FIRST LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. I AM NOT NOW OR EVER HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTIES. THERE IS NO ROOM IN GOVERNING OUR NATION FOR POLITICS. Just two of the many reasons I CAN NOT vote for Kamala Harris. Aside from never getting a direct answer regarding her plans for OUR future. She speaks nonsensically I know preschoolers who are able to communicate better. One of President Biden’s first orders to VP Harris was to oversee the illegal immigrant invasion. We still have seen no action. Except to place Trump ideas in effect, like many other things. {I can only expect the same thing). NO POSITIVE ACTION, for another 4 years if she is elected. We know she is incapable of thinking on her feet, and has to be fed what to say. Just like a puppet. So, do we know who will be pulling her strings if elected? MAYBE some subversive group (?), A quote from the woman; herself regarding GUNS and the Privacy of your home. Yes, Kamala Harris did make a statement about authorities checking how guns are stored in homes. This remark dates back to 2007 when she was the District Attorney in San Francisco. During a news conference about new legislation aimed at enforcing safe storage of guns, she said, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs” To me this is a corner cutter for a means of doing an “UNREASONABLE SEARCH”. A means to enter YOUR HOME and make up any reason they want, to SEIZE YOUR PERSONAL SELF DEFENSE equipment, Not to mention any thing else they might not like. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION Yes, Kamala Harris has addressed the issue of misinformation on several occasions. In her speeches, she has emphasized the dangers of misinformation and the importance of combating it to protect democracy and public health. For example, during her campaign and tenure as Vice President, she has spoken about. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION. the need for accurate information, especially in the context of elections and public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation can undermine trust in institutions and spread false narratives that can have serious consequences. Harris has advocated for greater efforts to ensure that people have access to reliable and truthful information. We live in a world of misinformation, especially from politics. Example of misinformation,(simplified). Simple sentence: “I don’t like chocolate milk” Simple enough? Of course the politicians AS WELL AS MEDIA,(depending on what they want to push). Let’s omit the word, (one word), “DON”T”. Now it looks like I said, “I like chocolate milk”. Or omit the word CHOCOLATE. Now it appears “I don’t like milk”. If you omit the word milk, Now it appears that “I don’t like chocolate”. To sum up: WHO would make the judgement of what is misinformation? THE GOVERNMENT !!!! Now if this is the type of RULER you want vote for the potential Tzarini. (My word), for a female Tzar. Or maybe Marxist, as she apparently grew up in a household of Marxist. I have NO idea what to expect from Ms Harris. I really expect the END of our Freedoms as we know them. She appears to want to take away at least two or three of our Constitutional Rights. Today 2 or 3 by the end of her term we may be living under Russia’s PUTIN, or Hitler. Now lets look at the Trump side. What can I say? I don’t agree with everything he says. I don’t always agree with things he does. BUT, he does say what he thinks, SO I know what I am getting. I think a lot of things he says is in jest, just to make a point. Mark Twain was very good doing this. Post Views: 26
Category: Judicial
Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
IN MEMORY OF PETE ROSE (April 14, 1941-September 30, 2024) NOTE: The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, nonprofit educational institution. That being said it seems the MLB bans of any player is not binding!!! So why have players like Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson not been enshrined in the hall of fame. There records speak for their for them. (Anyone from the Baseball Hall of Fame care to respond). Now to our story. Though not an actual mystery, this article goes into detail about lifetime bans in Baseball and gives you a greater look into these bans and their outcomes. Baseball holds a special place in American culture, and with that comes a strong commitment to fair play and sportsmanship. When these values are compromised, Major League Baseball (MLB) does not hesitate to impose its harshest penalty—a lifetime ban. This punishment has been used sparingly throughout the history of the game but always for actions that threaten its integrity. Let’s take a deeper look into the most infamous lifetime bans in baseball history, the events leading to them, and their lasting impact. Pete Rose: The Gambling Scandal that Rocked Baseball Pete Rose, known as “Charlie Hustle,” is one of the most controversial figures in baseball. Over a 24-year career, he set the record for most hits (4,256), earning accolades and a reputation as one of the greatest players in history. However, Rose’s fall from grace came in 1989 when it was revealed that he had bet on baseball games, including those involving the Cincinnati Reds, a team he both played for and managed. (It is said he only bet FOR his team to win). An investigation led by MLB Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti concluded that Rose had placed bets on numerous baseball games from 1985 to 1987, including his own team’s games, though no evidence suggested he bet against the Reds. In a deal to avoid further legal action, Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball on August 24, 1989, without admitting to or denying the allegations. Rose’s ban barred him from managing, coaching, or holding any