#1
An early example of foreign intervention by the regime change crowd in Washington. Few of their numbers paid the butcher's bill. A costly victory in the south squandered by a democratic congress who could not see it through. The 'domino effect' didn't run far, but in it's wake 7 million Cambodians perished.
Alternate title: The Awesome, truth-shattering power of a fascist agenda. This presentation was published in a state which only two years ago passed one of the most draconian universal background check laws in the nation. It just goes to show that the appetite of fascists such as the writer for your personal property will never go unwhetted until the gun owner is dead and his property belongs to the state. This is part of an effort by the anti-gun lobby to "de-legitimize" guns. Having finally figured out that they're not going to win any legislative battles in the current political landscape, they're working 1) to restrict gun makers in various ways, 2) to find just enough judges, including five on the Supreme Court, to "reinterpret" the 2A in just the right way (after which it can never be interpreted differently again, don't you know), and 3) to change ordinary society so that gun owners are seen as deviant or illegitimate citizens. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if you looked carefully at the author, you'd find someone who is involved in this process. Via Hershel Smith
By Todd Hubbard
Special to The Times
GUNS are awesome machines.
Built with great precision, advanced over generations, they are powerful tools for their purpose. Practicing with them brings the pleasure and satisfaction that comes with honing difficult skills. The enforcers of our laws use them to stop the criminals who threaten our lives and property. Our military uses them to kill and contain the violent enemies of our nation. As with any fine machine, looking at a gun, possessing one or working with one is exciting and empowering. If you think owning a gun is anything other than a responsibility, you probably should not ever own a gun. Possessing a gun rather is humbling.
In the hands of civilians, they are not protection from crime. Unless you wear a uniform with a badge or a service patch on it, the gun you carry is more likely to kill you or someone you know or love than it is to kill anyone who threatens you or your loved ones. The “good guy with a gun” who will protect us, rather than threaten us, is the man or woman who has been screened, trained, authorized and empowered by us to do the job. Anyone else, no matter how well-intentioned, is an amateur at best and a hazard to the rest of us at worst. The past 40 years in the United States has been a massive experiment in the theory that a highly armed citizenry will make us safer, and the experiment has been an abysmal failure. Cops can't be everywhere; neither can the military. And the dirty secret to private gun ownership: it is not up to an individual gun owner to stop crime. It is up to the individual committing the crime to stop the crime. If I witness a crime while carrying, it is up to me, in a practical and tactical sense to decide whether I will even attempt to stop the act using a firearm. My first inclination is to not draw at all, unless I'm being fired on. YMMV.
In the hands of civilians, guns are not a bulwark against tyranny. If you believe that guns are a remedy against an oppressive government, then you are on the side of the black man who perceived “his” people being abused by government agents and chose to strike back with a gun. You are on the side of the troubled white man who, 52 years earlier, wanted to bring down the elected government he viewed as corrupt. Dallas is what Second Amendment remedies look like in practice: dead police officers, a dead president. If this lawyer had read any of the articles about the Constitution published at the time, he would know that citizens are the bulwark against tyranny. The recognition of the right to keep and bear arms, and the restrictions against government efforts to stop citizen disarmament was put there for that reason. That the Dallas shooter sought to even things up at the expense of the five kops he shot in no way invalidates the existence of guns as an element in dealing effectively with a runaway government and an elected tyranny.
Many of you, my friends and family, own firearms. I do not want you to surrender your guns. I do not want the government to confiscate them. But I do want you to help address the problem of so many deaths caused by these awesome machines. An informed, engaged electorate is what protects us from tyranny. Stop pretending this problem does not exist or that the only solution is more guns. Do not hide behind “originalist” arguments about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Whenever a serf, such as the individual posing as a lawyer writing, says he doesn't want the government to confiscate firearms, that simply means he wants the government to confiscate firearms so badly he is willing to blatantly lie about his intentions.
Late Saturday night, I was awake when I heard multiple sirens in the distance. I felt that frisson of fear that every parent of a young person feels when you let him or her out into the world. Has there been an accident? Was somebody drinking, being a reckless kid? But I immediately relaxed, knowing that on this night both of my boys were already safe at home. Those sirens represented someone else’s pain.
