For those who have experienced the sinking feeling that Barack Obama is causing irreparable damage to America’s foreign policy interests, but just couldn’t put their finger on it, comes a story from “The London Telegraph” (here). According to “The Telegraph,” Mr. Obama secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on the size of Britain’s nuclear deterrent in exchange for finalizing his START arms control deal. This information was apparently discovered in diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. Due to the size of their relatively small nuclear arsenal, the British have been careful to keep its exact size secret. This revelation apparently refers to Mr. Obama giving the Russians definitive information on American Trident missiles provided to the British, including certain unique identifiers that would allow Russia to accurately count British weapons.
State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley has, according to Jake Tapper of ABC News, vehemently denied the story, claiming that the Obama Administration was only following part of the 1991 START agreement. In other words, Crowley is not denying the facts of the revelation of new, specific information on British weapons, but is claiming that what Mr. Obama did is nothing new and was required by the 1991 treaty.
A British spokesman, speaking anonymously, has quietly and weakly said--again according to Tapper--that “his understanding of the policy conforms with that asserted by the State Department.” This despite the fact that since that 1991 treaty, the British have never agreed to the release of the information Mr. Obama released to the Russians.
Via Hot Air, here is a portion of the memo exposed by Wikileaks:
1
I've quoted you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/02/re-smart-diplomacy-and-finger-bowls.html.
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at February 07, 2011 10:11 PM (VNXh1)
2
"American diplomats" is a pretty broad brush to tar with; it covers a lot of ground, and unfairly so.
America's professional diplomats spend years learning languages and history and cultures, working abroad on the nation's behalf.
America's diplomats don't make America's foreign policy.
(That's the so-obvious-it's-apparently-a-secret truth.)
America's diplomats "deliver the mail" in face-to-face encounters with foreign officials. America's diplomats report back to Washington what they see, hear, and intuit about conditions and situations abroad. America's diplomats provide context and depth to America's foreign affairs expertise.
See where this is going?
Even at the ambassadorial level, it seems to be rare that much input is sought by the people who actually set our foreign policy. Those folks are people at the cabinet or perhaps sub-cabinet level.
For most of our American diplomats, at best we do the ground work, by our report and cable writing in the months and years we spend abroad, to build a context and knowledge base from which our foreign policy decision-makers can work.
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at February 08, 2011 11:42 PM (VNXh1)
Our young nation had just burst forth thanks to the grit of a disheveled army of citizen-soldiers — one which overcame what was then the greatest military power in the world. From firsthand experience, those citizen-soldiers knew that the civilian ownership of arms suitable for military use was vital, both to their new nation’s existence and to the continued existence of their liberty itself.
Hunting and target practice were not cited as justification for the amendment.
Thoughts on what the Second Amendment really protects in my latest article at Pajamas Media
1
Well, I'll post here what I posted there about what the courts said in the Heller decision:
Well, according to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia, Heller decision (case no 04-7041a). It is about hunting as well as self-defense:
page 46
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
An interesting bit of the decision (page 53) which came up in the orals before SCOTUS, as the Attorney General for the US acknowledged he would be hard pressed to argue that the M16 or other assualt rifles aren’t protected under 2nd Amendment:
“The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).”
Posted by: styrgwillidar at February 07, 2011 11:38 AM (FzhYM)
2
From the oral arguments before SCOTUS in Heller, and keep in mind that Atty General Clement was arguing in support of the ban:
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that opinion also, it didn’t use the militia prologue to say it’s only the kind of weapons that would be useful in militia, and that are commonly — commonly held today. Is there any Federal exclusion of weapons that applies to weapons that are commonly held today? I don’t know what you’re worried about. Machine guns, what else? Armored bullets, what else?
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it.
Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre –
pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is –it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well –
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”
Now, if this Court wants to say that they don’t — I mean — I mean — we’d obviously welcome that in our — in our obligation to defend the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
The one other thing I would say is that this is an opinion that is susceptible of different readings. It’s interesting that Respondents’ amici have different characterizations of it. The Goldwater Institute calls it strict scrutiny; the State of Texas calls it reasonable — reasonableness review.
I'll add here that the SCOTUS decision referred to allowing 'reasonable restrictions' and gave examples of groups- felons/mentally. They didn't mention banning types of firearms as examples of reasonable restrictions- but that is where the court fight will be in the future.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at February 07, 2011 11:41 AM (FzhYM)
The Erik Scott Case: Update 10: The First Cracks Appear?
You don’t want to commit a crime in Las Vegas--at least not on TV. On the tube, you’ll be relentlessly pursued by a group of young, beautiful, highly educated and competent crime scene investigators who work in gleaming glass and steel labs surrounded by state of the art equipment that would make MIT green with envy. So ethical and competent are they--and the police force they serve--that if a molecule of evidence exists in the known universe, they’ll find it and brilliantly use it against a suspect to talk them into a tearful confession. Readers who have been following the Scott case updates (this update is linked to all of our other posts relating to the case), know that the reality of Las Vegas is very different, even greater than the usual disparity between TV and reality.
Before we get into the most recent developments in the case, here are links to articles that readers will find interesting:
(1) An article on Metro Police Training, available here.
(2) An article on the arrest of Officer Thomas Mendiola, available here.
(3) An article on the arrest of Mendiola with a PDF link to the criminal complaint, available here.
(4) An article on another Metro shooting, available here.
(5) An article on Metro officers stopped for speeding while on duty--in Arizona--is available here.
1
Imagine Densley’s frame of mind. Rather than doing the right thing, the officers may have tried to frame Greer, or at least, tried to muddy the water as much as possible.
Imagine also the climate that causes someone to think that way. No one in a competent, professional department thinks that way. The consequences of being discovered in the coverup are worse than the consequences of simply admitting to the failure, and a competent, professional department will certainly discover the coverup.
The only way that an officer starts thinking this way is if the coverup of a failure is not only known and acknowledged generally, but is in fact ubiquitous. I'm honestly starting to wonder if the show Reno 911! was actually intended to be called Vegas 911!, but the producers decided calling it that would be too dangerous.
The Arizona Adventure is truly troubling. I have to wonder if the time off with pay isn't as much quid pro quo as "punishment". Don't tell anyone why you were really in Arizona, and we'll give you a few weeks paid vacation.
Posted by: Phelps at February 06, 2011 03:47 PM (ACp4b)
2
First cracks? Nothing probative regarding the Scott case at all.
What you might have is an indictment of affirmative action for recycling Mendiola.
You got a minor administrative infraction and an unrelated criminal act.
You are desperate and reaching. This issue has long been dropped by anyone with intelligence, such as Vin Suprynowicz, just as the Scotts have dropped Costco from the lawsuit, as there is no there there. Costco reported a crime and are not and cannot be held liable for that report.
Similarly you got no there there. You are riding this hobby horse to irrelevance. Clearly you thought you would make your bones with the Scott case and step up a notch in the blogging world, but it does not appear likely that you will reach the HuffPo level and sell your site for millions.
Posted by: Federale at February 07, 2011 12:59 PM (JS6HU)
What is contemptible, is describing the inexcusable death of a man as whimsical.
Posted by: Jvh at February 08, 2011 07:46 PM (DKv/6)
7
What facts that support his crazed conspiracy between Costco, the U.S. Secret Service, a video company, LVM Fire and the LVMPD? There are none.
Well, the Scott family has concluded that there is no conspiracy between Costco and the LVMPD, which blows the whole case out of the water.
And you also refuse to address the facts that the witnesses testified to, such as Scott's girlfriend, who said he had a gun in his hand when he was shot. How about that fact?
The problem is that you and this site are in denial. Inconvinient fact appears, you just deny it. The magic gun is a case in point. Why create this? Because you don't like the fact that Scott had a gun in his hand when he was shot.
You all are as reality challenged as the crazed shooter in Arizona. You see conspiracies everywhere.
You won't even acknowldege the fact that Scott was hopped up on all sorts of illegally obtained prescription pain killers. You ignore the testimony of Costco employees he was was literally falling down stoned.
Facts, you have only supposition, correlation, theory and a religious like belief in Saint Eric, clearly a flawed martyr.
The Second Amendment stands on its own, there is no need for it to be saved or justified by invoking the Eric Scott shooting. And you certainly have no evidence of any police misconduct.
Posted by: Federale at February 09, 2011 02:10 PM (JS6HU)
I don’t usually respond to those commenting, particularly those doing so primarily through ad hominem attacks, or those obviously motivated by the bad will you have so obviously displayed in your most recent comments. I choose not to do this because our readers are more than sufficiently intelligent and discerning to appreciate fact, logic and reason and to disregard arguments derived from bias and poor manners. Our readers virtually always comment in the spirit of good will and honest, informed debate. But for the benefit of those readers, I’ll respond--just this once.
My interest in this case derives from my many years as a police officer, including postings as a patrol officer, shift supervisor, division commander, detective, field training officer and SWAT operator. In short, I know how professional, non-corrupt police agencies work, and I understand police officers, and their internal and public relationships, very well. When I first became aware of the Erik Scott case, it caught my attention because of the great many unusual and irregular actions on the part of the police, and particularly because of the many bizarre and apparently illegal actions taken after the shooting. I have no doubt that any competent police officer would be likewise interested. I won’t go into specifics here as I’ve covered these issues in the updates in great detail, explaining what should have been done, what was done, and why that indicates incompetence and/or corruption. I have no connection with any of the parties involved in this case and have no inside knowledge of Metro or of the governmental agencies of Las Vegas. As a police veteran, I know that competence and honesty are essential in police work. As a citizen, I demand those qualities. As I have the opportunity to expose wrongdoing, and to encourage improvement, I have been gratified to contribute what I can to the body of public knowledge.
As to using this case to somehow gain attention in the blogging world, those familiar with that world would recognize that this type of story is hardly a rocket to fame and fortune. As in the work that puts food on my table (not blogging), I’ve always believed that the quality of that work should speak for itself, and so I believe regarding my writing. If it’s worthy, I need not try to call attention to it. If it’s not, no amount of calling attention to it will help. I’m confident in letting our readers make that decision.
In Update 10, I spoke of a Police shooting with some similarities to the Scott case and of the bizarre behavior of two Metro officers that reflects the kind of institutional culture that made the Scott shooting not only possible but likely. Surely you can see the connection? In this continuing series, I have, in fact, rarely mentioned the incredible number of examples of police and local government corruption and incompetence exposed virtually daily in Las Vegas. That Las Vegas is a poster child for criminally corrupt bad government is well known. That I have chosen to draw parallels with only a few select cases of this corruption in the entires series is indicative of a careful, non-hyperbolic approach to the Scott case, not “desperation and reaching” as you insinuate. Surely any reasonable person would agree that the revelations that one of the officers who shot Scott failed his basic training and has been arrested for a felony have significant bearing on his credibility as a police officer and witness, hence, they have a significant bearing on this case?
The foundation of your argument appears to be that because Erik Scott had prescription painkillers in his system when he was shot (which I did, in fact, explore in great detail in the updates), and because of your consistent mischaracterization of Samantha Sterner’s initial statement to Metro police, taken only minutes after she saw Scott shot to death at her side, the officers--and Costco--are blameless, therefore any evidence to the contrary, and all of the illegal and plainly incompetent and bizarre actions of Metro and other governmental agencies after the shooting are likewise irrelevant. I have also exhaustively addressed the contention by some Costco employees that Scott was, as you dramatically put it “literally falling down stoned.”
However, this, and your other assertions suggest a clear misunderstanding of police procedure, criminal and civil law, legal strategy and logic. I’ve pointed out the realities of eyewitness testimony and many related issues in the updates. Suffice it to say that eyewitness statements are often at odds, and such is the case here. You appear to be making one of the mistakes of poor investigators: Considering only the evidence that supports your preconceptions and disregarding all other evidence. Likewise, your dismissal of many important elements in the case, also clearly supported in the updates, is indicative not of authority, but of ignorance of the involved issues and procedures, and perhaps of a vested interest in seeing the case belittled and ignored. I suspect our readers would be interested in knowing any details of your connection to this case and/or to Metro or anyone involved with Metro or Las Vegas government. No doubt they’d also like to know the details of your background which might lend authority to what you assert.
As to the existence of a “crazed conspiracy,” I’ve been very cautious about making such pronouncements, choosing instead to point out proper and usual policies and behaviors, and exposing where a variety of agencies have deviated from those policies and behaviors. I’ve raised questions, many of which remain unanswered, and I have indeed posed a theory, a plausible theory based on what is known, a theory I’ve repeatedly noted may be incorrect in ways small and large. I am also more than willing to make immediate and prominent corrections when new information comes to light, and have done so.