official role within MLB, and he became ineligible for induction into the Hall of Fame. Over the years, Rose has made several appeals for reinstatement, expressing remorse for his actions and eventually admitting in 2004 that he had bet on baseball. Despite his pleas, MLB has held firm, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the game. The impact of Rose’s ban continues to be debated. Many fans believe his on-field accomplishments should be enough to warrant Hall of Fame induction, while others argue that his gambling offenses tarnish his legacy irreparably. The Rose case serves as a stark reminder of baseball’s strict no-tolerance policy toward gambling. The Black Sox Scandal: A World Series Tainted by Greed In 1919, baseball was rocked by one of its greatest scandals when eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. The players involved, including legendary outfielder **Shoeless Joe Jackson**, accepted bribes from gamblers in exchange for underperforming in key moments of the series. The scandal came to light after rumors of the fix spread throughout the season, leading to an investigation. The eight players, known as the “Black Sox,” were indicted by a grand jury in 1920, though they were acquitted of criminal charges. However, MLB’s newly appointed Commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, was determined to restore the public’s faith in the game and permanently banned all eight players from baseball, regardless of the court’s decision. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s involvement remains a subject of controversy. Despite his incredible .375 batting average during the series and his claims of innocence, Jackson was still banned for life. Many believe Jackson was not fully complicit in the plot and was manipulated by his teammates and the gamblers. Still, Landis’ decision to ban him solidified Jackson’s exclusion from baseball history, including the Hall of Fame. The Black Sox Scandal is often seen as a turning point for MLB. It led to the establishment of the Commissioner’s Office, created to protect the integrity of the game. The scandal also fueled a more stringent approach to gambling and a zero-tolerance policy toward any behavior that could compromise the fairness of competition. Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs): A Modern-Day Scourge The following bans I agree with 100%, and should be MLB Lifetime, because they were out and out CHEATING. While the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) became a major issue in baseball in the 1990s and 2000s, MLB’s policies regarding drug violations were initially less stringent. However, after repeated scandals involving high-profile players, the league adopted a tough stance that includes the possibility of lifetime bans for multiple offenses. The MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program mandates increasing punishments for players caught using PEDs. A first offense results in an 80-game suspension, a second offense leads to a 162-game suspension (a full season), and a third offense results in a lifetime ban. Although no player has yet been banned after three offenses, the threat of permanent exclusion serves as a strong deterrent. Some of the most famous players involved in PED scandals include Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds. Rodriguez was suspended for the entire 2014 season due to his involvement in the Biogenesis scandal, but he narrowly avoided a lifetime ban. Bonds, though never banned, faced legal challenges and public scrutiny due to allegations of steroid use during his career. The legacy of PED use in baseball has left a cloud over an entire generation of players, some of whom would have been Hall of Fame candidates if not for their association with drugs. MLB’s aggressive anti-drug policies reflect its commitment to maintaining a level playing field, and while lifetime bans for PEDs are rare, the policy underscores the seriousness with which the league treats drug violations. Assault and Misconduct: Off-the-Field Actions with On-the-Field Consequences While gambling and PEDs are more common reasons… Continue reading Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
Electoral College: Protector of Small Populous States RIGHT TO VOTE
It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Post Views: 134
If Elected I Will: Promises Made by Politicians
Election time is here ! We can tell by the sprouting of signs in lawns, billboards, newspapers, TV and Radio ads. (which is, it seems at least one or two out three ads). They fall into three different catagories. One is telling you how bad a person their opponent is. The second is telling you what a terrific person the one who’s being told what a louse he is by his opponent. The Third is PROMISES, that are in truth what the politician thinks the people he represents want to hear. So, today let’s take a short look at how valid, or likely those freely strewn promises have of actually happening. It is really more complicated than what we see here; but this will give you somewhat of an idea how most of the things promised Won’t happen. I would much rather hear, “These are the things I WANT to do”. Rather than, “This what I WILL do, if elected”. Doesn’t that sound more truthful? So here we go. When politicians run for office, they often make a variety of promises to the electorate. These campaign promises are designed to align with their constituents’ values and concerns, and are intended to illustrate the candidates’ goals if they are elected. However, it is true that these promises sometimes extend beyond what the politicians themselves can personally deliver. Let’s look at some of the reasons why this is the case. 1. Separation of Powers: In many democratic societies, powers are divided among different branches of government. For example, in the United States, power is split between executive, legislative, and judicial branches. If a candidate running for an executive office (like President or Governor) makes a promise that requires legislation to be passed or changed, they will need cooperation from the legislative branch where lawmakers may not share their views or objectives. 