissin and moaning about the current times and slaves of today? Muslim women, often very young, are sold into slavery everyday. The parents recieve an “endowment” (payment) for their daughter, who is sold into a marriage (slavery) to a man she likely doesn’t even know. She spends the rest of her living days following his orders and doing what she is told (slavery)

        So, I hope this helps ! I’m tired of hearing about the past when the people whining about it are doing nothing about the present. That is typical of the Left, attack the past, make up thoeretical possibilities about the future, but never actually attack the real problems that exist. Sad, Really Sad

        • So, I hope this helps ! I’m tired of hearing about the past when the people whining about it are doing nothing about the present. That is typical of the Left, attack the past, make up thoeretical possibilities about the future, but never actually attack the real problems that exist. Sad, Really Sad

          What is sad, G, is your inability to stay focused for more than 3 seconds before driving head first into a strawman argument. The slavery issue was brought up in regards to the founding fathers (try and follow the loop) … arguments were made fixing me to the civil war (not very good arguments) … you immediately jump into the Sean Hannity school of debate “typical of the left” … how you went from American slavery to a side bar on racism across the world to the middle east is something only your mind can explain.

          By the way, also typical of my kind of “left” is that slavery continues to exist in the form of economic slavery (i.e. the Marxist paradigm) … but that’s another issue way over your head, so stick to strawman arguments … because then at least you only look half foolish.

          • Sorry Charlie, but you are applying the present day ideology to the people who had a far different ideology in the 17 and 1800’s. that is not only a waste of time, it is rediculous on it’s face. Your argument is useless, because you cannot understand that people thought much differently back then. Maybe if you would let it go and move on to something you can actually get a real mental grip on (present day slavery), you could make a positive difference on someone’s life. Your whole argument is a giant scarecrow because it doesn’t apply that period of time. It makes no sense to apply today’s thinking to actions of two centuries ago.

            The same could be said of warfare. They lined up side by side in long lines and met the same. That would never happen today in wartime. Different times had different idealologies, to argue against the past using the present is a waste of time, everybodies time 🙂

            • “Your argument is useless, because you cannot understand that people thought much differently back then.”

              Owning a slave back then was different than owning a person today, huh? Right, whatever you say …

              Actually, they didn’t just line up … guerilla warfare has been around a lot longer than your small mind can obviously fathom … but, hey, you’re the Gman …

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Questions…………

    Would the strong racism that existed in this country post Civil War have existed if Slavery were allowed to die a natural death?

    Would it have been so institutionalized in the South if the North had not ravaged the South during the war and following reconstruction?

    • Would the strong racism that existed in this country post Civil War have existed if Slavery were allowed to die a natural death?

      Huh? You’re kidding, right?

      Would it have been so institutionalized in the South if the North had not ravaged the South during the war and following reconstruction?

      Let’s get back to your first question here and pose it this way (equally absurd): Would blacks anywhere/everywhere in America have more trust in the system had they not been treated as Chattel for so long? Are you trying to suggest it was the north’s fault for institutional racism? I suspect it’s the history of slavery in America in general that had to lead to institutional racism. When you fight as hard as so many did to keep blacks from progressing (remember, it took until 1965 for the voting rights act), one has to wonder if anything has changed all that much.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Charlie

        Read my questions again. Your response is a distraction.

        Try dealing with the questions directly for a change.

        And NO, I am not kidding. Slavery died a natural death in England and other European countries. Their “racial” issues by the 1900’s don’t seem to be as harsh as ours. Was it due to the method in which slavery died or was it simply the additional time? Or was it because they were WHITE EUROPEANS and we were mongrel Americans?

        • “Their “racial” issues by the 1900′s don’t seem to be as harsh as ours.”

          Yeah? Go to a soccer game in Europe some time …

          Wisen up, JAC

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Charlie

            Name calling at a football game is not a reflection on the deep “institutional” racism we are discussing.

            I suggest you try harder.