As to the suggestion that I see Erik Scott as a “saint,” please understand that I never met him, and apart from the public information I’ve been able to obtain, know nothing of him. His background and service to our country are clearly worthy of respect, but even if, as you represent as fact (the evidence does not), he was impaired by prescription drugs to the point of derangement at the time he was killed, that’s irrelevant. What matters, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, is what the three Metro officers could have known and observed in the very few seconds that elapsed between their first setting eyes on him and shooting him. The evidence does not support your point of view. Again, I refer you and interested readers to the updates where I’ve covered these issues in exhaustive detail, and where they will find the known facts to be other than you have suggested.
Reading into the Goodman dismissal of Costco from the Federal civil suit that Costco and its employees have no potential liability suggests that you know little or nothing about the law or legal tactics, or again, have a vested interest in trying to deny them and in misleading the public. As I pointed out in Update 10, there are a great many sound tactical reasons for doing this--a few minutes of conversation with any competent lawyer will confirm this--it is not prima facie evidence that Costco or its employees are blameless, it does not immunize Costco employees from having to testify, and they may be again included in the suit at any time within the two year limitation period.
You frequently state as fact things that are not fact, such as the suggestion that Scott had a gun in his hand when he was shot. This is one of the central controversies in this case and is far from a settled fact. What I have done is to present a variety of reasons why it should not be so regarded. And as to the “magic gun,” one need only read the updates to see for themselves why this is another significant issue in this case, why the theory I’ve proposed is not only reasonable by likely, and why this issue has the potential to cause great anxiety for Metro and Las Vegas government.
Where the Erik Scott case is involved, time--and testimony--will tell. I’ll keep reporting and analyzing the case as it unfolds over the next year or two. You’re welcome to continue to comment, but I’d appreciate it if you’d confine your comments to thoughtful analysis of relevant issues rather than vitriolic sniping. Your most recent comments are quite close to the line of allowable, adult debate. Bad manners are never in good taste and certainly cannot substitute for reasoned communication. I’ll trust in our readers, as always, to know reason and truth when they see it, and to know that when something looks, acts, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If they appreciate this series, they’ll continue to read. Their responses thus far indicate that they do appreciate it as much as I appreciate them.
Posted by: mikemc at February 09, 2011 06:44 PM (lTwCa)
I have read your posts on the Eric Scott case with great interest and am always checking for updates. Reading your posts, I thought you had to have a police background, now I have confirmation.
This case has caught my attention and I don't know why. It's heartbreaking. I'm glad to have a place to go to read about it. Don't stop reporting on it. Thanksl.
Posted by: Jypsea at February 09, 2011 11:31 PM (DM6DH)
No, what's contemptible is the continuing crusade of carping on an issue that has been resolved by the NV criminal justice system.
Erik caused his own demise that day. However, if you still have a necessity to slur, start with the family & 'friends' who refused to acknowledge his addiction. Then continue on to his employer, who sanction the access to his fetish. Of course, let us not forget to blame the medical profession for failure to treat his demons (real or not).
The list is endless, I'm sure. Anything to avoid holding Erik responsible for his choices and lack of self-control.
Pitiful.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 11, 2011 03:10 PM (9i4q4)
With your last statement, it's obvious your lack of knowledge outside what the Police,and DA want you to know. The shooting scene photograph alone proves the object dropped IMMEDIATELY when he was shot, as confirmed by almost every witness was a cellphone. This has matter has never been through a criminal justce proceeding, the inquest is not a trial or a court sanctioned process. He who casts stones should not live in a glass house.
Posted by: Jvh at February 11, 2011 04:58 PM (DKv/6)
NV's Coroner Inquest is much like my state's Grand Jury, where 12 citizens review the evidence and decide if the case should go to trial. In this incident they returned a 'No True Bill'. It's an important part of the criminal justice system, even if you disagree with the results (this time).
Erik's girlfriend testified he had a gun in his hand when he was shot. (why would she lie?) That was good enough for the Inquest's jury, good enough for me and will be good enough for a civil jury. However, I speculate civil action will never see a courtroom as an out-of-court monetary settlement will occur, with the lawyers making most of the trifling money offered. I'm sure LV is self-insured with limited financial immunity, which means taxpayers will pay - as usual.
The cake is a lie!
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 11, 2011 06:02 PM (9i4q4)
Aside For Readers: "Buck Turgidson" is a character in the classic Stanley Kubrick film "Dr. Strangelove." Played brilliantly by a young George C. Scott, Turgidson is a war-mongering, slightly demented General. Make of this what you will.
Just a few simple points:
(1) A Coroner's Inquest is not remotely like a Grand Jury, a preliminary hearing, or a criminal or civil trial. I have covered the specific purpose of an inquest in the Updates, but as a quick review for readers, a grand jury is a means--outside the normal decision-making process--of charging specific people for specific crimes and nothing else. A criminal trial determines the innocence or guilt of a given individual on specific criminal charges. A civil trial settles torts, determining fault and assigning compensatory and punitive damages in non-criminal matters. A coroner's inquest determines the manner of death of a given individual (in virtually every state), whether that death was criminal or not (in virtually every state) and if a crime has been committed, who committed it (in some states, Nevada being one). An inquest does not decide guilt or innocence, and is entirely separate from the the entire decision-making and charging process by which a prosecutor charges an individual with crimes. The outcome of an inquest--and this is true in Nevada--is not the final word and does not in any way constrain a prosecutor from charging anyone with a crime, nor does it obligate them to make charges. In fact, the presentation of "evidence" in the Scott Inquest was so incomplete and biased that it served to so outrage the citizenry of Las Vegas that substantial changes were forced on the system. I've covered that in the updates. But anyone suggesting that an inquest decision is the same as an exoneration, or that it in any way, legally or ethically, settles a given criminal or civil case, is mistaken or dissembling.
(2) As I noted in my response to "Federale," the issue of what Eric Scott had in his hand is one of the primary controversies of the case and is not at all a settled matter. Your saying that it is does not make it so. Continuing to misrepresent Samantha Sterner's testimony, none of which has ever been given under oath in a legal proceeding, likewise does not make it conform to your wishes. If you've been carefully reading the updates, surely you recall that at the inquest, several witnesses testified that they did not see a gun, forcing the prosecutor to savage his own witnesses, a bizarre spectacle to be sure.
While I have no intimate knowledge of the Scott family, what I do know of them, particularly of William Scott's background as a warrior and test pilot, suggests that a financial settlement is the last thing on their mind. This is what, I'm sure, worries Metro. They should be worried.
Posted by: mikemc at February 11, 2011 07:16 PM (lTwCa)
The NV Coroner's Inquest is a fact finding process that allows three verdicts, one of them being justified. The District Attorney's Office can choose to ignore the jury's verdict, but DID NOT. The District Attorney's Office could also direct file, but DID NOT.
So, where does the crusade go from here? Unless you have knowledge of a Title investigation in the works, only civil litigation is left. And, why would the Officers not receive qualified immunity ('reasonableness')??
It will go nowhere, mike, and the time for honoring yourself will pass.
That is all.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 11, 2011 10:23 PM (9i4q4)
To call the Inquest FACT finding is absolutely laughable. The only facts presented were those of the police. All of the questions asked, by the decedent’s attorney, whom is not allowed to participate, are submitted in writing. 75% of those questions were deemed by the presiding justice to be of discovery nature. Excuse me for being dense but don’t you need to discover the facts to present them?? It was the worst dog and pony show I have ever seen. There was no cross examination of ANYONE with exception of those that did not see a gun, then the DA proceeded to tear their own witness apart. NO witnesses for the decedent can be called.
The jury instructions said, if the Officers did not pre-meditate the shooting of Erik Scott then you must rule justified. I have never said these Officers went there to kill. But they screwed up in the worst way and should not be allowed to continue to patrol my streets.
In 204 Coroners Inquests 1 criminal decision has been handed down. For a drunk police officer who killed a man by doing a drive by shooting. Such is the standard for a unjustified ruling.
There have been 7 UNARMED people shot to death in the last couple years.
2 in the surrender position on their knees with their hands above their heads. 1armed with a deadly basketball, and another searched, handcuffed and shot in the back while trying to run. 1 who was wielding a deadly cane.
Samantha Sterner never TESTIFIED about anything. She said when she told Eric that she thought the evacuation was for him, he said he would just give the police the gun. She thought that is what he was doing. Simple as that.
You seem to be the only one honoring themselves here. Everyone else is pitiful, contemptible, and desperate, trying to perpetuate a pathetic saga. Well I have news for you. This will go to trial, and when it is proved that Erik did not threaten the police, your reasonability goes out the window. Qualified Immunity (I thought I was right, so that makes it right) is the biggest bucket of bull manure ever shoveled down the American public’s throat. Let a citizen try that, see how far it gets them, all the way to prison.
Posted by: Jvh at February 12, 2011 01:52 PM (DKv/6)
Of the 204 C.I. 'justified' findings, how many were 'overruled' by the District Attorney and how many others did they just 'direct file' and bypass the C.I.?
The defense of 'qualified immunity' was created by the U.S. Supreme Court over 40 years ago. It's unfortunate you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. But then again, it's another way for the crusade to continue, right? (don't like the outcome, just change the rules)
BTW, I do find your annoyance in the lack of 'criminal' findings against Police Officers, truly telling!
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 12, 2011 07:58 PM (9i4q4)
You may wish to consider the following corrections of your misstatements of fact and inaccurate insinuations:
(1) One of the primary problems in Las Vegas, one that caused its citizens to force the Clark County Commission to make changes to the Inquest process as a direct result of the Scott inquest, was the fact that the prosecutor's office has, for many years, used its all but predetermined findings as political cover to avoid filing charges against police officers in all but one of 200 cases (and that one was so egregious that there was no political cover to be had). Jvh is not engaging in anti-police bias, but is implying (I have made this explicit argument in the updates) that this outcome defies the laws of probability. One might believe the Metro police to be so utterly professional and incapable of error that this record seems statistically reasonable, but those of us who have actual, significant police experience know better.
(2) "Qualified immunity" is not a blanket prohibition against suing police officers, and does not and will not cause the Scott case to be dismissed. For example, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (457 US 800, 1982), the Supreme Court held that QI was designed to protect government officials only "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Any reasonable police officer is, by training and experience, well aware of the statutory and constitutional rights of citizens, therefore this general doctrine does not, in fact, provide blanket immunity against civil liability to police officers as you have suggested. The rules have not changed, nor have I, Jvh, or anyone else changed or misstated them, but you have certainly mischaracterized them.
(3) 42 USC 1983 is commonly known as the "Klan" Law because it was intended to allow public officials, acting under "color of law" to be sued in federal court for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights, particularly where local officials, for reasons of prejudice or corruption, would not act. Chief among them is, of course, the right to life. You seem to suggest that this statue would immunize the officers who shot Erik Scott. It does just the opposite, establishing a federal venue apart from the state judicial system of Nevada where, if the Goodman law firm can prove its case (this is the standard in all civil cases and is not unusual), they may be held accountable.
No one, not me, not Jvh nor any of the other readers commenting here, nor the Scott family or their attorney are carrying on a "crusade." The Scott family are merely availing themselves of their rights and legal options under our system of justice, and I am reporting on the process and attempting to provide insight born of experience. There is nothing untoward or unusual in any of this; it happens everyday, all around the nation. The Metro Police are not being abused, as they know--every officer--that this is part of the system and that they could at any time find themselves involved in it as a consequence of their daily duties.
As I said earlier--and as you ignored--in this case, as in all similar cases, time and testimony will tell. As to your suggestion that I am somehow honoring myself, again, you ignore what I earlier wrote. If there is any honor to be found in this tale of corruption and tragedy, it may only belong to the Scott family, and potentially, to Metro, if this case forces its leaders to run a uniformly professional, honorable law enforcement agency.
Posted by: mikemc at February 12, 2011 10:45 PM (zo+rW)
18
Telling of what, that I think lives are not disposable.
That someone entrusted to enforce the Law can take a life without justification and have an entirely different set of rules than the rest of the citizen's of this country just because they have a badge. I am not talking about just Erik Scott.
Because I believe in Due Process for everyone.
Because I believe Law enforcement should not have immunities from wrong doing.
If someone shoots at an Officer then by all means empty all your clips into them. But make certain the threat is real, or suffer the consequences. The words “Furtive Movement” doesn’t cut it.
Our soldiers in combat zones have to watch enemy soldiers with weapons, until they are fired upon. If not, they get court marshaled and go to prison, or are dishonorably discharged. Why should a Law Enforcement Officer have any less consequence?
I also believe all murderers should be put to death, and not languish in prison on my dime. That criminals should go to prison, and plea bargains are a waste of taxpayer’s money, because the criminals get out sooner than they should.
Before you start in with your where you do your time BS,save your breath. I have never done time I’m a Law abiding, taxpaying, red blooded American citizen. I expect honor and honesty from the people I pay to enforce the Law. I don’t believe they have to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, but exactly the same, period.