2. Opposition: Politicians often face opposition from other elected officials who either have different views or might not want them to succeed for political reasons. This opposition can come from within their own party (intra-party) or from other parties (inter-party). This opposition might block or delay legislation needed to fulfill certain promises. 3. External Constraints: Sometimes events outside a politician’s control can hinder their ability to fulfill promises made during campaigns. The economy could enter a recession; there could be natural disasters; international events could demand time and resources–all these factors can divert attention and resources away from certain campaign promises. 4. Public Opinion: Public opinion can shift over time due to external factors or changes in societal attitudes which may make it difficult for politicians to keep certain campaign promises without risking public approval. 5. Constraints by Law and Constitution: Many countries have constitutions that place restrictions on what government bodies can do within their jurisdiction which may limit a politician’s ability to fulfill some election promises. Despite these constraints, it’s important for citizens in any democracy to hold elected officials accountable for their campaign pledges within these realistic limits. If a politician consistently fails to meet their promises without good reason, voters can express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box in the next election. An educated electorate is a key pillar of any healthy democracy, and understanding the real constraints politicians face can help voters make informed decisions about which candidates truly have their best interests at heart. Post Views: 129
Non-Politics View of Biden Presidency
As I have stated many times in my posts. I AM NOT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. I have no political allegiance. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN GOVENMENT. My Observations during my life span is that POPULAR PRESIDENTS are the ones who do nothing UNPOPULAR PRESIDENTS are the ones who DO something. The last 4 years we had an unpopular president. (As seen by the MEDIA), Right or Wrong President Trump tried to do something. However he was faced by a Democrat packed HOUSE. Unlike any I have seen. They were SO disappointed of not SEATING Hillary Clinton, (which would have been a disaster for our Good Old USA. (My opinion). They never had time to do anything for “US”. The ONLY AGENDA on their 4 year shift; was to undercut the “REPUBLICAN” , who defeated their Dear Hillary. It didn’t matter if it were Donald Trump, or you, or I who defeated H.R. Clinton. The agenda would have still been the same. Undercut the person who won out over her. Now, don’t get me wrong. I did not agree with everything, our President said or did. But he TRIED to some good things. Only to meet opposition. In fact I would have voted for Biden; had he been the Democratic candidate rather than Clinton. This year was different. I found Biden to be somewhat INDECISIVE. It is MY OPINION The Democrats are using him as a pawn, to advance their Socialistic views. (As in Union Soviet SOCIALIST Republic). The “HOUSE”, has already began laying the foundation to remove Biden from office. Remember when the “PELOSI FAMILY”, was plotting to make it so “ THE HOUSE”, could declare the President “UNFIT “? My personally conducted “STRAW POLL” , came to the following conclusion: Biden is given at most 1 year as President, before the HOUSE begins the procedure to deem him UNFIT. Thereby achieving their immediate goal of a WOMAN PRESIDENT. I hope I am wrong. I hope Biden will wake up and see how the Democrats intend to use him, and actually accomplishes something. I hope I am wrong about the plot of the “PELOSI FAMILY”. That is HOW I SEE IT! Post Views: 96
FLORIDA “STAND YOUR GROUND’ SHOOTING IN CLEARWATER
AFTER reviewing the video posted on : https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-gunman-not-charged-killing-151300042.htm (Be aware these types of videos are sometimes pulled shortly after being posted so if you don’t find it here you can probably search for it and find it somewhere. STAND YOUR GROUND allows a person to use deadly force if they believe they are in MORTAL DANGER. I see this as a Murder case. I am not saying pre-meditated. I don’t think he went there with the intent of killing or even harming anyone. But still some type of Murder charge should be filed. Although the sheriff’s dept did not. As you can see the one man is down. Draws his weapon. The slain man backs away. At this point the potential danger is subsiding. Had the slain man taken even one step toward the downed man. I could see this as being perceived as aggressive behavior. HOWEVER; The step was in a retreating line. At that point in time there was no immediate danger to the downed man. I can not say what state of mind the downed man was in. Obviously he was agitated state of mind. Probably not thinking clearly at the time. (Which I think should be considered in evidence presented in his defense). BUT; I do not think that is grounds for STAND YOUR GROUND. I am a SECOND AMENDMENT advocate. Which also means I do approve the prudent use of guns for self defense. I do support STAND YOUR GROUND. I do not think this instance falls under STAND YOUR GROUND. Yes the man should not have shoved the other person down. HE should have just stepped in between his girl friend and the other party. Of course I am not a florida resident. ( I know i didn’t capitalize the “F” I am not a florida fan. Drove there spent 5 hours at our destination and have had no desire to return. In fact for me to return it would cost them $1 million a day plus expenses) How they interpret their laws is up to them. THAT IS HOW I SEE IT! Just learned this not the first confrontation the downed man had at this location. Post Views: 101