  9. R.I.P.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    For those interested in the Texas “abortion” legislation. I found this copy of the actual bill. Don’t know if it is the one being debated now but I am at a loss as to how this legislation is going to cause “most of the clinics to close” and “end abortion” in Texas.

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/831/billtext/html/SB00005E.HTM

    There may be a legitimate complaint regarding the criteria that a Doctor must have active “admitting privileges” to a hospital within 30 miles. Others have told me that many Docs don’t have such privileges but that any patient they treat would have access to the nearest hospital.

    So there could be legitimacy in the complaint that this requirement is not necessary and may cause some clinics or Doc outpatient facilities to stop performing abortions without good reason.

    The hard core are arguing that this is the poison pill hidden in the legislation. Colonel???

    Anyone??? Seems we need more information to confirm or deny.

  11. Another problem with Stand Your Ground? The defense in the Zimmerman trial just argued that a single punch to the face (or an attempt to do so) is enough for the use of deadly force. And guess what, under Florida (and all other stand your ground laws), it is … OY FRIGGIN’ VEY.
    Or, as Ace might put it … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCW9G5sHu9U

    • Just A Citizen says:

      So what is wrong with that??

      Punch me and you die.

      Assuming here that you started the attack.

      Maybe we would have fewer attacks for stupid reasons if people thought it would get them killed.

      • It’s FUCKING stupid, JAC … and you know it.

        I can only hope you get your way some day and everyone carries handguns everywhere … they’ll be about 2,000 killings a day (people bump into one another by accident all the time) but all one need do is “fear for his life” …

        How about “look at me and you die?” Why not?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          Have you noticed the large drop off in gun homicides the past couple months??

          So lets see, gun sales go through the roof and homicides suddenly drop. Hmmmmmmmm.

          • I am NOT against people owning guns, JAC … not at all … my point had to do with the law … if you’d shoot someone dead for pushing you, think of the possibilities …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              I am aware of the possibilities. But you can’t write laws to prevent stupid or bad behavior.

              You can only gather evidence and use it if you think they are lying.

              Any law that restricts self defense targets the innocent. It creates victims who must then depend on the State to prosecute their killer. Instead of letting them stay alive.

              So with this as with most “law” issues, it is not the law which is the problem but the lack of character of the people. The “Wild West” never happened the way people portray it. Because killing another person was known to be a dramatic, traumatic and last resort type of thing.

              You see, killing to protect yourself is not a new concept. What has changed is the people, not the legal idea.

              • “You see, killing to protect yourself is not a new concept. What has changed is the people, not the legal idea.”

                JAC, I agree … but that is what makes it so dangerous today (vs. the so-called wild, wild west) … and some people are too clever not to see the vagueness of the defense (the bad guys) … it just seems like it’s “asking for trouble” … now, you may be an expert shooter, but I’ll guarantee you many who take a shot (literally) probably aren’t and then you have stray bullets killing the kid crossing the street up the block, etc. There’s already a self-defense law on the books for those who “truly” need it. USW once argued that the cost of being accused of defending oneself alone made the stand your ground law worth it (I’m pretty sure that was his argument), but look at the cost of the Zimmerman trial … without contributions, that theory is a big bust.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          WHY is it stupid? A man attacks me and punches me in the face. I am being attacked. Do I have to wait for him to bash my head in before I kill him?

          I carry spare parts from such an attack. Had I had a gun I would not be carrying spare parts in my head. I would not have had to pay the medical bills to install said parts. Nor suffered the long term pain of a jaw that is out of alignment or the cracked teeth that must be mended from time to time.

          I am to suffer all this because YOU think me defending myself by killing the attacker is “stupid”?

          • An attack is one thing, JAC … but a simple push? Did someone “push” you or punch you in the face? Up above you wrote: Push me and I shoot you dead. The colonel made mention of something similar last week (that he’d shoot somebody for stealing a garden took from his front yard. I trust both of you WOULD NOT shoot to kill over being pushed and/or stealing a garden tool. My point is that once you open the door to street fights equaling “attacks” … you have a lot of dead people. Have you, a law abiding citizen, never gotten into a fight you regretted later (something that was perhaps your fault orrr was something that happened for some dumb reason)? People get into scuffles all the time … kids, Christ, it’s a right of passage … do we just give license to killing one another over such bullshit?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              I understand your concerns. But yes, just give license to killing those who attack you. There will be fewer attacks.