I also believe your posts are telling. I think you might be a LEO, and if you are that truly saddens me, and it’s attitudes like yours that makes bad LEO’s. But the bright spot is you aren’t one in my State. Thank God for small mercies.
Posted by: Jvh at February 12, 2011 11:51 PM (DKv/6)
Speaking of inaccurate insinuations and misstatements, no one said anything about "blanket protection". I merely asked you why they would not received 'qualified immunity' and you did not answer, preferring to tell me about actual, significant and know better.
So, mike, tell us which court(s) will determine that the use of force was unreasonable and that they will NOT be entitled to 'qualified immunity'. Tell us why the latitude of 'Graham' (perceptions at the time of the incident) as in Anderson v. Russell, {247 F.3d 125 4th Cir. 2001} is not "objectively reasonable". Remember, no second-guessing allowed and no 20/20 hindsight privileges for Jvh.
I can if fact, understand one's aversion to a Coroner's Inquest or in other states a sitting Grand Jury, but NV has venues to challenge the jury's verdict and THIS WAS NOT DONE! Other than collusion between LV police and District Attorney's Office (over so many years involving so many different players, that it "defies the laws of probability"), could it be the DAO simply saw the verdict as credible?
So, mike, were back to 'if you don't like the outcome, just change the rules'.....in which the NAPSO is now recommending Officers should not participate in Coroner's Inquests???
Thank you for the parley.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 13, 2011 12:22 PM (9i4q4)
["Our soldiers in combat zones have to watch enemy soldiers with weapons, until they are fired upon."]
Seen a lot of military combat, have we Jvh? Then you evidently know ROEs do vary in different military missions, but generally, waiting to be shot first in civilian law enforcement does not seem to be very tactful, IMO. Hard to believe anyone would sign-up for that duty. Maybe Mr. Significant Experience, could help us with that enigma.
I actually agree with most of your post, especially plea bargaining (such as Alaska eliminated it), and I do believe we must hold our protectors responsible for their actions AND failures to act. However in Scott's case, I see no criminal action on the Officers part. I simply do not see this going anywhere, except maybe civil litigation because that's all that remains - MONEY. So...you, mike, the guy who claims a policeman dropped him on his head when he was a child, can continue to obsess over this involution.
No one is in charge of your happiness but you, Jvh.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 13, 2011 01:49 PM (9i4q4)
Your right, there dead too bad, so sad. The Officer made a judgment call, so get over it. All Officers have impeccable, infallible, judgment. “They weren’t armed, oh well; they should have listened to my commands. They probably had it coming anyway.”
We shouldn’t let a trivial little thing like a Constitutional right to Life, Liberty and Due Process get in the way of enforcing the LAW. Just think of all the money we save in jailing and court costs.
My DD 214 is not up for discussion with you. I stand fast on my description of ROE’s when not involved in an Offensive Operation. Soldiers cannot go around killing people without justification; it is not tolerated on any level, and should not be in LE.
I never said an Officer had to take a bullet before shooting. I said be sure the threat is real, but be ready for the consequences when it’s not. By comparison a soldier must take the first incoming rounds.
I thank you for your concern on my happiness, and it is doing very nicely.
By the way, there was another police force that didn’t about have to worry about due process. What was the name?? Oh yeah, GESTAPO.
Posted by: Jvh at February 13, 2011 07:43 PM (DKv/6)
WOW! Juxtaposing LVMPD with the Nazi secret police? I'm in wonderment that you have capitulated to such a dishonorable and ignoble behavior. For sure, a 'Louis Renault' moment.
You do realize I must now report you for violating 'Godwin's Law'. Nothing personal.
BTW, I was surprised to learn your evil Sheriff was re-elected. Does not the rest of LV know of the evil LVMPD?
Sie nicht handle der Wahrheit! -
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 14, 2011 02:32 PM (9i4q4)
I must admit, I walked face first into that one. My inner child got the best of me.
My poorly stated point was. Far too many people have died at the hands of my police force, with no justification. Officers caught in out and out lies, on the Inquest stand by other Officers testimony and the Coroner too. But the finding was still justified. Not once but many times.
Contrary to what you think of my postings, I don't have a hard on for LEO's. I have an absolute unwavering hard on for justice for all.
If you can explain to me why, with good reason,when the evidence overwhelmingly warrants unjustified, or a certain conviction in Criminal Proceedings, it is found justified. Immunity does not hold water with me, not until everyone has the same Immunities.
I will digress to we must agree, to disagree.
Posted by: Jvh at February 14, 2011 04:19 PM (DKv/6)
For sure I don't have all the answers, and way too many opinions! That being said, throughout America our police kill 350 people every year, the overwhelming of them being justified or excusable. The few that are criminal, we fire and jail them and place their heads on a stick. However, medical Doctors kill 100,000 people every year, and it's called negligence, sometimes reckless indifference. But, when's the last time you heard of a Doctor put in jail for a 'mistake', and they don't even do split-second as usually it's a walk to the PDR. To me, it does not matter if it's a bullet, m/v or scalpel, wrong is wrong and dead is dead.
THAT, I find hypocritical at least - if not immoral.
BTW, the 'qualified immunity' applies only to civil action and only if the government official actions were deemed 'reasonable'.
Strength & Honor
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at February 14, 2011 09:01 PM (9i4q4)
There just seems to be a few, empty, well deserving sticks about my city.
If you ever find those answers, I hope you share. I have the same lack of them you speak of, and I do attempt to understand the questions, to the best of my ability.(no dig intended). Because my opinion cup runeth over also, and I am afflicted with the hard to keep them to myself syndrome. I wonder if there is a twelve step for that??
Take care.
Death Before Dishonor
Posted by: Jvh at February 15, 2011 03:20 AM (DKv/6)
In the past week or so I've noticed that several of the blogs I regularly read are featuring a blogAd for "Discrete Partners Only." The ad further clarifies its intent by noting that their services are for cheaters that are "Married and Looking" or "Separated and Looking."
I understand wanting to make a profit from your blogging—I certainly have ads here, and have gone as far as posting links to gambling sites—but you cross a line when you advocate the dissolution of marriage and inevitable fragmentation of families.
Conservative values, obviously, have a price.
1
Most of the rotating ad sites don't give the blogger a choice. The services push whatever they feel like taking money for pushing.
Posted by: Michael at February 05, 2011 01:40 PM (5u2GQ)
2
Not true in this instance, Michael. BlogAds gives bloggers a notice of the ads that advertisers would like to run, and bloggers have the option of declining them, as I have in the past.
3
Amen Brother, I saw those ads and I was totally shocked that so-called "Conservatives" would even run ads like that.
I used to be on blogads myself. That is until one fine day; I decided to complain about their third rate server that was so slow that it would Time out when I tried to edit anything.
All of the sudden, I was dumped from BlogAds because of my abusiveness. Yeah right, I complained and someone actually had to work for their paycheck and they got pissed and dumped me.
Anyhow, I no longer use them. Only stuff I have for ads anymore is Adsense, only thing that really actually pays anymore.
Just an FYI...
-Pat
Posted by: Pat In Michigan at February 05, 2011 02:20 PM (JxKrx)
4
Uncle (www.saysuncle.com) talked about this a few days ago when this ad appeared on his blog. He had told the ad service not to run it, but then it appeared anyway.
http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/02/01/sex-sells/
Posted by: Tai at February 05, 2011 04:10 PM (UPd0F)
5
Nope. No choice. I mean, I could remove the code I guess. But I never approved the ad. Sent an email saying pull it. Nothing yet.
An ad doesn't indicate advocacy of any kind.
Plus, conservatives have affairs. Some times even gay ones.
Posted by: SayUncle at February 05, 2011 05:04 PM (Z+BXp)
6
Discrete? As opposed to what, a multitude of partners, or twins?
Posted by: will at February 05, 2011 07:26 PM (qQ13E)
7
Interesting to know. I have seen them on other blogs and thought they were out of place. Im pretty new to the blogging world, but if there's a way to get rid of them I'd surely like to know before they pop up on mine.
Posted by: allinone69z at February 07, 2011 02:52 PM (w3Am2)
8
I do not know how blog ads work, but I do know very well how temptation and sin work. None of us is free from either, but it is wonderful to hear someone willing to stand up and fight for purity, no matter its form.
With humble appreciation, I thank you.
Posted by: Trudy at February 08, 2011 12:07 PM (tOqqV)
9
Discrete -having a specific (countable) number of partners- as opposed to discreet -having an un-recorded number of partners?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Posted by: Casey at February 11, 2011 02:52 AM (TBGDK)
I picked up the phone and it was an election campaigner, someone who probably was calling all the female voters in the area. "You'd vote for Ms. so and so?" I was asked. "Actually NO" I said.
I'm trying to picture what would happen if someone had tried to order any of my female ancestors I know much of to eat in the kitchen... I don't think there would have been chunks big enough to put in place. There were Reasons their families went west, or to America.
Posted by: Foxfier at February 03, 2011 07:40 PM (1gxak)
Posted by: george at February 03, 2011 07:42 PM (y0VOX)
3
Ah, obviously you suffer from what the feminists call "false consciousness." They're good at disregarding and dismissing what people tell them that goes against the narrative.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at February 03, 2011 08:18 PM (7YekA)
4
Ms. Brigid, it appears your husband was many things...
Chief among them was "fool"...
davek
Posted by: davek at February 03, 2011 11:26 PM (iFgl2)
5
A throwback to times when men when men and women were women ... and they liked it that way.
Posted by: Neo at February 04, 2011 11:07 AM (tvs2p)
6
Couldn't help wondering what you flew, who you flew for, and whether you're still flying now?
Posted by: styrgwillidar at February 04, 2011 12:24 PM (NmR1a)
Styrgwillidar - I don't talk online about work, past or present, for many good reasons, but 10 years service in to Uncle Sam as an aviator and proud of it.
Posted by: Brigid at February 04, 2011 12:38 PM (yKDjw)
8
Don't know if you are AFRC or ANG, but thank you for your service.
Your post I believe, is the real silent majority of women. My wife would like you and respect you, she is the most courageous female I know -she had to strike out on her own again with two small children as her first marriage was...well its not my place to divulge, but you understand.
Keep telling it as you see it, and keep shining the beacon.
Posted by: GyLar at February 04, 2011 12:45 PM (PgSCg)
Posted by: Jon Brooks at February 04, 2011 02:08 PM (BFam8)
10
Thanks for your service. Flew USN helicopters off of frigates/destroyers/cruisers. Sorry, didn't mean to pry, just another area of common interest. Miss the military flying, the camraderie.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at February 04, 2011 05:04 PM (NmR1a)
11
Thank you. It's women like you and my honey who make me proud to be a married man.
Posted by: 49erDweet at February 05, 2011 04:20 AM (3RgKJ)
12
It is strong women, with a mind and opinions that have saved me from a life of making a fool out of myself.
And frankly, I would not want it any other way.
God bless strong indenpdent free thinking women.
And that comes from a Deep southern man.
Posted by: Michael at February 05, 2011 08:46 PM (PU7e+)
13
We'll see what happens with Richards. if burke throws loads of money at him and this man doesn't sign which is to be quite the canary.
14
Great post!
I'm a woman and I've always said I'll never vote for a woman just because she's a woman. It's an insult to our intelligence to think we're stupid enough to vote for someone just because of their gender and not their politics.
Obama is a perfect example of that mentality...they voted for the first black man instead of the best black man and look where that has gotten us... Gender/race politics seems to be quite popular to Democrats...
Posted by: Whippet at February 06, 2011 02:34 AM (KTSqp)
15
Well written, and my heart goes out to you - it is very hard to be strong enough to do what's right for you, instead of what everybody else thinks is right for you - I just wish it had not cost you so much.
I'm a Dad, and I gave your letter to my teen daughter to read. One of the things I tell her is that "The hardest part about being an adult, is that sometimes you have to act like one."
Posted by: Nemo at February 08, 2011 12:59 AM (yb+77)
ITEM: In the “I had no idea this was coming (snicker, snicker)” department, the White House has announced to Newsweek that President Obama will soon speechify for greater gun control. According to Obama advisor, David Plouffe, speaking to NBC News after the SOTU, Mr. Obama will push Congress to pass changes in the law that would prevent an Arizona-like attack. Three guesses: Another federal “assault weapon” ban, but this time it will include any firearm gun banners remotely consider scary looking, which is essentially all of them; a magazine capacity limitation of ten rounds--again; and federalizing mental health statutes in such a way that conservatives could be involuntarily committed for little more than possessing a firearm or using “threatening language.” You really didn’t think Mr. Obama would let his first term pass without trying to impose new gun control laws, did you?