In the morning, I learned three young people were dead, a fourth wounded and a dozen scarred by terror. My boys knew most of them, had gone to school with all of them and had played ball with some of them.
Another young person had possessed an awesome machine, a machine that no doubt had given him a sense of satisfaction, safety and power. A neighbor’s security camera recorded the mere seconds it took for that machine in the hands of that young man to break so many hearts forever. The firearm had not given him anything. It is an inanimate object. The shooter gave himself that sense of "satisfaction, safety and power," an indication alone which should have been the first hint he should not have had the gun to begin with. But the government can't be there to instill in the mind of the shooter his responsibility with regard to owning a gun. Only the shooter can, and he failed in that most basic responsibility.
Three lives are gone, three families shattered and dozens of lives changed forever. These are awesome machines. Guns are tools to be used for a specific purpose. They are not awesome in any sense. Just tools. In the hand of an individual being fired on, they are indispensable tools. In the hands of an individual who chose to exert his ill onto his target, they are the second best argument for individual gun ownership..
Todd Hubbard is a legal-aid attorney and resident of Mukilteo.
#2
In Iraq, I thought everyone owned an AK-47. I suppose that's why everybody is mass-shooting everyone else all the time. But some folks prefer bombs. More splatter, less risk, unless you take the short-cut to pair-a-dice with a boom belt.
Could it be there is less shooting over there because there are more guns? Shooting rampages couldn't get very far because everybody would be shooting back at the mass-murderer.
But bombs - set your IED or pressure-cooker bomb, walk away to a safe distance and watch the mayhem. Trigger the bigger bomb after the first responders show up.
McVeigh and Nichols (OKC, 1995) got 846 causalities and $650 million in damages from one truck bomb. Now that's life-shattering. Can't get that kind of mayhem from a AR-15 and 237-round clip.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/11/2016 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
At least the low-lives of Mukilteo and regions surrounding know they won't be facing an armed resident when invading his house. Pass the word. We'll have a convert
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/11/2016 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
BLUF: [Wash Times] ....This is why, despite whatever the current polling shows, the biggest winners of the campaign so far are, first, Donald Trump, who has pulled off the most astonishing political achievement in recent American history and who, despite having never done this before, having a skeletal campaign and relatively little money, may very well pull the whole thing off; and, second, the great silent majority, which now believes it truly has a voice and the ability to effect the course of the country.
The Republican Party is now the party of action, symbolized by its frenetic, unconventional nominee, and the Democratic Party is the passive one, embodied by its tired champion of the rejected status quo. In a change election, the choice could not be clearer.
Unfortunately, the leaders of five industries - IT, banking/finance, entertainment, education, and public employment (plus the Saudis laundering cash through various back channels) - will spend ANY amount of money and direct the MSM and public broadcasting to engage in ANY amount of yellow journalism to insure Hillary Clinton is elected president.
In a media age this will almost surely prove insurmountable.
If Lloyd Blankfein or Erich Schmidt had to go personally to every undecided voter in the three or four dozen counties in the three or four states that will decide this election and hand them a check for $100,000 in exchange for their votes, that's what they would do. They have the money to do that. Trump does not and never will. And that would be the case no matter who Mrs. Clinton ran against.
The economy is down, and will be for much longer than the 1930's depression. Even if the vast majority of citizens don't understand the mechanics and demographics of this, they are gripped with fear over losing their current level of affluence, even if they have some vague notion that it is mathematically unsustainable. Fear that the chess pieces being moved to fix this (something HRC has repeatedly said she will fight against, which resonates with that dynamic) amounts to fear of losing one's own rice bowl for millions of people. The 47% will never vote for someone who ever uttered the words "you're fired". All HRC needs to win is another 4% via SJW's and voter fraud in a few dozen counties in swing states and she walks away with this election.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/11/2016 5:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The 47% will never vote for someone who ever uttered the words "you're fired". All HRC needs to win is another 4% via SJW's and voter fraud in a few dozen counties in swing states and she walks away with this election.