              I gave you an example of my personal experience.

              I expect I would not kill someone unless I felt it was a serious threat. But that is the point as well. As one gets older what used to be just a punk pushing you can become a life threatening event.

              • “I expect I would not kill someone unless I felt it was a serious threat. But that is the point as well. As one gets older what used to be just a punk pushing you can become a life threatening event.”

                Yes, but if it’s up to you (the shooter) to determine life threatening, the door is wide open for others to feel the same way … or to “claim” they felt the same way.

            • Charlie…..good points all and the main thing that sticks out is……subjective thinking. As I pointed out in my example…..it really makes no difference in thefts. Theft is theft whether it is a nickel or a Mercedes…..both will get you brought down. I will never subscribe to any theory of “proportional response”……there is no such thing. Who determines proportional?

              I feel that I would be like JAC…..do not push me for ANY reason. I will NOT walk away and I will not “turn the other cheek”. I may or may not pull my equalizer but the choice is still there. Five punches in the face will elicit the same response as a school yard shove on the shoulder. You violated my space…..provocation notwithstanding of course. A jury will determine provocation.

              The example of Zimmerman will be determined by a jury, as it should be. If I shoot someone because I felt threatened…..then I am willing to let a jury decide should a trial be warranted. But that is the difference between you and I….and that too……is ok. To adopt a position of..” Oh, it is just a garden hose” exacerbates a greater future problem…..my opinion of course. You see it as society breaking down….I see it the opposite…….BUT, I still will share Canoli with you, my friend.

              • Cannolis all around, Colonel … 🙂

              • “I feel that I would be like JAC…..do not push me for ANY reason. I will NOT walk away and I will not “turn the other cheek”. I may or may not pull my equalizer but the choice is still there. Five punches in the face will elicit the same response as a school yard shove on the shoulder. You violated my space…..provocation notwithstanding of course. A jury will determine provocation.”

                Remind me to stay out of Texas, Colonel! What if it’s an accident that you deem was intentional? You’re looking one way in a parking lot, some guys are coming your way, but you don’t take notice. One friend shoves another (playing around) and the guy bumps into you and his friends laugh (at him, not you). You’ve had a shit day (for whatever reason) and take the shove as intentional. You shoot him dead (or just superficially wound him). Will you defend yourself in court with stand your ground then?

        • This is where the stats don’t support you. 25 years ago when Florida passed the first right to carry law, journalists were predicting exactly what you predicted. It never happened nor did the hundreds of thousands apply for the permits. It was a goodly amount as it is in other states, (40) that have it but it was not overwhelming. For some strange reason, and I am as dumbfounded as you, people who do apply tend to take the responsibility of carrying firearm very seriously. Not every hoople wants one. Oh, there are exceptions but there are exceptions to everything.

          • I have no problem with gun cariers, Stephen. The argument isn’t about carrying guns … it’s about stand your ground and how it is being applied … gangbangers use it to get off shooting at one another … G might applaud that, but it’s the occasional innocent who gets whacked by a stray bullet that concerns most people … except for G, especially when the innocent is black.

            • Charlie, I’m sure you like when a gang banger whacks an innocent kid during a drive by shooting too! At least that’s a REAL event that has occurred, not your made up BS.

  12. Charlie, one other point. You used an example of a person, not adequately trained, shooting at some one and hitting a child…..a good example AND that person should be responsible. Along with carrying and using firearms….is the responsibility of using the weapon correctly.

    • Yes, Colonel … of course, but maybe he doesn’t think about shooting someone if he doesn’t know (the way Zimmerman apparently knew–getting an A in a class that covered it extensively) he can argue that he was standing his ground. All I’m saying is there has always been a defense law on the books. Stand your ground opens up a plethora of potential overzealous killings (which the Zimmerman case appears to be) …

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Charlie

        I see part of the reason for the continued debate here. You said there have “always” been defense laws on the books.