ITEM: Department of Homeland Tzarina Janet Napolitano recently announced the obliteration of the “virtual fence” on our southern border, ostensibly because it didn’t work, and promised to, to, to... well OK, she really didn’t promise to replace it with anything, which is the kind of can-do, forward-looking, fondle-your-genitals-in-airports action we have come to expect from her. But now comes Janice Kephart of the Center for Immigration Studies who tells us that after the kind of problems that most prototype systems have, the ‘virtual fence” actually worked quite well. Well no wonder we have to do away with it! It might actually stop illegal immigration and intercept Jihadists.
ITEM: In a recent White House staged interview, Mr. Obama said that he wants a “debate” (hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) on legalizing drugs, though he was careful to say that he opposed legalizing drugs (hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge). So let’s see: Obviously Mr. Obama thinks we need a debate on this issue because we haven’t had any discussion of it in simply years, sort of like how AG Holder thinks we’re cowards who haven’t had a thing to say about race for simply ages. And even though he has actually told people who disagree with him to shut up--repeatedly--and to come along for the ride--as long as they ride in the back (no racial connotations there!)--and even though at the SOTU he told perhaps the dumbest drug joke ever imagined by the most dope-addled pothead about smoking--get it, smoking? Hee-hee-hee! I need some munchies...-- migratory fish, and even though he is against legalizing drugs (has the statute of limitations on his admitted drug use run out?), now he thinks we ought to debate the issue. Uh, sure. I get it, sort of...maybe...How about we just fire up some salmon and forget the whole thing?
ITEM: Who said the Federal Government was inefficient! When it comes to handing out favors to political cronies, the Obamites are world beaters. In November, that Obamites approved 222 ObamaCare waivers, but by the end of December, that number rose to 729 and continues to “skyrocket!” We’re number one! We’re number one! Among the early recipients? SEIU affiliated unions! Just another example of the kind of efficiently corrupt perfection available every day with our Federal Government.
ITEM: TSA Administrator John Pistole has canceled the program that allowed airports to replace Union TSA screeners with private security. Private companies currently operate successfully at 16 airports. Pistole said he won’t expand the program “...as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time.” Well of course not! Replacing less efficient and more expensive government employees with their more efficient, less expensive private sector counterparts is never an advantage--for federal bureaucrats.
ITEM: In the “Oh Goodie!” Department, Pakistan has doubled the size of its nuclear arsenal and now has more then 100, apparently deliverable, nuclear weapons. This is, of course, the same Paaaahk-eee-staaaahn (in Obama speak) that is a majority Muslim nation on the verge of being taken over by Jihadists, but not to worry! Islam is the religion of peace (George W. Bush) and Muslims are part of the American family (Barack Obama)! What could go wrong?
ITEM: Also in the “Oh Goodie!” Department comes news from the Obama EPA, dropped on an unsuspecting public in a Friday news dump. According to the superior intellects of the EPA, gasoline containing a 15% mixture of ethanol is now “deemed” safe for cars manufactured since 2001. To this point, 10% has been the maximum ethanol blend. The auto industry has been trying to avoid this hotter blend over safety concerns. Ethanol burns much hotter than gasoline (it wears out expensive catalytic converters much more quickly) and with substantially less energy content. It is also corrosive to engines and delivery systems. Testing has been delayed because the new mixture melts seals in pumps and storage tanks(?!). Add the costs of installing new tanks, pumps and reengineering the entire delivery system to prevent putting the fuel in the wrong vehicles, and one might be tempted to think this was part of a continuing Obamite plan to make the cost of fuel “skyrocket” to force people to drive less and to destroy the economy. But our President and the Dems wouldn’t even think of doing that---would they? Nah...
ITEM: According to New York Magazine, Mr. Obama has never actually met, one-on-one with about six of the members of his Cabinet. Well of course not! What with all those Czars and Cabinet members and advisors and underczars, and lobbyists he was never going to hire, and vacations, and golfing, and insulting our allies and sucking up to our enemies...well, a man’s got to have his priorities. After all, when you’re the smartest man in the known universe, you don’t need to meet with such inferior intellects. But this raises the question of who is actually giving him advice? Perhaps his senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett? What could go wrong?
ITEM: The Obama Administration Loves Our Troops. Episode #203: The General. Senior Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, known as much for her Chicago slum lord past as for her obsequious, drooling praise of Mr. Obama’s matchless intellect (he’s a legend in his--and her--own mind), recently demonstrated her appreciation for our troops. Via Allahpundit and Hot Air:
”According to our tipster, Jarrett was seated at the head table along with several other big-name politicians and a handful of high-ranking military officials. As an officer sporting several stars walked past Jarrett, she signaled for his attention and said, “I’d like another glass of wine."
White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, who was seated next to Jarret, began “cracking up nervously,” our tipster said, but no one pointed out to Jarrett that the man sporting a chestful of medals was not her waiter.
“The guy dutifully went up and got her a glass of wine, and then came back and gave it to her and took a seat at the table,” our tipster said. “Everyone is in tuxedos and gowns at this thing, but the military people are in full dress uniform.”
Our military really do know that they’re public servants. The Obama Administration, not so much. At least she didn’t bother a corpse-man. And if you don't visit today's Day By Day strip (here), you're missing the best laugh you've had in awhile.
ITEM: Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. The New York Time’s executive editor Bill Keller, recently interviewed by Marvin Kalb, had this to say about Fox News: “I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. It has contributed to the sense that they are all just out there with a political agenda, but Fox is just more overt about it. And I think that’s unhealthy.” Oh well. Newsweek sold for $1.00. I’ll bet the NYT brings at least $2.00. It really is all about location.
ITEM: But Global Warming is Real! Really! The British press continues to provide most of the revealing information on the rapidly disintegrating (melting?) Man-Caused Global Warming hysteria. The British Met Office’s recent press release claiming that 2010 was the hottest year in the last decade has blown up in its face. Doctors Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviewed the data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (yes, the very same poster children for scientific mendacity and corruption) which revealed that 2010 was actually cooler than 2005 and 1998 and no warmer than 2003. In response the Met Office replied: “Sputter, sputter, choke! I’m melting! I’m melting!” OK, so I made that last part up. Complain to Al Gore.
ITEM: And speaking of the Goracle...Mr. Gore, inventor of the internet and savior of the planet by means of selling carbon credits by which he has purchased a home that uses more electricity in a single month than some third world countries (OK, so I’m exaggerating a bit, but not by much) and a 100 foot (ONE HUNDRED FOOT?!) houseboat (HOUSEBOAT?! The trailer must be truly epic. What do you pull that with? A D-9 Caterpillar?), sayeth: “As it turns out, the scientific community...say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-mad global warming.” And Dr. David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit--those merry pranksters who have done so much to shoot global warming--and themselves--in the foot, recently predicted that within a few years, winter snows would be “a very rare and exciting event,” and “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” As England, and now America have been blanketed with record snows, one might be tempted to ask Mr. Gore and Dr. Viner “how’s that AGW workin’ out for you?” At last report, British children are still able to correctly identify snow with a single guess.
ITEM: And the winners of the Louis Renault Award for this edition of Quick Takes are: Anyone who is shocked, shocked! that a San Francisco Supervisor would behave like an America-loathing Marxist. I speak, of course, of newly elected Supervisor Jane Kim who refuses to recite the pledge of Allegiance. “I don’t think our flag represents a nation where there’s liberty and justice for all,” spake Kim, who announced her intention to let her actions--actually her inaction--speak louder than “those 31 words.” And this has happened in San Francisco, the home of Nancy Pelosi? Who’da thunk it?
ITEM: Good on ‘em! Five South Dakota legislators--it’s unknown if they were taking the advice of the brilliant and delicious Ann Coulter--have introduced a bill that would require all South Dakotans to buy a firearm upon reaching 21. The bill is, of course, tongue-in-cheek, and a commentary on the ObamaCare insurance mandate. Their point is apt: If the Federal Government can force you to buy insurance, there is no limit to its power to force you to buy other consumer goods, such as GM cars or GE products. Mr. Obama would never even think of doing something like that--would he?
ITEM: On January 31, President Obama announced his support for jihadist terror organizations--such as the Muslim Brotherhood--to have “a role” in a new Egyptian government. Oh dear. OK Mr. Obama, for the last time: Democracy and peace--GOOD. Murderous, medieval, Islamist sub-human, raping, bombing, head-removing thugs--BAD. BAD means not inviting them to the White House. Now write that on the board 100 times.
ITEM: I’m Not A Narcissist! From Mr. Obama’s repetitious, bland, mercifully brief, Kumbaya statement on Egypt: “My administration...,” “...I know that...,” “So I want...,” “I also call...,” ‘I just spoke...,” “...I told him...,” “When I was in Cairo, shortly after I was elected President, I said...” It’s not all about Obama. Repeat as needed.
ITEM: And in the Indispensable Lessons In Civics Department, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Chuck Schumer), this week enumerated the three branches of American government: The House, the Senate, and the presidency. As Dr. Evil would say, “riiiiight.” The three branches, are actually, of course: Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the SEIU.
ITEM: Oh yes! The Gurkhas serving in the British military have long held a reputation for courage and ferocity seldom equalled in the annals of warfare, and with good reason. Recently in Nepal, Bishnu Shrestha, a 35 year-old Gurkha soldier was riding on a train when it was attacked by forty bandits armed with knives, swords and guns. They had him outnumbered and surrounded--poor bastards. Shrestha watched and waited until the bandits began to rape an 18 year old girl, and then he demonstrated why the enemies of the Gurkhas have always feared their Kukris (long, curved combat knives). Drawing his Kukri, Shrestha killed three, injured eight and sent the rest (29!) fleeing for their lives despite sustaining a serious knife wound to his left hand. Goodness and honor live--just not in Washington DC. Shrestha is an example of humanity’s best.
And on that happy note, thanks for dropping by, and I’ll see you next Thursday!
1
You mean fantasy coverup. Even his girlfriend admits he had a gun and drew it. She claims that the officers over-reacted and that he was trying to surrender the gun.
Posted by: Federale at February 03, 2011 12:49 PM (JS6HU)
INTRODUCTION: At Confederate Yankee, we hope that our musings will be entertaining, educational, and that they will encourage thoughtful, civil debate. To those ends, we remove only those reader comments that are advertising, or are simply rude and abusive. All others are read, appreciated and thoughtfully considered.
In response to my recent post on the consequences of magazine capacity restrictions, reader “Doug,” wrote an interesting comment that seems to encompass the thinking of the anti-gun side of the issue. I thought it worthwhile to reprint that comment here, and to add my responses, all in the furtherance of thoughtful, civil debate. Doug’s comments will be in quotation marks and mine in brackets.
“I'm often very disheartened by the tenor of these arguments simply because they seem to only engage in peripheral details rather than dealing with very basic questions. It's presented here as if there are people out here with the sole intention of addressing gun violence as a means of restricting your freedom, or liberty, or your idea of both of these. This seems to be the only real argument on offer. Guns are exemplars of freedom.”
[Doug, may I suggest that for a much more in-depth treatment of these and related issues, you see my recent series of articles relating to gun ownership? In those articles, I explore not only history, human nature, philosophy and theology, but practical, legal and moral issues relating to gun ownership and use. The first two articles are available here and here, and the third will be up on the CY site no later than 02-02-11. I hope you’ll find them to be less peripheral.
1
Typical anti - projecting HIS personal traits onto others.
Posted by: emdfl at February 02, 2011 10:35 AM (6WZOE)
2
Good response. Doug is like so many anti-gunners with misperception about the folks carrying guns doing so because they supposedly WANT to get into a deadly confrontation. So by that thinking, any preparation for a negative event indicates a desire for it to occur:
- If I buy a car with safety features like air-bags, anti-lock brakes, traction control I want to get in an accident.
- If I have life insurance, I want to get killed.
- If I have fire insurance, (or smoke detectors, or rope ladder, or fire extinguishers) I want to have my house burn
- If I have auto insurance (I want to get in an accident)
- If I wear safety equipment (motorcycling, snowmobiling, etc. etc.) I want to have an accident
- If I have theft insurance, I want to be robbed.
So, for the Dougs of the world. No, normally when you take precautions it's because you recognize the serious negative consequences of an event and are taking prudent steps to mitigate the risk. (Now, you and I can discuss whether you believe the risk warrants the precautions- personal choice in a free country) If you carry a weapon, the first step in mitigation as outlined above is - avoidance. Most carrying guns understand any fight you enter risks getting you killed if you lose, and live by the rule that you never lose the fight you avoid.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at February 02, 2011 11:59 AM (IrbU4)
3
Good article Mike. And Styrg said my thoughts better than I could have.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at February 02, 2011 01:47 PM (/t1ba)
"Others do not want to kill and do not want to be killed.”
