Two New Right Ones

Just a note to announce the addition of two blogs to my Right Ones blog roll.  The Watchman's Bagpipes is Glenn's blog, and Timothy J. Hammons posts at Neil's and other places as "Pastor Timothy".  I've been meaning to add them for some time, and I apologize to them both for my procrastination.  Both are worthy additions indeed.  Check 'em out.

But Hey! What Do We Know?

According to a new Pentagon report, sexual assaults within the military have gone up.  This AP report, posted on ABCnews.go.com, gives some numbers:

"The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 — say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors, the report said."

Gosh.  Who could possibly have predicted something like this ever happening?  I mean, these are professional soldiers who only think about doing their jobs.  They could easily maintain discipline whilst working closely with members of the opposite sex, right?  Who could possibly have foreseen this?

I don't know.  Maybe rational and reasonable people who deal in the real world without regard to nonsensical political correctness and the fools who champion it.  It was totally obvious to them that such a consequence was more than mere potential.  It was bound to happen.

And what of those men who experienced unwanted sexual contact?  Who was applying the pressure?  I wonder.  (No I don't)  I'm sure it was all women officers abusing their authority.  (No I'm not)  No way could lesbian officers have done so to subordinate women, or homosexual men toward men.

Yeah.  Let's just mix all these people together, men, women, homosexuals, lesbians.  What could go wrong?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Two reports released this week show gun homicides in the U.S. are down since the 1990s.  One is a study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics.  It showed gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11.101 in2011.  A reduction of 39%.

Another report by the Pew Research Center found a similar decline.  It found that the number of homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in '93 to 3.6 in 2010.  A 49% decline.

Even non-fatal crimes involving guns shrank by about 70% over that period.  But the Pew group polled people in March and found that 56% thought that the number of gun crimes is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% thought the opposite.

Just think about all those blood-thirsty gun owners out there.  Aren't they trying hard enough?  One would think with the increase in gun purchases recently that we'd see an increase in such numbers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both of the above stories seem to indicate that the leftists don't know what the hell they're talking about.  If they did, we'd not see increases in sexual assaults in the military.  If they did, we'd not see a decrease in gun crimes while gun ownership increases.  These realities will be ignored by them. 

Agenda Lies 6: Danny's Story

I have such limited time these days.  So much is happening in the world, but deciding on topics for the blog is difficult when only so much time is available.  It's far easier to visit other blogs and comment as the mood strikes me.  Lately I've been visiting Dan Trabue's blog to engage in a discussion regarding the harm caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM).  At least that's what I thought the topic was.  Hard to tell, because when one provided another example of the harm, Dan had taken to deleting it if it did not meet his undefined criteria for what constitutes harm.  So not only was that hard to understand, but by his actions, we are also more confused on the issue of grace in discourse, a tone Dan so often demands.

A little background:  Dan Trabue supports SSM.  He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion.  In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage.  Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position.  In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position.  But Dan holds fast to his heresy.  He loves his heresy.  Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage. 

So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate.  His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.

He says that we "are now on the losing side of history".  Who came up with that idiocy?  "Wrong side of history".  "Losing side of history".  It's inane.  I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless.  How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side?  Especially as history is still unfolding. 

But I digress.

Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument."  The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument.  They just take it for granted. 

He then goes on to explain our problem:

" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...

1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts

and, the ever popular...

6. The public is too dam dumb!"

This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent.  Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not.  (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support) 

Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate.  Take #2.  The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6.  There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited.  That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex.  Marriage requires one of each gender.  Always has.  It's never been different.  It is what marriage is.  Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate.  To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other.  But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license.  

And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage. 

Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5.  A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods.  Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments.  Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more.  To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy.  Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe.  "See?  Even the kids know!"

The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate.  That's not possible.  All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue.  We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality. 

Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all.  Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.  They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all.  Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle. 

And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle.  No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective.  They just dismiss him.  No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side.  And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.

But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage.  No argument will be good enough as a result.  It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail.  It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve.  Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).

As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking.  His question morphs throughout.  He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?"  What does that mean to you in light of the context?  I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM.  So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other - and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be for stopping that marriage?" 

Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman.  And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other.  But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy.  The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all.  It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.

Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing.  Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house.  I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.