        But this is not true and that is what caused the Stand Your Ground laws to be passed. Self Defense became a crime in many states. The victims were treated as the criminals and subject to State prosecution.

        Now as for Zimmerman, if the jury finds him guilty of 2nd degree or manslaughter that will create a constraint on the law. Each subsequent case will further refine and define it according to what the “people” think is reasonable. I would rather have that process that having a bunch of lawyers try to write into law each and every possibility.

        Because you see, they can’t. The result would be that self defense would again be a crime.

        • JAC, I’m assuming the castle law has always been in effect; if not that, then the basic right of self defense — when one’s life is in danger. I’ll quadruple check, but I’m pretty sure there’s always been the right to defend oneself.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie, on subject here. Castle laws are somewhat new, only a few years old in PA and Ohio. Under the old laws, the requirement to run, for no better word, was required before any kind of force could be used (inside the home). Now, it is assumed that an intruder is going to harm you, so deadly (in most states, but not all) is allowed.

            Not all states have a Castle Law and the same goes for Stand Your Ground. SYG laws vary from state to state as to what is permitted and when. Of course, no one reads these laws and knows this. Zimmerman is not relying on a SYG law, he is relying on self defense, as a reminder.

            Check Jersey law, because it is different then most, but it has a SYG law as well. I need to read the Pa laws myself, not that I ever expect to have to use it. On Monday, I will put up a new post and we can debate SYG law. We all have differing opinions of it. What do ya think Amici? 🙂

            • I know about the SYG law and that it’s not being used in Zimmerman. I had always thought (or assumed) that in the event one’s life is threatened, in any state and at any time, one had/has the right to self defense.

              Retreating when possible makes sense, but it also vague, so I can understand when or why someone would want more leverage to defend oneself, but in some cases, those that the colonel and JAC offered (for instance— i.e., pushing, a punch in the face, stealing something), I think it is INSANE to allow one person to kill another. I suspect it’s more macho talk than reality. I can’t imagine anyone shooting to kill someone who steals a garden hose or is shoved in say, the line of a movie, etc., so I doubt either JAC or the Colonel are being 100% honest and are more interested in showcasing a macho image (something neither has to do, especially the colonel–he was a colonel for Christ Sake!) … but if someone would shoot to kill over a garden hose and/or a shove, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and I’d pay dollars to donuts to see them get on the witness stand and testify in their own defense their feelings about shooting to kill in such instances. That’s something I know they wouldn’t do … EVER.

              I think anyone (myself included) who found themselves in GZ’s position (post killing the kid) would IN FACT embellish the story about why he had to shoot to kill. Nobody (in their right mind) would say, “You shove me, I shoot you dead” … or “you steal from me, I shoot you dead.”

              I’m not sure if the Colonel ever answered my question about those who cheat (and thus steal) on taxes … or those who might shortchange him at the register … or maybe pocket a dollar rather than put it in the register. If he saw someone doing that in a store he owned (say) … would he shoot that person dead? I don’t believe it for one second. That’s just peacock strutting.

              By the way … my reputation (for good or bad) is to always take the sucker punch, my friend … my thought process being: If you can knock me out with a single blow, you’d probably win anyway … and if you don’t, you’ll just piss me off … but never the to point that I’d shoot anybody. 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Charlie

                Lets get rid of the “pushing” argument. Your stretching the comment beyond reason.

                We were discussing AGGRESSION against another when I used the you push me and I shoot you. I used it to show that going after someone and shoving them, in aggression, is different for a 20 yrs old than a 60 yr old person. One would probably push or punch back, as most of us did in our younger years. But if a very large Italian came at me in rage and shoved me TODAY, I would drop him like a bag of rattlesnakes.