Very sad, but I fear you are right. The level of evil and corruption has now overtake the legal system. I am least of all optimistic.
#4
All Trump needs to do is hammer all the crookedness of Hillary and shut his mouth on anything that isn't related to attacking Hillary directly.
Clue for the clueless: The silent majority does not exist. Its Pat Buchanan's speech gimmick he wrote for Nixon. There is not a majority for much anything these days, only against things.
#5
If Lloyd Blankfein or Erich Schmidt had to go personally to every undecided voter in the three or four dozen counties in the three or four states that will decide this election and hand them a check for $100,000 in exchange for their votes, that's what they would do.
Yeah, but all they have to do is distribute Obamaphones.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/11/2016 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
There's no need to fear. This is all media hype.Our local newspaper just endorsed Hilly and many have canceled subscriptions. They are irrelevant. Watch the Trump rallies. This is big. This is historic. Call him and his supporters names. Jump in the waters fine or rail at things that go bump in the night.
[Real Clear Politics] In a wide-ranging interview on CNBC Wednesday afternoon investor Carl Icahn weighed in on the economy, Donald Trump's presidential campaign and his speech on the economy, the future of the dollar, why the American worker should vote for Trump and much more. Icahn said Trump's speech on the economy was "right on" and he should win "hands down." He also said Trump will appeal to the Archie Bunker's of the world.
"I think it's extremely important for this country to see Trump win," he said. "I have nothing against Hillary Clinton. You know, I'm not going to get into personal thing about her. I said that several times about my PAC. I'm not getting into personalities."
"I look at things simply and I made a lot of money just looking at simple truths," Icahn said Tuesday. "This is a simple truth. We have a massive problem and Donald is addressing it. The Democrats are not. Donald gave a speech that was to my mind right on about it. And if he sticks with that economic theme, he should definitely win hands down because I don't know why you wouldn't vote for him."
Icahn poked fun at the use of the term "service economy" by pundits explaining job numbers and predicted the downfall of the dollar.
"I still question the pundits that said, 'Oh, it's great, we're a service economy,'" Icahn said. "What does it do? What does that mean? We sit around and just text each other. What do we produce?"
"And eventually who's going to take our paper?" he asked. "We're living off imports that everybody loves the dollar, but sooner or later that's just going to blow up in one week. I mean, it's going to happen. It's happened in history. I don't think it's debatable. I don't even think the economic gurus of the Democratic party are going to debate the fact that we must be able to compete."
#1
"I still question the pundits that said, 'Oh, it's great, we're a service economy,'" Icahn said. "What does it do? What does that mean? We sit around and just text each other. What do we produce?"
This guy gets it.
Unfortunately, the fix for our problem requires the disruption of at least 50-75% of public sector rice bowls, plus a much higher level of volatility in financial markets. Those two sectors alone will fight and spend to get HRC elected with every ounce of energy and every penny they have.
Some of the higher-ups in those groups know damn well that we are headed towards collapse because half or more of the people want more pay, health care, and government (especially regulations) than they are producing the wealth and value to justify.
But they are hoping they can delay the inevitable, if only for a few years, or months or even weeks.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/11/2016 5:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm not going to get into personal thing about her.
And why not share?
How can character demonstrated by behavior NOT be a critical decision factor for the American voter?
#3
Trump's economic speech was good. It got buried by his stupidity going off script about the Second Amendment.
Someone needs to keep that rambling idiot on the teleprompter.
Now I know how Obama supporters felt.
Posted by: Unusons Oppressor of the Hatfields5392 ||
08/11/2016 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I know it sounds trite, dividing people into two groups, but my take is that the world divides into the makers, the takers, and the fakers.
The makers are those who create useful stuff, or who help the makers make useful stuff. The takers are those who don't make stuff, but just take it. The Fakers are those who fake being useful without actually making anything, but act as middlemen to help the takers take from the makers without any consequences. (The takers and fakers wouldn't be able to take if the makers hadn't made the guns used to do the taking.)