So here's a question:  Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM?  There is none.  There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)

From the Cornucopia: A Lesson To Learn

As Geoffrey can tell you, I'm one of his biggest fans.  That might mostly be by default because it's quite possible he has fewer readers than I.  But his is one of the blogs I visit regularly for a host of reasons.  OK.  A "host of reasons" might be an overstatement, but certainly curiosity is one of them.

I get a lot of heat when I visit Geoffrey's blog.  He likes to say that I visit just to argue and he's not about to argue with me, that he doesn't need to explain himself and that I don't understand anything he writes anyway and on and on and on.  He also likes to say my comments are like a flaming bag of poop some kid leaves on someone's porch.  Ironically, I am often accused of being the hateful one by people like the intrepid Parklife. 

But recently, Geoffrey has posts on the subject of "God is love".  This one in particular I initially found quite hypocritical.  It doesn't jibe with his overall attitude when one considers his posts about members of the right-wing or his responses to my comments.  He's really a nasty-assed kinda guy. 

But that's what really got me.  Those posts of his against the nasty he feels justified in putting out on the world wide web.  And I got to thinking about the manner in which I often deal with particular visitors to this, my own blog. 

Now, I could defend myself, and I think quite well, in that I give back only what's been given.  I don't, for example, just jump down Parkie's throat except that he has proven incapable of posting a thoughtful comment of substance that provides something that could compel true reflection or consideration.  And Feodor also enjoys tainting every comment of his with condescension and derision and thus, I often leave a little for him as well, especially when his crap is directed to other visitors. 

And while I can also defend myself by repeating that I don't pretend to be one of Christ's twelve, I am more than a little concerned after re-reading Geoffrey's post and realizing that I might be as hypocritical as he is.  Sure, he's better at it than me, but degrees of asshat don't enter into it. 

I often feel that some people exist as a test.  God puts them in our lives so as to see if we really live His second greatest commandment.  We all have these people in our lives and usually in far greater numbers than we feel is fair.  It really is how we treat those who treat us poorly that matters.  And some of these people can be examples to us of how we should NOT treat those we don't like.  For this I owe Geoffrey thanks for the lesson learned.  May I be granted the strength to put it into practice.

Even More Goofiness--Cars More Regulated Than Guns?

The goofiness to which I referred was the last comment Parkie posted to the previous discussion.  This fool often makes cracks accusing me of never researching anything.  While that is an idiotic claim considering the many links in both my posts and comments, here and elsewhere, it is clear that he did no research before parroting the goofy claim that cars are more regulated than guns.  In response, I offer this insightful article.  Maybe regulating guns the same way we do cars is not such a bad idea after all.  Thanks Parkie!

Lessons From Gun Goofiness

Since the Sandy Hook massacre, there have been hordes of discussions revolving around how we prevent a recurrence of the tragedy.  This post will attempt to list and/or highlight some of what the debate has exposed.  I want to begin with this link to a blog by a guy named Larry Correia, who is likely one of the best sources for informed opinion on the subject.  His background with firearms, training with them, the laws surrounding them and the facts regarding the use and possession is pretty extensive, particularly from an experiential perspective.  The piece addresses the most common arguments of the knee -jerk gun-control advocates and is such that the time to read it should be taken before daring to dismiss him.

There will be no particular order in presenting the arguments, except that the pro-2nd Amendment proponents are the most sensible and fact-based.  By this I mean that nothing presented by the gun-control people have diminished the need for the 2nd, provide a legitimate argument for its repeal or show an understanding of what it is all about.  To that end, I had listed several quotes from founders and others that show the intention of the 2nd and of those, the following is especially illustrative of what is at the heart of the gun-control side:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Before proceeding, it is unfortunately necessary to head off the very likely complaint by gun-controllers that this does not imply anything "trifling" about a mass shooting of the scope of Sandy Hook.  Laws that seek to inconvenience the law-abiding in an effort to prevent abuses of a freedom or right is the point of the quote.  This is what the anti-gun folk seek to do and is the major flaw of their proposals.  Such proposals do not work as only the law-abiding abide laws.  While doing so, they are made to be victims to those who will never abide the law for whatever reason.  So, the above quote expresses the futility of gun laws due to that which provoked them...tragedies perpetrated by those who abuse the right to own guns...and compares them to the outlawing of fire or water for the dangers they present to careless or thoughtless individuals.