Implying that if you are a gun owner, you want to be killed. What a disgusting concept. I also disliked the part where he has no concern for actual criminals, but has a deep-rooted terror of a good citizen having a gun in their hands.
Up is down indeed.
Posted by: Brando at February 02, 2011 02:39 PM (IPGju)
Everyone makes fun of the gun hoarding survivalist until the zombie apocalypse starts, then you want him as your new best friend.
Posted by: Professor Hale at February 02, 2011 04:27 PM (PDTch)
7
Well, the gun hoarding survivalist and the guy smart enough to have hoarded twinkies. Best of both worlds if they're the same guy.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at February 02, 2011 06:37 PM (xGZ+b)
8
Mike, I am curious as to what his replys were to the comments you made. i will have to admit that I am a bit torn here. It seems like Doug wants to have a conversation about guns, but while reading through his comments without reading your response to him I was getting an undercurrent of something I just couldn't put my finger on. Almost like he was baiting a trap. Good luck with the rest of you conversation with Doug
Posted by: Rob at February 02, 2011 07:23 PM (0qYo6)
Posted by: lazrtx at February 02, 2011 08:08 PM (WvqFW)
10
Sounds to me as though Doug is trying to rationalize why HE doesn't want to own a gun, and thereby no one else should, either. It's kind of like the person who doesn't want porn in theaters but buys a ticket to every event available.
All I casn say to Doug is, "If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy one (or steal it or whatever). But don't presume because you don't want one, I don't as well."
Too, Doug sounds like someone who doesn't do anything the least bit harmful to his body- like drink city water, eat meat (others have killed for him) or go outside without a jacket. He probably lives in a bubble, too.
Your response to him is sure a lot more civil than mine'd 've been. Especially when he says he isn't afraid of the criminal with a gun as much as the honest citizen with one. And how can he "find culpability unjustifiable"?
Shy III
Posted by: -1JimShyWolf at February 03, 2011 12:17 AM (gxlpn)
11
“My basic position is that people without guns...people with no inculcated zealous drive to engage in "oppositional" aggression...will not maim and murder readily.”
If you're going to be a lefty it helps to be completely ignorant of human history, which tells us categorically that people had no problem at all in maiming and murdering one another for thousands of years before guns came on the scene.
Posted by: flenser at February 03, 2011 01:53 AM (QOuCr)
12
CHA CHING!!! Anti psyche exposed for the win!!! I am so glad you posted this and that I caught it given how crazy things have been lately. I wrote a post a few days back that surmised EXACTLY what Doug expressed here. You can read it if you like at:
It's something I've been trying to understand for years and finally do. It boils down to this; if you are willing to carry or own firearms you are one step away from the loony bin and thus to be feared. Assumed would be that you are willing to use them also. Only THEY can be truly rational because THEY are right in hating guns.
Now if I can just figure out how they mechanically shell sunflower seeds my life will be complete. Oops, nuts reference there, sorry.
Posted by: Groundhog at February 04, 2011 04:56 PM (s6lVH)
If you’ve already read the first two portions of this series (available here and here), you’re reasonably well versed in the philosophical and theological implications of weapon ownership and use. This essay concerns practical, moral and legal issues, as well as exploring some of the primary ways that carrying a concealed weapon must necessarily change your life. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney, and that you are responsible for becoming familiar with the law where you live. But before we begin, for a humorous and accurate take on her rationale for carrying a concealed weapon, see my wise and delightful co-blogger, Brigid’s post, here.
AWARENESS: Walk down any street and take the time to assess the situational awareness of those you meet. What’s situational awareness? It’s a very familiar term to police officers, soldiers, and others who engage in risky, dangerous endeavors. Think of it as a heightened alertness combined with the ability to predict what might happen in any given situation. Most people walk around in a fog, almost completely unaware of what is happening outside of their “personal space,” that bubble extending to arm’s length or less. It is this lack of situational awareness that helps killers fire many shots into crowds or classrooms before anyone is aware of what is happening. In the aftermath of such attacks, people often say: “I didn’t see it coming,” or “it all happened so fast.” That’s because most people lack situational awareness.
1
Really appreciated this post. I live in Iowa which just passed a shall issue concealed carry law and am looking into getting my license. It's really helpful to have things that are involved in concealed carry discussed beyond "you took the class and test and can now carry". After reading what you wrote I still wonder a bit about the Doctrine of Deadly Force. Of course you go through it in your head at the time and you feel that you had good reason to use your gun what stops the jury from going "eh, not reasonable" and packing you away? I guess maybe that is a good thought to have as it would help you even more to be sure but the thought still lingers. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, I look forward to your next post as other than the legal aspects it is the how of conceal carry that I'd like to know more about.
Posted by: Mark at February 02, 2011 06:34 AM (sL/IO)
You've hit on a great issue and something that should concern everyone who carries concealed. It may give you a bit of comfort to know that most situations where shooting is necessary are really pretty unambiguous. Any reasonable person in the same situation would have done the same thing. At the same time, you can also deal with your legitimate concern by starting to practice "what if?" Ask yourself, in your daily life, what if this happens, or what if that happens? What would I do, what is my response going to be? What are my options?
I'll address proper training in the next post, and I suspect that will be helpful too. Thanks for reading, and thinking about these issues.
Mike
Posted by: mikemc at February 02, 2011 01:35 PM (cIDbQ)
3
or as I like to call it "Spacial Awarness".
I used to live in NYC and I was always reading about some poor slob who walked in on an armed robbery and became a victim of a surprised gunman who would later claim he "Didn't mean to shoot" the murder victim.
When I started working in the "Ghetto" I would sometimes have to stop in a local bodega for an item and I got in the habit of looking in the front window before entering the store to make sure it wasn't being robbed. It got to be a habit that I practiced before walking into any store, anywhere and everwhere I went.
Still alive to talk about it so I guess it's a good habit to get into.
As the man says:"an ounce of prevention....."
Posted by: firefirefire at February 03, 2011 04:36 AM (7NgJ5)
The good folks at Pajamas Media have posted my most recent article on the unintended consequences of involuntary commitment laws and their history. It can be found here.
I've included a bit of history about how we came to be in a relatively sorry state in terms of public safety and the treatment of the truly mentally ill. It may be worth your time.
1
Nice piece on those with mental problems and the history of treatment decay. I was a med student in 1967 in CA when Reagan was Governor. He and the large CA mental health facility system, that was very well run but held lots of "inmates" came under attack by the head of the Norwegian Secretary of mental health as barbaric and unenlightened. Reagan, a master of the media, arranged a visit to the premier facility in the State in which I was at a training session the day before. The place had many patients with the character disorders you described, including so called "hysterics", women who had trouble dealing with men. As a group they were very well kept people and usually very attractive. All of these patients were brought before the(then) well controlled cameras to give the appearance of happy well good looking well fed and cared for inmates. The facility itself was painted the day before and the ground,even where it was not devoid of grass, was sprayed with green paint( I got it on my shoes). Reagan won that round and Norway shut up, but in the end many of the facilities were closed, and Reagan himself was an advocate of the process. High costs and the advent of psychotherapeutic drugs like Thorazine gave credence to emptying institutions. How patients might be forced to take their drugs was not a question to be raised, and is still ignored. There will always be shooters like the Tuscon guy but there would be fewer if more attention was paid to less voluntary organized help. Those who advocated freedom for the mentally ill would prefer less freedom for others to try and control the problems they helped create, and they have not given up on these ideas
Posted by: mytralman at February 01, 2011 12:16 PM (I9Npu)
2
I don't think you can imagine the amount of money that is spent on the "care" of the mentally ill in this country. In any given hospital in which I have been a physician, their are about 20 to 40 individuals that are always at the hospital and always at the ER. These people require a considerable amount of work and expend a large amount of the health care dollar and resources. Almost all of these people are nuts, to use the clinical terms. They don't take their medication (if they can afford it) and have extremely unstalbe illnesses that are life threatening. Yet nothing can be done over the long haul to care for them due to our inability to address their mental health issues, these are the real culprit in their repeated hospitalizations. If you wanted to reduce the expenditure of health resouces and reduce the cost of medical care, then re-institute mental health care in the fashion of the 50 and 60's.
Posted by: david at February 01, 2011 12:44 PM (y+/o4)
The Unintended (or Not) Consequences of Magazine Capacity "Restrictions"
The Arizona shooting has provoked predictable calls for various gun control schemes, each and every one a recycled proven failure, but the most clever and insidious is the banning of large (actually, regular) capacity magazines for semi-automatic firearms. Prior to the State of the Union Address, occasionally suspect Republican Peggy Noonan has recently suggested that President Obama fly this particularly odious flag, echoing Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign’s call for the same restriction. As most now know, this was one of many topics he entirely avoided, wisely—for him. Before I continue, some useful links:
(1) My commentary on the SOTU can be found here.
(2) Bob’s informative posts with video on magazine changes can be found here and here.
(3) Bob’s post on the Columbine killers is available here.
(4) My article on Justice Breyer at PJM is available here.
In preparation for what they hope to be a new front in a never ending battle, anti-gun forces are engaging in the continual re-branding of gun control, a re-branding occasionally made necessary when the public becomes wise to the most recent re-branding of a decaying carcass. The most recent re-branding seems to be the substitution of “restriction” for “gun ban” or “gun control.” Fortunately, for most Americans, a ban by any other name would smell as badly (apologies to Shakespeare).
Paul Helmke, who is trying to shame President Obama into overtly supporting gun “restrictions,” said: “Providing access to high-capacity magazines is beyond the pale. Banning them is a matter of public safety. There is no Second Amendment or God-given right to be able to maim and kill your fellow Americans with military-style ammunition. When the high-capacity magazine restriction was in place until 2004, it was effective. If our nation can agree that machine guns, cop-killer bullets, and plastic guns ought to be banned, surely we can agree that high-volume magazines have no place in our society.”
Also recently piling on the magazine capacity limit bandwagon was the Washington Post. While such a ban might sound relatively harmless to some--VP Dick Cheney recently—and uncharacteristically--suggested that it might not be such a bad idea--it is not only foolish but dangerous. Here’s why:
1
A fine article. Thank you for writing it. I wish to contribute only a little nit-pickery
“Military style ammunition” is not, in fact, what is commonly in widespread civilian use.
30-06 FMJ, 7.62x51 FMJ and 7.62x39 FMJ, 5.56 FMJ and .45 ACP are all military ammunitions that are in widespread civilian use. Not to mention 9mm parabellum (for war?). In American firearms history, it has been a short trip between military and civilian use.
There is no such thing as a “cop-killer” bullet...
Alternatively, they are all cop killer bullets, but there are none specifically designed to perform better against cops than other people.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 31, 2011 10:51 AM (PDTch)
2
Of course, pretty much any centerfire rifle ammunition will punch right through standard soft body armor used by police, even your great-granddad's old .30-30. The 'standard' used by the military for testing body armor is the WWII vintage .30-06 AP round.
And add the .45-70 Govt - quite popular for bear and moose - to the list of 'military' rounds in widespread civilian use. Plus 6.5x55, 7x57, 8x57, and 7.62x54R if you want to include foreign rounds of military origin.
And one minor historical correcton: the vast bulk of the rifles used at Gettysburg (and the Civil War as a whole) were muzzle loaders. One Union unit at Gettysburg still actually had muskets - whose ability to fire 'buck and ball' proved quite handy at the stone wall on day three. Breech loaders were mainly issued to the cavalry and sharpshooter units.
Va. data show drop in criminal firepower during assault gun ban
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by Virginia police dropped during a decade-long federal prohibition on assault weapons, but the rate has rebounded sharply since the ban was lifted in late 2004, according to a Washington Post analysis. ...
Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.
Posted by: Jamie McCarthy at January 31, 2011 07:30 PM (DPhbB)
6
Jamie: and your rather tautological point means...what?
Posted by: Bohemond at January 31, 2011 10:33 PM (krvSm)
7
You make an excellent point about the use of multiple firearms. Restricting the size of clips will just lead mass killers to carry more weapons. They can be concealed in something innocuous, like a golf bag or a guitar case. You could commit a massacre with the number of guns that could be concealed in a guitar case, trust me.
This is why commie banners like Jamie make no sense. Limiting guns to smaller clips will just lead to more homocides, as criminals adjust by packing dozens of firearms. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens who won't be likely to carry a golf bag or guitar case full of pistols, carbines and shotguns will be at a serious disadvantage when they attempt to return fire.
