Monday, April 16, 2007
I stand by my assessment of gun rights, and point to the Virginia Tech situation as a perfect illustration of why people should pack heat whenever possible.
I was watching CNN this evening and the anchors were batting around the tired old saws about how guns should be less accessible, and that would prevent this sort of thing. I call bullshit on that. First of all, their main insinuation (not quite an "I told you so" claim) was how liberal gun laws are in Virginia. They didn't mention that the attack, from beginning to end, happened in a gun-free zone. Guess somebody forgot to tell the shooter about that rule, huh?
Of all the thousands of people within a couple of blocks of the attacks, all it might have taken is for one instructor, one student, one fercripesake JANITOR to have brought a gun with them
to work or school, and a lot of those people would not have had to die.
Of course I know I'm wailing in the dark here. There is absolutely no way that this kind of straight thinking will catch on with Universities. It's not "nuanced" or "intellectual" enough to point out the obvious answer.
I know one thing, though. Minnesota is a concealed-carry state (finally), and some businesses post signs banning weapons from their premises. I know that I am going to start thinking twice about going into a place where I know that nobody who is law-abiding is carrying a weapon while scofflaws may be packing and probably are at least some of the time. I don't carry a weapon (yet), but I like the idea that the regular joe next to me in line at the convenience store might me. Just in case some yahoo barges in with a gun and starts shooting the place up...we would at least have a chance of making it out alive.
Sigh. My thoughts and prayers are with those poor people's families tonight as they begin a lifetime of hurting that just didn't have to be that way.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I used to be in favor of gun control. I have NO IDEA what I was thinking. I now believe that EVERYBODY should be required to pack heat EVERYWHERE they go, and gun training should be just as much a part of high-school age instruction as driver training. Think about it. If you know for a certainty that there is a 99% chance that a person you are thinking about mugging, raping, or otherwise hurting is packing a .45 (or even a .22 for that matter) and knows how to use it with AT LEAST a minimum degree of competence, how does that impact your decision on whether or not to follow through on your thought?
How about these mass murders where somebody just snaps and starts shooting people in a crowd? If the whole crowd has guns, that wouldn't last so long.
Somebody in the show made another good point: every single major incident (Columbine, etc) where guns killed a lot of people, it was in a "gun free zone". Feh. There should be no such thing.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
So now she's decided that since she doesn't agree with the president's foreign policy, it's her responsibility to set up an alternative foreign policy:Oh, yeah, the oil ticks and despots LOVE her ideas. So do the terrorists:
Pelosi was met at the Riyadh airport by officials including Abdul-Rahman al-Zamel, the head of the Saudi-American friendship committee at the Shura Council. He described the speaker's visit as a "breakthrough" and praised the inclusion of the first Muslim member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, in her delegation.
Pelosi wore a lavender pantsuit instead of the long black robe, called an abaya, that women, Saudi and non-Saudi, have to wear in the kingdom.
One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East.And there's your proof that the terrorists have no more knowledge of how our country works (or how it's supposed to work) than Nancy Pelosi apparently does. See, the constitution says the executive branch has primary (indeed, almost total) control of the nation's foreign policy. The only exception I'm aware of is that it is the senate's job to ratify or reject treaties that the president or his duly appointed representatives (SecState et al) negotiate with other governments. The house? Nada. Zip. Zilch. They are a domestic organ ONLY, with nothing meaningful to say about foreign policy. Nancy, I'm talking to you.
Pelosi's visit was opposed by President Bush, who called Syria a "state sponsor of terror."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria Wednesday – in which she called for dialogue with Damascus – was "brave" and "very appreciated" and could bring about "important changes" to America's foreign policy, including talks with "Middle East resistance groups," according to members of Palestinian terror organizations whose top leaders live in Syria."Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections."
Islamic Jihad has carried out scores of shootings and rocket attacks, and, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years.
Ramadan Shallah, overall chief of Islamic Jihad, lives in Syria, as does Hamas chieftain Khaled Mashaal. Israel has accused the Syrian-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership of ordering militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to carry out terror attacks.
Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East "resistance movements" and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.
Clinton's woeful handling of the Khobar towers bombing, the Cole bombing, and several other incidents probably caused the Republicans in control of the house to want to step in and show him how it should be done, but they didn't. No matter how much they hated doing nothing in the face of aggression like that, they for the most part let it lie. Know why? Because it WASN'T THEIR JOB. Just like it's not the job of the House now to try to step in and undermine what the president is trying to do.
When Pelosi or one of her friends win the presidency (shiver) in 2008 or whenever, that would be the time to start changing the foreign policy of the United States. Until then, they should keep their damned noses out of places where they don't belong.
It used to be an old saw that our differences stop at the country's shore. Most people up until just recently treated it more or less as a rule of thumb. I guess Pelosi and her fellow meddlers and cheerleaders never heard that one. Now if things go to hell because of their contributions to international diplomacy, they will gleefully point at Bush and scream about what a mess he's made.