The gun-control people have demonstrated their desperation in their arguments.  They have misstated the intentions of the defenders of the 2nd Amendment through a host of ridiculous and unAmerican/unChristian accusations and judgements.  Among the worst are those who proclaim that 2nd Amendment defenders (henceforth to be known as "our side" or "the good guys") do not care about dead children.  To them (henceforth to be known as "them", "the bad guys" or "idiots"), there is no way to both protect a right recognized by the US Constitution and protect the lives of innocent children and/or citizens.  One person in particular, whose initials are "Geoffrey Kruse-Safford", insists this is the case despite citing numerous stories where armed civilians prevented high body counts where such was intended.  What's more, rather than display a blood lust Geoffrey is certain exists in the good guys, at least a couple of these stories included citizens who never fired their weapon for the sake of bystanders.  The perpetrator either surrendered or offed himself simply because he was confronted by someone willing to shoot back. 

Geoffrey believes that our side is willing to allow the murder of more children rather than sacrifice "reasonable" restrictions.  But this is dishonesty and not the least bit representative of our position.  Our position is that what is termed "reasonable" by them is not reasonable at all, nor proven so by any stat or study presented by them.  Indeed, the quality of the stat or study is of no concern to them if it can be used in any way to demonize our side.  What's important is to exploit tragedies in order to characterize our side in the worst possible light.  Geoffrey claims we used Sandy Hook to scream about rights being denied when the truth is that they are using the situation to scream that they should be. 

And of course, Geoffrey wouldn't be Geoffrey without some low class assumption that one's desire to own weapons is to compensate for the size of one's sexual organ.  That somehow the driving force of gun-ownership is to "feel like a man".  While no doubt there exist people like that, it too is no reason to deny those who desire weapons for legitimate reasons. 

Geoffrey and others have tried to dismiss the argument that the 2nd was created to defend the right to life, liberty and property, and that it was meant as a deterrent to the tyrannical intentions of a corrupted government.  It seems that since no apparent moves to that goal have thus far manifested in modern times, that the threat is no longer possible.  The shortsightedness of this position is alarming while typical and such mindless people are willing victims of despots.  There need not be the imminent threat of oppression for the argument to be legitimate still.  But as we have still fresh in our memory the attack of 9/11/01, only idiots would dare say, "It can't happen here."  The more like Geoffrey who live amongst us, the more likely it will someday.

Another aspect of that argument that the bad guys try to foist is that it would be impossible to resist the might of the US military should such a sorry state of affairs come to pass.  "Let's see you shoot down drones and attack helicopters with pistols and shotguns..." they say.  But there are two things wrong with this:  First, your idiotic gun-control laws have left us with only pistols and shotguns, and secondly, the Afghans have been rather successful fending off a far better equipped force for a long time. 

I could go on and on about the extremely poor level of thought that is behind the gun-control positions.  Like most leftist arguments, they are emotion based and not fact based.  Sure, they use facts, or that which they perceive as facts, but actual facts do not support their desires to limit the access of law-abiding people to the defensive weapon of their choice.  That's because their position is not focused on the actual problem.  The problem is not guns or their availability.  The problem is those who use them for evil purposes.  Guns are but one tool of such people to perpetrate their acts of evil.  One doesn't need a gun to commit mass murder.  Ask Mohamed Atta. Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Ask Andrew Kehoe.  Those that intend to commit atrocities will find a way. 

A rational attempt to curb criminal activity, including mass murder, must not infringe upon the ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves as they see fit.  Nor should it infringe upon their ability to do anything that does not manifest in the abuse of their liberty and freedoms.  This is especially true if those attempts to curb criminal activity are impotent and unenforceable.  Thus far, as in the so-called "assault weapons" ban, this has been the case. 

I will finish with a brief description of how I feel gun laws should be handled. 

Deny criminals and the mentally deranged only.  Period. 

We have the means whereby convicted felons can be listed on the world wide web for all to see.  We could add those certified as deranged and dangerous.  It shouldn't be hard to do as one can already find who the sex offenders in one's area are.   But if a law-abiding citizen seeks to purchase a weapon, and his name does not show up in the database, there is no reason they should be denied ANY firearm, even automatic weapons.  What reason does anyone need for an fully automatic weapon?  None of your business if that person gives no reason to suspect he is incapable of possessing it responsibly.  If a person is responsible with one type weapon, why not another?   If he is a law-abiding person of good character, why should anyone be concerned?  If the idiots cannot handle possessing such a weapon without turning on their neighbors and spraying the area with bullets, they shouldn't seek to own one. 