Posted by: AntonioB at January 31, 2011 11:24 PM (0TQuT)
8
UPDATE: Thanks for the informative comments! Professor Hale, 'Parabellum" is indeed Latin for "for war." And Jamie McCarthy, I have read the article you cite. Its ultimate conclusion was that the magazine capacity restriction was just starting to work when the ten year long Clinton gun ban was allowed to sunset. This is of a piece with standard Progressive philosophy. No Progressive policy can ever be wrong, therefore any possible problem occurs because said Progressive policy hasn't been allowed to work its magic long enough, or it has not been as draconian as it might be. I'll list just a few of the problems with the article, and its premise:
(1) The article is vague on what would constitute a "high-capacity magazine." If one counts any magazine of greater capacity than the 10 rounds allowed under the ban, then there are literally millions of "high-capacity" magazines out there, virtually all the magazines designed as standard equipment for specific handguns, such as the 13-round Browning High Power, designed by John Browning in the early 1900's. Without an unambiguous definition which comports with reality rather than gun-banner wishes, any data related to this article is by definition of no value.
(2) From the early 1990s until now, American tastes in firearms have changed substantially. The semi-automatic pistol, rather than the revolver, has been, for some years, the handgun of choice for the American public, and there are far more of them in circulation than in 1994, and even since 2004. In fact, Mr. Obama has been the greatest gun salesman the firearm industry has ever had, substantially increasing the numbers of handguns in private hands since before 2008. A significant portion of these pistols likely accept standard--not extended--magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and it is therefore unsurprising that any given law enforcement agency is encountering more semi-automatic pistols with "high-capacity" magazines than ever before.
(3) The article was likewise vague on the reporting protocols and data analysis methods of the Washington Post "analysis." Were all Virginia law enforcement agencies a part of the data base, or only metropolitan agencies? What are "weapons recovered?" Without knowing this and more, no reasonable conclusions can be drawn. In addition, advocating for a national policy based on data from only one state--if we assume that all of the data was complete, professionally gathered and analyzed, that the sample was of sufficient size, and that the study was of sufficient duration, and sufficient controls for factors that might skew that data were employed--is likewise deeply flawed and cannot be taken as competent science. Indeed, it cannot be taken seriously. If the police in one Virginia jurisdiction, for example, "recovered" a number of weapons stolen from a firearms shipment, or stolen from a collector, such single incidents could very well irretrievably skew the database. The numbers are likewise important. Did the police "recover" (whatever that means) 100 such guns from 1994-2004 and 140 thereafter? This might produce seemingly impressive statistics, but hardly an impressive or meaningful number in the real world.
(4) The article falls prey to several logical fallacies, but the most obvious is mistaking correlation with causation. Virginia police are recovering more guns with "high-capacity" magazines after 2004. The magazine limitation law sunset in 2004, therefore the sunsetting of the law caused the police to recover more such weapons. By the same line of faulty reasoning, it is an indisputable fact that most people die in bed, hence, mattresses are lethal.
I'm sorry, but such simplistic "analysis" is neither scientifically valid, nor logically convincing. Federal laws have surely been written based on less, but they should not be.
Posted by: mikemc at February 01, 2011 01:32 AM (cIDbQ)
9
I'm often very disheartened by the tenor of these arguments simply because they seem to only engage in peripheral details rather than dealing with very basic questions. It's presented here as if there are people out here with the sole intention of addressing gun violence as a means of restricting your freedom, or liberty, or your idea of both of these. This seems to be the only real argument on offer. Guns are exemplars of freedom.
I think it really is far more simple than that...be angry at what you think are false arguments or at best "restrictive" arguments (as I'm not sure you think the arguments are false regarding killing capacities--you just seem to want to employ ways to negate their import), but it would be best to acknowledge the basics here.
1. Guns are a weapon with a single purpose: to kill or at least incapacitate another creature.
2. You want to be able to be a potential "killer" using this weapon.
3. Others do not want to kill and do not want to be killed.
4. They do not want a gun in order to kill or incapacitate.
I would make no arguments for even the existence of guns. I don't fear the "criminal". I fear the gun in anyone's hands. A gun fired creates culpability that I find unjustifiable.
I don't care to be called names for this stance. I do want to talk about some of your positions and their basic motivations. To talk about these things might open up some understanding. Talking instead about how "they" want to "regulate" your "capacities" is only a template for the argument that simply calls "up" "down" and "down" "up"--an argument designed for argument's sake.
My basic position is that people without guns...people with no inculcated zealous drive to engage in "oppositional" aggression...will not maim and murder readily.
I would not argue that there are no bad actors out there who would no doubt kill without compunction; rather I can only state that I am not one of these and it is always my hope that you too are not one.
Posted by: Doug at February 01, 2011 08:01 AM (NkpGR)
You appear to be a decent person. I am sure you would be a great neighbor and responsible citizen. But you seem to understand neither the typical law regarding self-defense nor much of human nature.
1. Guns are a weapon with a single purpose: to kill or at least incapacitate another creature.
2. You want to be able to be a potential "killer" using this weapon.
Instead of incapacitate, rather say "Stop". While hunting's goal is to kill, the goal of self-defense (for animals or humans) is to stop. If one intentionally kills after having stopped a human attacker, then you are criminally liable.
Rather I can only state that I am not one of these and it is always my hope that you too are not one.
As has been said many times, "Hope is not a strategy". In other words, while I certainly hope you are not an attacker, it would be foolish for me to base my life and the lives of those close to me on that unverified assumption.
I have had need for a self-defense sidearm enough times so that I am under no illusions regarding the essential goodness of human nature.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 01, 2011 01:14 PM (MZd0C)
You and any reader who stands behind this uninterrupted stream of "logic" served as "fact" has simply got to be kidding.
I can't even be bothered to argue this, because it has to be a gag post. Has to be. Not falling for it. Nice try. Good one, you almost got me.
Posted by: Greg at February 01, 2011 04:46 PM (5PCDZ)
12
Sorry, Doug, the Second Amendment trumps every one of your arguments.
No, sorry, I didn't mean "trump," I mean invalidates. Continue to fear your fellow citizens all you want, your pathologies are not sound basis for public policy.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at February 01, 2011 08:01 PM (/3g5y)
If 1994 Magazine Ban Democrats Want to Bring Back Was In Effect, More Could Have Died in Tucson
As a group, politicians seem utterly unable to consider the "law of unintended consequences." They are quite good at reflexively throwing a new law up to address past events, but rarely consider the effects their laws will actually have.
A prime example is the magazine ban provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill. Most people remember the Ban on Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features and a ban on manufacturing magazines of more than ten rounds, but the media forgets that the immediate and unexpected reaction to that law was that gun manufacturers responded by making handguns limited to 10-round magazines as small as possible. The result was an entirely new class of subcompact handguns that packs a considerable amount of firepower into a much more concealable package. This gave concealed carry permit holders far more choices, and increased the possibility that they would leave home armed.
Increasing the number of Americans going armed in public was the exact opposite of the intention of those that passed the 1994 Crime bill, but that was the direct result.
The same politicians have not learned, and are now proposing that they bring back that flawed and ineffective law. They don't seem to grasp that the law they would resurrect very well would have made the carnage in Tucson far worse than it always was.
Anti-gun groups and the media were quick to seize upon the fact that Jared Loughner was able to empty a 33-round magazine in a matter of seconds. What most didn't tell you is precisely why his rampage ended.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik shed more light on how the gun was secured during the shooting. A woman grabbed a magazine of ammunition away from the shooter. The shooter, according to Dupnik, was able to grab another magazine - but the spring in it failed. As the shooter's second magazine failed, two men were able to subdue the shooter until law enforcement arrived.
Detachable firearm magazines are typically composed of four parts:
the magazine body
the baseplate
the follower
the spring
The more cartridges a magazine holds, the longer the magazine body must be and the longer the spring must travel. This increased movement means that larger magazines are generally more prone to failure.
This appears to be what occurred in Tucson.
It now appears that Loughner's second 33-round magazine suffered some sort of failure. If he had only the ten-round magazines that some politicians would force upon us, the odds are that he would have had to change magazines more times, but that takes just a second. Literally.
Of course, many people take longer to change magazines. For example, I don't have the time to practice regularly as I should, so it takes me 2-4 seconds.
The citizens that disarmed Jared Loughner had the chance to do so because his extended magazine failed, and he didn't know how to clear it. That gave them the time needed to make their move. If he had ten-round magazines—like those Eric Harris used to such devastating effect at Columbine in a firearm designed to comply with the Crime Bill—the number of dead and wounded could have been far, far higher.
Laws have unintended consequences. If Congress wants felons to have more reliable firearms, reinstating the 10-round magazine ban would be the most effective way to do it.
1
Next step will be a law forbidding citizens from possessing more than one magazine.
No, I do not believe that is too stupid even for a politician. What conceivable improvement to public safety comes from banning flash suppressors or bayonet lugs or pistol grips? If anyone can point me to a single atrocity that depended upon any of those features I'll buy him a sixpack. In every public endeavor, politicians' first impulse, which all too often results in law, is to take a purely cosmetic approach which ignores reality.
It would not surprise me if one were to introduce a law prohibiting firearms being produced in black. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 30, 2011 02:15 PM (aGyTg)
The Washington Post has, err, posted an unsigned op-ed calling for the reinstatement of the Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features Ban provision of the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. You may know it better as the "assault weapons ban," but my description is more factually accurate.
The Post claims that as the ban sunset in 2004, it was just becoming effective. That's quite a bit of a stretch, and certainly not an opinion founded upon empirical data. It is a claim that would not stand up to even a cursory pass by someone familiar with the scientific method. Despite this, they confidently claim:
Jared Lee Loughner appears to be a deeply disturbed young man who should never have been able to obtain a weapon of any kind, let alone the kind that easily transforms a lone gunman into a mass murderer. The data from Virginia show that the federal ban worked. Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law.
They strongly assert throughout the article that reinstating the ban would prevent mass murder. The ban, in their memories, was mass-murder repellent.
Let me introduce you to the Hi-Point 995 carbine.
All you really need to know about it for the moment is that it was designed during the Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features Ban, and was designed from the beginning to use ten-round magazines.
I'll let you go to Wikipedia for the full description of this particular firearm if you are interested in reading up upon it in more detail.
As the Post said, "Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law." They are so right.
We need all guns to be as safe as the Hi-Point 955.
Here's another photo of the in-every-way Post-approved Hi-Point 995.
It has been rather tightly cropped, though you can see it more detail at this page if you really must.
The owner of this particular Hi Point 995 used only Post-approved ten-round magazines in this firearm developed during the ban.
To be specific, the shooter used ten of the 13 Post-approved ten-round magazines in his possession, firing this ban-developed firearm a total of 96 politically-correct times during the April 20, 1999 rampage through Columbine High School.
I'm glad the Post is so cock-sure that reinstating a failed law will save lives.
Me, I have my doubts.
1
Didn't the Texas sniper have a small magazine back in the early 70's, or 60's, whenever the nut climbed up in the bell tower and shot up the town? The fact is that the common denominator in all or these mass killings is that crazy, bad people do very bad things, with whatever material is at hand. So we need to address efforts at eliminating crazy, bad people. For some reason, the US feels that when one person does something bad, then all must suffer. I don't think that is a free society.
Posted by: david at January 28, 2011 05:33 PM (t/wJs)
2
Leftists' response to a horrific crime is always to punish everyone but the actual, you know, criminal. Who isn't responsible because Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin. Also Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 28, 2011 08:53 PM (7YekA)
3
Demoncrats are glad Sarah Palin came along. They were getting tired of saying "Bush did it!"
Posted by: Marty at January 28, 2011 10:20 PM (IRABh)
4
Wow...I never knew the Sarah Palin was responsible for the Columbine massacre.
Has she disavowed her involvement with Wounded Knee yet? The Biscari massacre?
Posted by: MunDane68 at January 28, 2011 10:24 PM (dlS06)
5
No MunDane, she has not. And don't you find that telling?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 29, 2011 01:12 AM (7YekA)
6
When I hear the magazine argument, I always thought it was stupid, and believe it or not, a movie sorta cemented it.
I have rarely shot a pistol in my life, but I can shoot the crap out of one, and because I was trained in a professional environment in how to use one, one of my friends commented on how natural it seemed to me, when we when joy shooting. I could swap mags pretty effing quick, because, it's not difficult, it's a 3 stage act.
But A GREAT example, true, the speed is slightly exaggerated, is Stallone in the expendables. (I think that rapid change is the best imagery in the movie btw.)
You can swap a mag, even as a trained amateur (as I am) in less than 2 seconds. size of mag is less important than the will to discharge rounds, because there is always more mags, if that is your goal.
Posted by: Douglas at January 29, 2011 03:59 AM (YKOnu)
7
What they try to obfuscate is that the Tucson shooter actually changed mags but his second, 30 round, mall-ninja-mag caused the gun to jam and that's why he was disarmed.
So if he had used 10 rd mags, his gun probably wouldn't have jammed and he could have shot more people even if he had had to change mags a few times.
Posted by: Veeshir at January 29, 2011 10:54 AM (kNG7k)
8
If you want to see how fast a mag can be changed, don't look to some hollywood mope and staged shots.