                See the difference? Yes, it requires some rational judgment on my part. It is not perfect when it comes to “knowing” the true story when there are NO WITNESSES. But the truth does tend to come out even in those situations. IF the Cops do their due diligence.

                For the record, I probably wouldn’t shoot someone over a garden hose or a bike. My Pickup Truck or my Horse is a different matter. Dead for sure.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        P.S. and on the topic of irresponsible shooters.

        Your concerns here can be addressed largely with REQUIRED TRAINING in order to be able to carry a gun in residential or urban areas. Training is already required to carry a gun in the rural areas for hunting.

        • I’m not sure training would make a difference … what about a guy who uses a baseball bat on somebody who accidentally (or intentionally) shoves another? Let’s say they’re both in the mid-twenties. Should a 20 year old have the same right to self defense as a 70 year old? It just opens a big Pandora’s box, it seems to me.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Should a 20 year old have the same right to self defense as a 70 year old?

            This question is a tell tale example of the absurdity of the leftist mind. What the hell does age have to do with inalienable rights? Answer: NOTHING 🙄

  13. Charlie, On point, and not trying to be mean or anything, but you tend to apply “how Charlie would do it” to just about everything. You apply to gun ownership, maybe because you have limited knowledge in that area, you apply it to self defense, maybe you really are invincible, you apply it to the Founding Fathers, because you think slavery is wrong, they should have thought the same. Do you see my point? There is only one Charlie Stella and noone else should have to think like him (because that would be a disaster 🙂 ).

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    A Black American on what it means to be American. Can’t wait for Charlie to explain why this Black guy is full of oompah.

    http://www.nextgeneration.tv/?cmd=mpg&load=8596&mpid=517

    • Allen West … oy vey … What’s to explain … you could use that idiot who made a fortune selling pizza (I can’t even remember his name, but he ran for office) … you have one black guy in your pocket, JAC … good luck with that. I suspect there are many millions more that don’t quite feel the same way 🙂

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    A modern commentary on our Independence………….Dependence and the revolution required.

    http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=8624&mpid=56

  16. Institutional as it gets, amici …

    •From 1980 to 2008, the number of people incarcerated in America quadrupled-from roughly 500,000 to 2.3 million people
    •Today, the US is 5% of the World population and has 25% of world prisoners.
    •Combining the number of people in prison and jail with those under parole or probation supervision, 1 in ever y 31 adults, or 3.2 percent of the population is under some form of correctional control

    Racial Disparities in Incarceration
    •African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
    •African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
    •Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
    •According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today’s prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
    •One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
    •1 in 100 African American women are in prison
    •Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).

    Drug Sentencing Disparities
    •About 14 million Whites and 2.6 million African Americans report using an illicit drug
    •5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites
    •African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense.
    •African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)

    Contributing Factors
    • Inner city crime prompted by social and economic isolation
    • Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession
    • “Get tough on crime” and “war on drugs” policies
    • Mandatory minimum sentencing, especially disparities in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine possession
    • In 2002, blacks constituted more than 80% of the people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite that fact that more than 2/3 of crack cocaine users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic
    • “Three Strikes”/habitual offender policies
    • Zero Tolerance policies as a result of perceived problems of school violence; adverse affect on black children.
    • 35% of black children grades 7-12 have been suspended or expelled at some point in their school careers compared to 20% of Hispanics and 15% of whites

    Effects of Incarceration
    • Jail reduces work time of young people over the next decade by 25-30 percent when compared with arrested youths who were not incarcerated
    • Jails and prisons are recognized as settings where society’s infectious diseases are highly concentrated
    • Prison has not been proven as a rehabilitation for behavior, as two-thirds of prisoners will reoffend

    Exorbitant Cost of Incarceration: Is it Worth It?
    • About $70 billion dollars are spent on corrections yearly
    • Prisons and jails consume a growing portion of the nearly $200 billion we spend annually on public safety

    • Go crazy, G … Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

      • Old news Amici, glad to see your trying to catch up with the rest of us here, might help you debate instead of fall back on the old name calling when your whipped, again 🙂

    • Here is my grenade. What if we closed the doors to this country for the next 20 years by statute. In that time, we devote all our efforts to educating the populations that are already here, black and Hispanic. No more money wasted on bi-lingual anything, fewer burnt out teachers who have to go through the same routine year after year.Not enough time to enforce standards and discipline. In other words, the same thing that happened in the early 20th century which built the juggernaut that won WW 2 and created unheard of prosperity for the common man.