The above is very basic, not accounting for any variables whatsoever.  This does not mean I am unwilling to consider alterations.  It is merely the starting point of rational gun law.  It does not assume the worst about the law-abiding, while denying the criminal and sociopath.  The other side assumes the worst of everybody and by doing so, leaves everyone vulnerable to those who are the worst.


       

Gun Goofiness

Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, there have been the predictable idiotic knee-jerk responses from those politicians and Hollywood notables who continue to show they don't know jack.  To not "know jack", of course, is an abbreviated version of the actual phrase I'd normally use, but I'm trying to eliminate profanity from my speech, both vocalized and printed.  Wish me luck on that.  But the term means that one's understanding of an issue is so devoid of fact and knowledge that one is rendered unworthy of the privilege of offering an opinion.  One who does not know jack is so ignorant of even the basics of the issue at hand that it provokes in those who do know jack great wonder that one would dare broach the subject.  I myself have been accused on occasion of not knowing jack by certain visitors to this blog.  But these visitors do not demonstrate a better knowledge of jack in their inability to show where my description of jack is in error.  To them it is just something they say when their own limited understanding of jack, if they possess any at all, does not prove compelling or even accurate.

But I digress.  This is about particular people who don't know jack and their insignificant proposals for dealing with gun violence in our culture.  Before I get to the main point I wanted to relate here, I have to mention something I heard today on the radio whilst working another unnecessarily long day (another digression).  Michael Medved did a quick spot on the subject of dishonest leftist stats (are there any other kind?) regarding gun deaths.  In it, and I grant that I've taken no time to research this particular bit, he states that in their relentless pursuit of a defenseless population, the left likes to speak of gun deaths which include suicides.  His point is that suicides from self-inflicted gunshot distorts the picture of gun violence, or more accurately, crimes committed with guns.  If such suicides are removed from the equation, and added to gun suicides all other forms of suicide, the total would overwhelm the amount of murders by gunshot.  Again, I did not research this stat myself.  I doubt that Medved made it up, and he is known for being pretty good with stats.  In any case, it does represent another case of the left doing anything they can to push their agenda.

Getting back to those with the jerking knees, I want to touch on the issue of large capacity magazines.  They come up in the discussion because the gun-grabbers ask, "Why would anyone need large capacity clips?"  It so happens that a good article explaining why was found at the incredibly biased, poorly written and therefor obviously unworthy of serious consideration by progressives AmericanThinker.com.  In fact, the article is co-incidentally entitled,  "Why Does Anybody Need A 30-round Magazine?" Check it out.

Before reading this article, I had already pondered the question and came up with the obvious answer, "Because there might be lots of bad guys."  And the article addresses that.  But it also speaks of how many rounds it might take to stop a single attacker as well.  The stories related in the article are compelling examples of how the anti-gun goofs spend little time truly thinking about an issue before they spew their nonsensical solutions.  One must wonder why that is as it happens with incredible regularity.  It lends credence to my opinion that those who vote for leftist candidates don't know jack, since they routinely vote for candidates that don't know jack, either.

The same, of course, can be said about the notion of "assault weapons".  I could assault you with a can of cling peaches in heavy syrup and that would make that can of peaches an assault weapon.  The term is purposely vague and requires stupid people to react primarily on an emotional level upon hearing it that they respond affirmatively to the leftist politician's impotent legislative proposal to ban them.  It's been tried and there was not discernible effect.  Now, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who doesn't know jack any better than any other leftist politician or celebrity, what's to bring the ban back.

Then, as if that wasn't enough, some will alter the term to "military style weapons".  And no doubt, we can't have people owning automatic weapons, now can we?  They're only for killing, by golly!  Such calls completely ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the federal government on notice.

Some are worried about the thought that people are walking around with guns or in possession of certain types of guns in their homes.  We should be far more worried about politicians who want to restrict our right to protect ourselves by arming ourselves.  I know I am definitely worried about people continuing to elect people who would exploit tragedies and play on the emotions those tragedies inflame.  It's not about guns.  It's never been about guns, or knives or bows and arrows or weapons of any kind.