Google some of the USPSA grand master shooters and see it done for real.
Posted by: george at January 30, 2011 10:46 AM (y0VOX)
9
SOP for gov't in this country - focus on the hardware, rather than the person. Witness the absurdity of the TSA. What we need to do is focus on dangerous PEOPLE, not mindless matter.
Posted by: alanstorm at January 30, 2011 11:04 AM (X6vCn)
10
Not that this comment is relevant to the overall discussion, but this Hi-Point is a lot of fun to shoot. I can go through a lot of magazines real fast and still be reasonably accurate.
Posted by: mike at January 31, 2011 10:53 AM (7nc0l)
Like much of the rest of the world I'm drawn to the growing unrest in Egypt. It appears that the events are approaching critical mass, and that Hosni Mubarak's dictatorial rule may be coming to an end.
The collapse of any dictatorship is something all humanity should celebrate, but we need to remind ourselves that those that may replace the existing dictator are more bloodthirsty than the tyrant they replace.
The Muslim Brotherhood is likely to take control of Egypt if Mubarak falls. The Brotherhood is the ideological home and is the birthplace of the ideology that brought us Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Coptic Christians, already under siege from radical Islamists, could face an attempted genocide if the Brotherhood comes to power and let's loose their fundamentalist followers.
Like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Egypt could easily become a terrorist state and a threat to the United States.
1
Egypt may be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood ... Lebanon is already under the control of an Iranian proxy ... China flexing its muscles ... An ineffectual foreign policy panty-waist occupies the WH ... I think maybe I'll read up on the Book of Revelation tonight.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Posted by: LibertyAtStake at January 28, 2011 11:47 AM (A5zyE)
2
The revolt in Egypt may be the beginning of the religious war that was been on the horizon for the last 50 years. This is not good. And what do we have for a leader? Maybe he will understand that when the POUS bows to foreign leaders, the message to the world is that it can raise hell.
Posted by: david at January 28, 2011 05:37 PM (t/wJs)
3
@libertyatstake, so you're going to consult a book of fiery, apocalyptic 2,000 yr old religious rants for comfort and inspiration? Oh, the irony...You might have more in common with fanatic jihadists than you think.
Posted by: Will Butler at January 28, 2011 07:17 PM (J72gA)
4
Here something just for @WillButler:2Pe 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
Posted by: -1theopneustic at January 29, 2011 12:13 PM (DJgQs)
5
Hey 1theopneustic, I can prove that Spider Man is real! Just give me a minute to consult my Spider Man comic book and find the quote the proves it...The religious mind set is always the same,and remember that YOU worship the same God as Osama bin Laden, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, just in a slightly different form.
Posted by: Will Butler at January 29, 2011 03:09 PM (J72gA)
Associated Press Falls For "Pallywood"-Style Stunt in Egypt
Glance at this gritty cellphone video from Egypt, and you might think you're watching video of protester being gunned down by riot police.
Now watch it again.
You'll note first that the shot does not come from the distance. Bullets fly far faster than sound, and yet this protester is dropping to the ground as the shot is going off. It also sounds to my ear like a pistol shot; one coming from the side of or behind the camera, at that.
Second, the man drops like a sack of potatoes. This suggests a central nervous system shot to the head or spine. He flopped back completely prostrate, where a through-and-though wound from the government forces to his front would dump substantial blood from an exit wound at the rear.
There is no blood.
This was a poorly staged scene, ladies and gentlemen.
And the media has shamefully fallen for it.
Again.
1
Typical. Normally, the stagers actually shoot someone. A body in the morgue is worth more than just one photo op. From the sound, it reminds me of 22LR, being fired from near the camera. A 22 might couse a lethal wound without exiting the body and causing large blood loss on the ground.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (m7EhJ)
2
Leaving asisde my personal dislike of President Mubarak.. I had a great deal of respect for President Sadat as a leader and have ALWAYS wondered at Mubarak's quick response to Sadat's death.
And leaving aside my utter lack of faith and respect for the major media outlets... having seen them be major media CREATORS as often as not, if you get my drift.
As a once retired and now back at work - tho elswhere, criminal investigator, I'm NOT certain of where the shot really came from... I suspect the angle would have given the "cameraman" something to worry about if it did come from the distant riot police line. Occam's Razor applies.
In the end we're missing a basic point... way back when I was on the receiveing end of bricks, bottles and other debris. Had I been a single officer and faced an attacker armed with a brick... well the Supreme Court said I could shoot the SOB a looong time ago. This man was part of a crowd refusing to disperse and that had already injured a number of riot police. As such he was violating local daily AND emergency laws. Is it somehow shocking he got shot? Personally, having been on the riot line and a trainer of police in that job, if I go to a riot on the protestor's side... I'm going with a gun so alls fair. Given our current government policies... where we're apparently headed and TEOTWAWKI on 12/21/2012... watch me.
Posted by: Ole'Wolf at January 28, 2011 02:33 PM (mMX8j)
3
Funny - nobody's blamed the Jooooos yet, have they? Or was it Sarah Palin did it?
No, Egypt, it's going to be Mossad fired the shot. Using a specially trained Zionist buzzard, or maybe a lethal Jew-shark.
Given the Arab world's inability to say "bullshit!" to the stupidest incoherent conspiracy theory, it's not even really necessary to actually shoot anyone, or to fake it. All you need do is state "And some dude got shot, man! He was, like, fatally killed to death! Stupid Jooooos!" It's all over the Mideast in seconds, and mass demonstrations are burning Star of David flags in Pakistan.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 28, 2011 08:58 PM (7YekA)
Media Matters utterly failed in their attempts to smear Tea Partiers in recent weeks, as they attempted to blame the group for the actions of Jared Loughner.
Going back to the same dry well again, they are now trying to blame the Tea Party for the death of Brisenia Flores, the daughter of an alleged drug-dealer gunned down by criminal extremists attempting to rob drug dealers to support vigilante border control operations.
Was Shawna Forde an extremist when to comes to stopping illegal immigration? It certainly appears so. Is a she a murderer? Her trial should answer that question soon enough. Does she represent Tea Party values?
Of course not, despite the propagandists at Media Matters trying to imply otherwise.
It is interesting that Media Matters has be able to come up with the most flimsy of excuses to hold an entire nationwide group of normal people responsible for murder, while somehow turning a blind eye to the mass murders that occurred directly as a result of the ideologies they support.
Don't expect for these accomplices to have a cross word to say about Stalin or Che, and don't expect them to spend any time lamenting the hundreds of newborn babies killed by serial killer Kermit Gosnell and his staff. One of the most prolific mass murderers in America, he somehow can't be seen by Will Bunch, Eric Boehlert, or Oliver Willis.
Eugenics and infanticide are embraced by the Left; hug a tree, but kill a child. If he wasn't dead, Menegle would fit right in with this Soros-paid bunch of socialist sociopaths.
These loathsome creatures would indict hundreds of thousands for the murders actions of one, but can't find a cross word to say about one who killed hundreds or thousands. They seem intent on reserving themselves seats in Hell... a curious goal for a group that doesn't care about truth and justice in this world, or apparently, the next.
1
Wow: Hug a tree, kill a child. Like our presentident, I think I will steal that. That is such a great line, I hope it took you hours to come up with it. I know it only will take me a few seconds to steal it, though.
Posted by: TimothyJ at January 27, 2011 05:09 PM (G5+tV)
2
Yeah, whenever a libtard tries to bring up some act of violence and tries to tie it to the Teaparty or conservatives, I just reply "I've got two words for you: Kermitt Gosnell." The guy committed mass murder and the whole sordid mess is DIRECTLY TIED to Leftist ideology/rhetoric.
Posted by: RickS at January 27, 2011 06:44 PM (Kogrf)
3
I agree, the reference to the Tea Party seems extraneous and ill considered. However, this story is a vintage example of craziness on the far (and I mean very far) right can lead to gruesome violence. There is simply no such equivalent on the far left, at least not since 1968.
Posted by: richard at January 27, 2011 07:01 PM (e14CB)
Posted by: richard at January 27, 2011 07:02 PM (e14CB)
5
There is no worse EVIL on this planet than Gosnell, Democrats and their cohorts who practice and support the abortion industry. RickS, next time you discuss this with a "libtard" point out to them that the body count is over 45,000,000 "Americans" terminated. Just let that number sink in - it is truely staggering. Not my number, not your number, but the Official "head" count by government agencies. I tell them that in that 45,000,000 people aborted was the scientist who would have cured___________!! Was the FIRST female President, and was their one TRUE love!! Tough to wrap your mind arount the sheer magnitude of KILLING 45,000,000 children. You can ask them: "What kind of society would kill 45,000,000 million children?" Then to really annoy them I point out that most of the children killed would have grown up to be Democrats, and that they would be in political power for ever with that many vote. Drives them nuts, they stammer and almost always lose their cool. I love it!!!!
Posted by: mixitup at January 27, 2011 09:43 PM (Z21cb)
Napolitano's Focus On Molesting Grandmothers in Airports Is Letting Iranian Suicide Bombers Slip Across Our Southern Border
Or at least that is in one inference that can be made by this story out of Arizona:
A book celebrating suicide bombers has been found in the Arizona desert just north of the U.S.- Mexican border, authorities tell Fox News.
The book, "In Memory of Our Martyrs," was spotted Tuesday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent out of the Casa Grande substation who was patrolling a route known for smuggling illegal immigrants and drugs.
Published in Iran, it consists of short biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died carrying out attacks.
According to internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection documents, "The book also includes letters from suicide attackers to their families, as well as some of their last wills and testaments." Each biographical page contains "the terrorist's name, date of death, and how they died."
Perhaps the most asinine claim made in the article is a blatant lie by a unnamed DHS spokesman:
"At this time, DHS does not have any credible information on terrorist groups operating along the Southwest border," a Department of Homeland Security official said in a statement.
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) called upon DHS to investigate Hezbollah's actions along the U.S.-Mexican border in June of last year.
The mainstream media, investment magazines, and even political think tanks have been writing about the issue as long ago as 2009, and rumors of US covert action against Islamic terrorist groups in Mexico and other Central and South America countries dates back even further.
Is DHS really expecting us to believe that the border they refuse to protect isn't the easiest and most logical infiltration route for terrorists, just as it is for cartels?
We will see the Mexican border shut iron-tight in a matter of days after the next massive terrorist strike in this nation is linked to terrorists waltzing into this nation, armed to the teeth as they did in Mumbai.
When that happens, I hope the American citizenry holds the political class (both parties) responsible, and puts those responsible for allowing this to happen in prison where they belong.
1
and then there is this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/27/radical-islamic-cleric-nabbed-sneaking-into-us-from-mexico/
Posted by: Paul A'Barge at January 27, 2011 03:03 PM (0135J)
2
Boy, CF, I really hate to disagree with you, but on this one, I sadly must. You at least temporarily forget that we have Obie Dumb as president, and other than not allowing the crises to go to waste, he will DO NOTHING!! to protect America. After all, we are no better than those potential glass parking lots where the terr...uh, sorry, man caused disasters are sneaki....uh, immigrating to get jobs Americans won't do.
Posted by: TimothyJ at January 27, 2011 05:14 PM (G5+tV)
Posted by: Stretch at January 27, 2011 05:42 PM (OE9WA)
4
I have to agree with TimothyJ, although from a slightly different angle. There will be the reflexive press release of "no terrorist connection" issued as soon as the news breaks. Later, there will be denials that any terrorists came in by that route. Anything else would mean admitting that they have left the route open by their own actions and they share the liability for any casualties and damage. Can't have that. It would damage the narrative. And they will lie and deny as long as they have the ability to maintain the lie. Then they will try to find a way to create sufficient diversions, distractions, and Maskirova to cloud the issue. And classify matter to keep the evidence concealed.
Further, they will resist any closure of the border, because 1) they have other ... interests that require keeping the border uncontrolled, and 2) they may wish that the route be kept open for further use by Jihadi's.
I denounce myself and will report for re-education.
Subotai Bahadur
Posted by: Subotai Bahadur at January 27, 2011 11:45 PM (DfbQk)
It's the hour when the sun is high and your heels are blistered. The sky is cold, the trees bare of anything to keep the slight drizzle of this morning away from you. Your thighs ache in ways they haven't in too long and your vision is focusing, not on the task at hand, but on some hoped for mirage in which a chair and a cold beer will magically appear. You're tired, wet, and cold, wishing only for the heat of a small fire to warm you from the inside out.
But someone else wants to go on. You look into those big, beautiful brown eyes and you can't say no.
It's pheasant season and there is someone that is not done hunting yet.