      Charlie, even you should love this. It would dry up the excess labor, lead to higher wages, more innovation, stronger unions. Forty years ago I was talking to a personnel specialist and he told me that what was needed was for industry to train the undereducated. He felt this would never happen because there was a tremendous surplus of cheap labor. I never forgot what he said. My experience in the contracting/construction world proved him right. There was and still is a reliance on brawn over brains.

      Assimilation is the antidote to everything. You can accomplish great things united in a common cause that you cannot as an individual, scrambling to stay ahead of your neighbor. Read Steve Ambrose last Chapter in “Citizen Soldier”. It’s a mind blower.

      • I think I can agree about the 20 year limit, but some of our corporations would never agree. Educate for real, sure … no problem there … add more teachers and schools than prison, all for it.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          Actually some corporations are funding education to reduce shortages in certain skill areas, like engineers.

          What they have not done yet is build and fund separate Universities for this purpose.

          • And some corporations are in on the new Prison for profit jails that are springing up all over the place. Corporations target what they need and could care less about the rest of the population … the nature of capitalism, I’ll always argue.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              Corporations of all kinds SERVE their CUSTOMERS.

              WHO are the CUSTOMERS of these additional prisons.

              Now the question on the table was businesses funding education. So why in the hell does private operations of prisons have anything to do with that question?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      Your example of how “drug laws” impact Blacks differently does come close to “institutional racism”. Given the nature of the debates when these laws were passed I am not convinced it was to target Blacks as much as the drug itself. Affect is not necessarily prove of cause or purpose. One reason I hate using percentages as thresholds for “discriminatory” action by Federal Regulators.

      I said somewhere back in SUFA times that the drug laws were resulting in “unjust” treatment of Blacks. Yes they do the crime and that is part of it. But the crime itself is flawed and creates at least the appearance of Institutional Racism if not the real thing itself.

      The other part of this is the Jury decisions and sentencing by the Judges. Again we are using percentages to assign guilt of racism. On the surface this appears true. But is it because they are “Black” or because of their other background? I don’t know without hearing the actual arguments. The proper Stat. comparison is the finding of guilt and sentencing of all “CRACK” offenders. If Black crack users get a tougher deal in a large way then, Houston we have a problem.

      But again, based on numbers it appears racism is at play. But this is not what the Colonel and I call “institutional racism”. Because the institution of the courts does not create it. Unfortunately it apparently doesn’t overcome it either. To be more specific, if it is “racism” then it appears to be “person” based rather than “Institutional”.

      Now let me add that drug laws in general are a problem.

      • Gotta continue to look at the lowest common denominator. Another series of shootings over the weekend outside the projects in Bed Stuy. Black on Black crime. Regardless of the BS ads, Madison Avenue sells you looking at those happy black 3.2 person families, , the basic problem is THERE ARE NO DADS!. Number one rule of leadership is , “Set the example”. If there is no example, kids are as rudderless as raw recruits in a battle. The battle we are talking bout, namely LIFE, is much more important!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Nice post. I have never heard Mr. Cruz speak before. Invigorating to say the least.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    There are times one does have to wonder whether HOMO SAPIENS are capable of CIVILIZED societies.

    Or could this be an example of the Anarchist Social LAW at work?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/referee-player-killed-brazil-soccer-fans_n_3555436.html

  18. @JAC: But if a very large Italian came at me in rage and shoved me TODAY, I would drop him like a bag of rattlesnakes.