Granted, there are takers that are that way by necessity, such as the young and their mothers who consume resources and stuff in the process of becoming makers, and the old and elderly who can no longer make stuff. The education crisis is about the young and their educators who took and took and took, and wound up not being able to transition to making. Those who formerly made, and who now take (in their old age) from a store that they themselves "made" by storing for the future, are NOT the causes of the pension crisis: It IS a crisis for the retired fakers however, and who propose, as a solution to their problem, that the fakers take from the makers to give to the fakers.
Ichan and Trump want to help the makers. Sounds good to me.
#1
Read the whole thing, to get to the nearly-the-conclusion:
The choice, sadly, lies between an unlearned interloper with common sense and an Establishment whose policy response is predictable as the emergence of a gumball from a supermarket machine after a quarter is cranked in. They are mediocre ideologues incapable of learning from past failures, clinging to their careers because they are unsuited for honest work. Trump may not know much but he is capable of learning. That can’t be said for his detractors.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/11/2016 8:14 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] ONE of the most insidious effects of terror attacks is the confusion that they sow, and the way in which they magnify the divisions within society. In part, this is the strategy of the terrorist, especially when the target is civilians.
But what happened in Quetta was calculated. Somebody hatched a plan to first assassinate the president of the Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... Bar Association, then have a jacket wallah wait at the hospital where the body would inevitably be taken, anticipating thon the lam numbers of lawyers would congregate there.
So the first question naturally arises: why target lawyers? Was it just to produce a large body count, or was there a specific reason why lawyers were selected for this gruesome deed?
Even before the bodies had been fully counted up and identified, an official narrative of sorts reared its head. This is a conspiracy against CPEC, hatched by RAW ... India's Research and Analysis Wing, Pakistain's equivalent of the Boogie Man... . Following this claim, a tale follows: the idea is to destabilise the country and derail the budding partnership with China that Pakistain is so carefully nurturing.
But the official narrative, stated thus, makes little sense. First of all, how do they know that this act was perpetrated by RAW with the intention to derail CPEC? Considering the narrative emerged faster than the dust settled, was it driven by any empirical findings in the aftermath or was it simple surmising?
Second, how does targeting lawyers destabilise the country and contribute to the derailment of CPEC? Given how calculated the strike was, whoever carried it out would naturally also have calculated the impact it was going to have. And it’s hard to see how the impact could in any way contribute to the derailment of CPEC.
Another narrative emerged in parliament, and was echoed in a gathering of the legal fraternity held in Quetta on Wednesday. How could this happen given how saturated Quetta is with military presence, with intelligence operatives on every street, as parliamentarian Mehmood Khan Achakzai pointed out? The attack, regardless of who the perpetrators were, represented a failure of security and intelligence, which is largely in the hands of the military in Quetta.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/11/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
My head is telling me this HAS to be wrong...but for the life of me, my head CANNOT explain WHY, much less outline the downside...
[DAWN] Terrorism cannot be fought and won while being isolated from one’s neighbours, whether inside the country or outside, must be the basic starting point for Pakistain’s national security policy.
The zero-tolerance approach is often rejected as unfeasible or impractical, but unless it forms the philosophical underpinnings of overall security policy, the country cannot realistically look forward to a peaceful, stable or prosperous future.
Whether internally or externally directed, terrorism inside Pakistain will only be defeated by cooperation among institutions and between states.
Finally, the need for clarity and coherence in overall policy should not obscure local failings. Quetta, a relatively small picturesque provincial capital, ought to be better protected than it has been.
After each attack, whether a assassination'>assassination or an indiscriminate bombing, the same vows are made by different officials, but accountability never seems to be a priority. Surely, Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... and its capital, Quetta, deserve both answers and also visible accountability.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/11/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] IN the aftermath of Monday’s carnage in Quetta, a number of possible perpetrators have emerged, including two myrmidon groups and a foreign intelligence agency. Yet somewhere in between the suspicions of government officials, boastful claims of gunnies and conspiracy theories lies the truth -- which only a thorough and transparent investigation can unveil.
Following the gun and kabooms, Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri voiced the suspicion that India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/11/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistain Proxies
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