ITEM: In the “oh man, is this cool or what?” department, the US Navy has transformed promising theory into more promising reality by successfully testing the proof of concept hardware for the Free Electron Laser (FEL) program at Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. This could be an enormous step forward over current laser technology which requires either enormous quantities of chemicals or huge electric generating plants to produce beams of sufficient power and range. According to the Navy, a FEL laser can be adapted to deal with cloud cover, precipitation or humidity, all significant issues for any ship-born system. The research team expects to have a full power prototype, capable of instantly shooting targets out of the sky by 2018. Godspeed and hurry up.
ITEM: Here we go again. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) took office promising to, once and for all, produce indisputable proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. However Abercrombie has not been able to produce the actual, long form birth certificate. According to Dr. Jerome Corsi on WorldNetDaily (story here), Abercrombie said the issues will have “political implications for the 2012 election that we simply cannot have.” So has he produced the birth certificate? Not quite. He said that to date, only some sort of unspecified “listing” or “notation” of Obama’s birth has been located in the Hawaii Department of Health archives. Abercrombie said “It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.” Uh huh. We don’t want to reignite another birther outbreak, but wait: Abercrombie has done that himself, and who can’t produce their own birth certificate anyway? Sheesh.
UPDATE: Now Gov. Abercrombie’s office has announced that his quest for the holy birth certificate will end in failure. Apparently the Gov. has discovered that state law prevents the release of such records--if they exist--without the approval of the individual involved. This raises several questions: Why can’t/won’t Mr. Obama authorize the release and end this issue once and for all? Why did the Gov. Bring this up in the first place? Didn’t someone on his staff have a clue about privacy laws? And the most important question: What’s wrong with that guy? Were evil, Obama-hating right-wingers beaming anti-Obama rays into his brain when he wasn’t wearing his tinfoil hat? In any case, I’m sure this whole episode will clear up the birther issue...double sheesh.
UPDATE OF THE UPDATE: Four days later, here we go again, again. Journalist Mike Evans, a long time friend of Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, has now recanted his story that Abercrombie told him that he could not find Barack Obama’s original, long form birth certificate anywhere in Hawaii records (here). Evans now claims that he never spoke to Abercrombie and that he “misspoke.” Good grief. How do you make a mistake about whether you actually spoke to someone? Either you did or you didn’t. If you didn’t, you have nothing to say about what they said. And why was Abercrombie foozling around for weeks making repeated statements about what appeared to be an epic quest to try to find something that should have taken a single phone call and a 10 minute records search to locate? And people wonder why this issue won’t go away. One could easily be forgiven for thinking that Abercrombie and Evans were “persuaded” to recant and shut up. That is certainly a standard and often used Obamite tactic. I’m no birther, but Mr. Obama has the power--always has had it--to make this go away at will by producing the genuine article for verification by an independent authority. That he continues to keep so much of his past tightly under wraps only contributes to this continuing rodeo. Yee-hah!
ITEM: Who says that Obama Foreign policy hasn’t accomplished anything except derailing the Middle East Peace Process? From the Seattle Times, during the State visit of Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, the White House announced the dramatic signing of a new deal for the sale of 200 Boeing civilian airliners worth 19 billion to China. Hope! Change! Smart Diplomacy! Economic progress! Not so much. The actual deal involves already secured orders from as far back as 2007 during the--gasp!--Bush Administration. And 19 billion is only the window sticker price. The Chinese will actually pay only about 11 billion for the aircraft. But other than giving a completely false impression of competence and economic foreign policy acumen, the White House press release was, as Dan Rather surely would have put it, “false but accurate.”
ITEM: And in other feckless foreign policy news, what concessions were “smart diplomacy” and “outreach” able to wring from the Chinese during Hu Jintao’s state visit? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Dick and Squat. To be fair, the US is in a poor position to demand anything of China due to two years of smart economics, but that--like bad weather, bad breath, indigestion, global warning and acne--is, of course, George W. Bush’s fault. Ooops! No, sorry! These days it’s Sarah Palin’s fault! Former NYT columnist Leslie Gelb thinks this a stunning success. She writes: “On the plus side, Obama restored much of America’s credibility for being tough and serious that he had lost in Bejing a year ago. That’s important and will count as problems arise in the next two years.” Well thank goodness! And I thought Mr. Obama was simply incompetent. Silly me.
ITEM: And the hits just keep on coming! Via The Epoch Times, via Ann Althouse (here), at the White House state dinner honoring Hu Jintao, Chinese pianist Lang Lang (I didn’t know Pandas could play the piano!) played a Chinese propaganda song from the Korean War era that insults America. Ms. Althouse quoted Yang Jingduan, a Chinese psychiatrist now living in Philadelphia who had been a doctor in the chinese military: “In the eyes of all Chinese, this will not be seen as anything other than a big insult to the U.S....It’s like insulting you in your face and you don’t know it, it’s humiliating...” Does anyone at the Obama State Department know anything about, you know, affairs of state? Oh well. At least it’s clear that while the Chinese have no respect for us or fear of us, we make up for it by being seen as a paper tiger.
ITEM: Like a swarm of well dressed locust, more than 200 mayors have descended on Washington famished for federal bailouts, and have apparently been given at least the hope of stripping bare juicy taxpayer crops. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said they had a “great meeting” with Mr. Obama. “What was clear to me, this is a president who is focused on our cities,” he chortled. Uh, am I missing something, or aren’t these the same mayors whose lunatic progressive policies have flushed their cities down the fiscal commode? Give thanks, dear readers, that the entire Congress is no longer controlled by the Progressives. Were that the case, the mayors would be installing money pipelines directly to DC. Truly, we live in--as the ancient Chinese curse goes--interesting times.
iTEM: And the winners of January’s Captain Louis Renault Award are: The U.S., Russia, France, England, Germany and China, the six powers negotiating with Iran to convince the mad mullahs to stop uranium enrichment. The talks collapsed on January 22 when Iran said: “nanner, nanner nanner,” while simultaneously sticking out its tongue while inserting its thumbs in its ears and wiggling its fingers. Captain Louis Renault, for those not familiar with “Casa Blanca,” was the policeman who was “shocked, shocked” to discover illegal gambling going on in Rick’s Place, just before his gambling winnings were delivered to him.
ITEM: According to MSN, Marc Higgins, 21, of Connecticut has been charged with murder and assault after stabbing Mathew Walton, 21, to death, and stabbing three others, apparently at random. Higgins was angered at a party when some present made fun of his farting. Yes, farting. He left and returned with two knives and began attacking people indiscriminately. According to the Hartford Courant, Higgins told police that he wanted to teach people that they shouldn’t “trifle” with him. No doubt Higgins was inspired by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans trying to repeal ObamaCare, the Tea Party and those guys selling Ginsu knives on late night TV. The usual suspects will surely introduce a bill to limit the number of blades and accessories available in Swiss Army knives. I’ve always been worried about the destructive potential of those little toothpick thingies. I do have one pertinent question: How is it possible to have killed or injured anyone without a 30 round magazine? I don’t get it...
ITEM: So Sarah Palin is unelectable? She’s inexperienced, she’s...you name it, as long as it’s derogatory. It doesn’t take much reading of the Founders to discover that they well knew that a professional political class could arise--and would be a disaster. They hoped that our elected representatives would come from the general public, serve their limited time in the Congress, and return to real lives. How then could anyone be elected to Congress without massive prior experience? By an examination of their character and reputations which tends to help to predict future actions. Interesting, isn’t it, that we’ve become what the Founders feared. By any reasonable standard, they might well have admired a self-made, accomplished, intelligent, strong and successful candidate for national office, a doer, not one to vote “present” to avoid political footprints. And she’s the one who is unelectable... Sigh.
ITEM: A group of 13 Somali pirates in control of a Norwegian-owned ship run by South Koreans off the east coast of Africa received a wake up call from South Korean Naval Special Forces on Jan 21. The operators rescued the 21 man crew, killed eight pirates and captured five. So should it ever be. Congratulations to the South Korean government and to all involved.
ITEM: In the positive negative trends corner, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that labor union membership has dropped from 12.3% of the workforce to 11.9 in 2010. Of 14.7 million union members, 7.6 million are in the public sector. At one time, unions achieved necessary, even noble ends, but those days have long since passed and most unions now exist as greedy, corrupt arms of the Democrat party, arms that have materially contributed to the fiscal plight of many cities and states. With the possibility of doing away with secret ballot elections for union certification now a distant memory, unions justifiably continue to recede into oblivion. While I have no animosity toward hard working Americans (I are one), unionized or otherwise, it’s hard to feel anything but relief at these statistics.
ITEM: The State of The Union Pep Rally and Insomnia Cure! For my article on that epic event--or whatever it was--go here.
ITEM: Well, that sucks! According to Fox News, a 44-year old New Zealand woman made her way to the emergency department of an Auckland hospital complaining of a loss of movement in her left arm. Doctors traced the problem to a hickey on her neck near a major artery and concluded that the suction effect of the hickey bruised the artery, dislodging a clot which caused a minor stroke. The doctors administered an anti-coagulant and the woman recovered. Who’da thunk it? Mom was right about hickeys after all!
And on that warm and fuzzy note, thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you next time!
@ITSTactical points to a Washington Post article about the lives saved in Tucson because responding deputies were equipped with military-grade Individual First Aid Kits (IFAKs) optimized to deal with the most common causes of battlefield trauma and death. The small kits—not even the size of a child's lunchbox—have saved lives in combat overseas and did the same at the site of Jared Loughner's attack.
Doctors and law enforcement officials told reporters here that the incident would have been much worse without a small brown kit devised by David Kleinman, a SWAT team medic who had become concerned about rising violence.
Kleinman cobbled together the Individual First Aid Kits out of simple items used by combat medics in Iraq and Afghanistan: an emergency bandage pioneered by the Israeli army; a strip of gauze that contains a substance which coagulates blood on contact; a tactical tourniquet; shears that are sturdy and sharp enough to slice off victims' clothing; and sealing material that works especially well on chest wounds.
I purchased my first IFAK in mid-2010. As I spend a decent amount of time at shooting ranges, and the skill level and safety practices of people at ranges varies widely, it simply seemed prudent to have such a kit as part of my range bag in case someone suffers the results of a negligent discharge or catastrophic failure. I'm also looking to pick up some relevant first responder training so that I can use the kit more effectively, but the brilliance of the kit is that it uses equipment that requires minimal training.
As ITS brought this article to my attention, I think it only fair that I provide a link to their site, where they sell a similar kit they call an ETA. Considering the amount of time I spend on the road each week (minimum of 250 miles) I'm thinking about picking up a pair of these to keep in my vehicles to deal with the more common scenario of running across an accident scene.
I hope I never find myself needing to use any sort of blow-out kit like these, but if they're needed, I hope to God that I have one nearby.
1
Thank you. You can not ban crazy peolpe,you can not even institutionalize them until they have actually harmed someone and then they will be released with an admonition to take their assigned medication but no supervision. Official first responders are rarely in a position to be the the first responder. Typically bystanders do not just stand by in critical situations unless there is nothing they can do and even then since today most people have cell phones there is little delay in first responder notification.
Posted by: -1dunce at January 26, 2011 02:59 PM (AsJyn)
2
You will see a lot of the same trauma in a bad car wreck, which has convinced me that I need one in my car too. The ITS kit looks to be very lean, very complete and a damned good price.
So... another expense goes on the "soon" list.
Posted by: Phelps at January 26, 2011 03:22 PM (50ajE)
3
In a book I read recently, which was placed in Australia, one of the battlefield medics carried tampons in his emergency first aid kit, for gunshot wounds, because they expand immediately when they come in contact with blood, thus sealing the wound until the soldier can be rushed to a field hospital for more conventional treatment. Pretty smart, eh?
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at January 27, 2011 12:35 AM (Aaj8s)
4
John Ringo's Ghost has a long disquisition on the value of tampons and max-pads (with wings) as field expedient dressings for gunshot wounds and other injuries.
Posted by: PKO Strany at January 29, 2011 05:20 PM (RJOgX)
5
From about '72-'83 did emergency work with SCCA. Red Cross first aid classes ['73] promoted use of tampons and maxi-pads for use in stemming bloody wounds.
Posted by: oldeforce at January 30, 2011 01:58 AM (WsPY3)
I picked up the phone and it was an election campaigner, someone who probably was calling all the female voters in the area. "You'd vote for Ms. so and so?" I was asked. "Actually NO" I said.
It's the hour when the sun is high and your heels are blistered. The sky is cold, the trees bare of anything to keep the slight drizzle of this morning away from you. Your thighs ache in ways they haven't in too long and your vision is focusing, not on the task at hand, but on some hoped for mirage in which a chair and a cold beer will magically appear. You're tired, wet, and cold, wishing only for the heat of a small fire to warm you from the inside out.
But someone else wants to go on. You look into those big, beautiful brown eyes and you can't say no.
It's pheasant season and there is someone that is not done hunting yet.