    That’s fair enough, but why should you get to fear a very large eye-talian (tell me you’re not singling out those people) and a 20 year old doesn’t get to fear the same. Is rage the qualifier? Large? You know where I’m going with this JAC. Way too much ambiguity and the range of “fear” between individuals is immense.

    <i?See the difference? Yes, it requires some rational judgment on my part. It is not perfect when it comes to “knowing” the true story when there are NO WITNESSES. But the truth does tend to come out even in those situations. IF the Cops do their due diligence.

    And how can you tell if the “truth” tends to come out when there are no witnesses? That seems like a VERY irrational statement, JAC. Who knows what the truth is if there are no witnesses?

    For the record, I probably wouldn’t shoot someone over a garden hose or a bike. My Pickup Truck or my Horse is a different matter. Dead for sure.

    Okay, so some guy is looking to snag your truck and you see him from the top window of your home (assuming a 2nd floor). You grab your rifle. Do you wing him or kill him? To me, killing him would be an absolutely unreasonable amount of force. He wasn’t threatening your life. He was threatening to rob your truck (big deal). You take his life for that? I think it’s bluster (because I want to believe you’re a human being first).

    Got the grandchild today (in a few minutes … no band practice) but I may be spoiling this little one rotten for a few hours … so excuse me …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      You know as well as I there is little “ambiguity”. I am sure you recognize a real threat when you see it. So do I. Can’t think of a single time I was wrong. And it did not involve some guy “bumping” into me in a bar.

      “Threat” is real per the one threatened. I have agreed this opens up problems. But only when NO WITNESSES are around. Yes it differs from person to person. Moral of the story is DO NOT ATTACK people who have not attacked you.

      I live in country where guns are common on the street. I expect you do as well. It has an obvious constraining affect on how one reacts to others. I am not going to get up in the face of some asshole I think is packing. Not unless he threatens me in meaningful way. And coming at me and shoving is a “threat” to my personal well being. Dead he will be.

      Good police work usually reveals “contradictions” between “evidence” and the “story”. Hence the Zimmerman prosecution. So my statement is not “irrational”.

      Apparently you don’t know how much my own life is connected to both my Truck and my Horse. I assure you that is not bluster. I would shoot someone stealing my Truck or my Horse. Sorry but there is still a little Old West Justice living in this cowboy. And yes, this violates the Black Flag doctrine of reciprocal retaliation.

      Enjoy your play time.

    • Unfortunately, there is the old, “never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot” followed by, “never shoot a gun at anyone you don’t intend to kill”.There are however, every month in the “American Rifleman” magazine, numerous stories about guns being used to stop crimes. Most cases don’t even involve firing a shot. If I have the drop on the bad guy and have the time to think, I get to hold him for the cops.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        More properly, “don’t aim a gun at anyone your not WILING to shoot”. The second one then follows the same vane; “don’t shoot at anyone you’re not willing to kill”.

        Thus your holding off the bad guy with a gun is consistent with the moral and ethical use of self defense.

    • Enjoy the bambino. Wait until they get to interact with you! Took Jackie two weeks ago to Knoebels Groves Amusement Park in PA, about 2 1/2 hours from the GW Bridge. Neat place we discovered some 35 years ago. Just the wife and I had her (2 and 3/4 years old). I have never had such a good time. Highly recommended place, family owned by a lumber company since the 1920’s (benevolent despotism started out as a place for employees to recreate on weekends) . Believe it or not, on a Friday afternoon, with the parking lot mostly filled, spent six hours without hearing the word F— once! Place tends to bring out the best in people. Well worth the trip.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the day, well quote of the day.

    “The people of America can never be safe, if Congress have a right to exercise the power of giving constructions to the constitution different from the original instrument.” Elbridge Gerry

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Those who lost their lives fighting fire in Arizona travel home:

    http://news.msn.com/us/procession-taking-19-fallen-arizona-firefighters-home

    The investigation begins as well.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    A great article for a SUNDAY following Independence Day. Ladies, this one is for you in particular. Something to combat those atheist arguments.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Word of the month: Punks! As everyone will soon find out why!

%d bloggers like this: