3 hours ago
A blog about firearms, self-defense, politics, hunting, personal responsibility and other topics that catch our interest by a couple from the frozen north, temporarily displaced to "Outside."
[Ed.: I am assuming that she is sarcastic here.] Right. Citizens absolutely do NOT surrender their civil rights- ever, ever, ever. No matter that [there is a high profile news story emergency]. No matter that in national emergencies people do not necessarily think straight and may just use [inappropriate words] when they shouldn't. No matter that the common good and public safety are more important at times than individual rights. There just are times when, as communities, people should pull together to do the right thing and help out. But apparently not to the [free speech] guys. They have to have their [right to spew inflammatory offensive rhetoric] at all times even if they themselves can be dangerous. There just is no common sense when it comes to the common good for the [free speech] rights advocates.
But when we know we can prevent [emergencies] by not allowing people to shoot their [mouths] or even temporarily ban the use of [megaphones, parades, or public gatherings], why would we not do that? Consider the alternative which is spelled out clearly in the articles above. These emergency measures are there for good reasons. But the [ACLU] doesn't trust government. The [ACLU] wants the minority of folks who [petition the government for redress of grievances] and carry [megaphones] to determine public safety rather than the people who are actually charged with doing so for the good of our communities. There are obviously two sides to this issue. One only cares about individual rights, period. The other cares about what's good for all. People do have a right to be safe from man made disasters. Never mind what's good for us all. The [ACLU] is pushing its' views and inserting them into other laws. In my state of Minnesota, one of the provisions of the [Say] First bill, now vetoed by Governor Dayton, was to stop the state from temporary [free speech bans] in national emergencies. People are busy with other concerns in national emergencies. People are distraught and emotional. Do we really think it would have been a good idea for the folks trapped in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina to have [megaphones] inside? Terrible idea for obvious reasons. We do have the awful incident of officers [saying false lies about] shooting innocent Black people during the deluge in New Orleans and the lawsuit that followed. Corruption and violence perpetrated by police officers should not be tolerated. It just adds to the mistrust that some have of law enforcement...
But in times of national emergencies, I trust in law enforcement and the government to carry out their charge to keep us safe. I don't believe there are ulterior motives when law enforcement invokes rules to temporarily restrict the [right of the people to peaceably assemble or say their minds]. They have the interest of the public in mind and that is their job. To undermine that, as the [ACLU] does in these cases, is to cause more potential harm to the community. It is for the common good.
Although the Justice Department has extended the deadline for America’s hotels to comply with regulations regarding handicap access to swimming pools, new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines are already being applied at miniature golf courses, driving ranges, amusement parks, shooting ranges and saunas.
Among the provisions in the "Revised ADA Standards for Accessible Design," which went into effect on March 15...
Shooting facilities – provision of accessible turning space “for each different type of firing position.”
Lead: "Found any spent rounds?"CSI Tech: "Not yet, but I did find these .44 casings."
The No. 1 killer of combat troops returning to the U.S. is not suicide. It’s car accidents, according to the Veterans Affairs Department.
Soldiers and Marines (and, to a lesser extent, sailors and airmen) learn to “drive to survive” in foreign battlegrounds. But those same driving skills don’t translate well to U.S. roads and are proving deadly for troops, MyFoxHouston.com reports.
According to FOX 26, USAA looked at 171,000-plus deployments, and saw "a 13 percent increase in at-fault accidents" among troops that had just returned stateside.
That's a 13 percent jump, overall, in wrecks caused by post-deployment personnel.
But the risk rises 22 percent among enlisted troops. And the increase was a startling 36 percent for individuals with three or more deployments under their belts.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/17/returning-troops-find-new-enemy-at-home-driving/#ixzz1y6K24TrV
Some officers were just arriving and the man was moving toward the officer who ultimately shot him, Parker said.
"He was brandishing a stick, like a weapon," Parker said. "I can kill you just as easily with a stick as I can with a baseball bat or an ice pick, or a knife. I mean, it's a dangerous situation."
they could have easily shot him in the leg or arm. they didnt have to shoot him to kill him. i dont think that there is any excuse to kill a man with a stick.
I think killing the suspect is going way to far. If you're a police officer and feel threatened, just shoot to disarm, why was it nessasary to shoot to kill?
...I do believe that it would be for the best -- better both for the institution of marriage and the individuals getting married -- if we could change the law to prevent couples from getting married before the age of 25.Some schmuck from Toronto actually believes that armed government officials should come to either incarcerate or punitively fine young newlyweds. That's what "changing the law" means, right?
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.So, Ms. Nagy -- Get. The. Heck. Out. Of. Other. People's. Lives. Seriously, get over yourself. DW and I got hitched below the age of 25 and we're celebrating five solid years thus far. Young adults under the age of 25 serve as commissioned and non-commissioned officers in both the US and Canadian armed forces. That's right, people that age literally take on life-or-death commitments including binding themselves to solemn oaths. Just because you were personally unable to handle that kind of commitment, or because you showed poor judgement and got yourself married due to nothing more than alcohol-facilitated peer pressure, doesn't mean that all young adults are so reckless.