Parkland High School Shooting Thoughts
While putting together my thoughts on the recent tragedy in Florida. I had many things flash through this feeble mind. We had the shock of another terrible loss of young lives. We had the “STUDENT ACTOR”. We had the Scripted Interviews. We had the usual MEDIA SPIN. We had the Anti Gunners. We had the Pro-Gunners. We had the Sheriff’s men who failed to enter the school. So let us look at these things. First the Shooter. Had he not lost his parents at such a tender age, would he not have acted the way he did. It appears that his adoptive family, noticed he was troubled. According to reports the local constabulary, even the FBI, had concerns about the mental/emotional stability of Nineteen (19) year old Nikolas Cruz, EVEN the school personnel had concerns. They expelled him. I have not read or heard anything where these people tried to get him help. Had they tried to get him help, would it have possibly detoured this terrible event. Probably, maybe not. We don’t know. BUT, it would have been worth a try. Should he have had guns. Given his background reports we have seen; NO! BUT, there is always a but; I believe this to be where the LAW should have impounded his guns, until further investigation, and psychic evaluation was attained. BUT, WAIT ! He did have grenades. Where did these come from? I am sure they are harder to get than guns. Aren’t they? Seems they should be. Now the student and teacher population of this School. It is always a bad sign for our future when innocent young people needlessly lose their lives. Seventeen, 17, lives. I would not want my children exposed to this. Nor to the pain of those who were at the school or worse witnessed the unfortunate incident. I know of no Teacher who leaves for school thinking I may be killed at work today. Who knows what emotional and/or mental damage may have been done. We all know the MEDIA, has a penchant to SLANT the news the way they want it. How many times have you watched political events, or anything, only to have the NEWS MEDIA, say “Now let US tell you what you really heard”. ? I remember learning in grade school, then having my newspaper editor reinforce. A reporter tells WHO, is in the story. WHAT, is the story. WHEN, the event occurred. WHY, did the event occur. The WHY, becomes the gray area. You have heard of sport team announcers getting fired because they said something the OWNER found to be derogatory to the team. Players get fined, for the same thing. It most probably is TRUE. BUT, are contrary to what the BOSS wants. The same is true with reporters, They may disagree with management, BUT, (see here it is again; I wonder how many times I will use it today), THEIR JOB maybe on the line. Some may simply state their opinions, (NOT FACTS), In other words they EDITORIALIZE. NOTE: Editorialize is what I do. After all this BLOG is for MY OPINIONS. I share them with you as MY opinions. Not hardcore news. (See the difference) Is the media above scripting interviews. NO happens quite often. Are the anti-gunners above hiring actors to further their propaganda. SURE ARE. How about the Pro-gunners. Could be. Probably do. But I prefer to think They would be ABOVE taking advantage of such an event as this. One thing ANTI-GUNNERS are quick to point out is “Law enforcement is only a call away”. In this case they were just OUTSIDE the door. THEY WERE A LOT OF HELP. Had teachers been able to have guns….Would that have altered the outcome? Hard to tell. I am not sure I would be able to pull the trigger. I think I would be more inclined to pull that trigger to protect someone else (KIDS) than I would be to protect myself. BUT, I am sure if it was him or me, I would choose ME. What I am saying is; if it were just me and him, I would most likely not go hunt him. BUT, if he came hunting for me. DEFINITELY ME. Back to the Law Enforcement Officers. YOU CANNOT COUNT ON THEM. My own experience. 1. I had a motorcycle stolen off my front porch. I called the police. I was told; “ASK YOUR NEIGHBORS IF THEY SAW ANYTHING”. ” COME TO THE STATION AND FILL OUT A REPORT”. 2. My High School son was threatened that he would be shot when he walked out of the school, (a disagreement about a girl), I called the cops. I was told, “Just one of those teenage things. You probably should pick him up and take him home after school”. 3. I had my Mustang convertible top slashed, the dash destroyed. My truck window smashed and the stereos stolen from both. Witnesses knew who did it. The Cops knocked on the culprits door, and said, “Did you steal those radios’? He said, “No”. The cops said okay. That was all there was to it. 4. While watching a friends property while he was away. One of his relatives called said he had received a threat of vandalism to the property at some time soon. I called our local County Mounties. “It will be some time before we can get there”, they said. It took me about a half hour to get there. No damage yet. One (1) hour passed. No County Mounties. After waiting another half hour, I called again. “We haven’t dispatched anyone to that location yet” Yeah. Right. The Law is only a few minutes away. HA,HA. The Right to Bear Arms is a constitutional right. A Right that state shall not be infringed upon. That means NO ONE can stop you from legally owning or carrying a gun. There have been exceptions made. Felons, people with a misdemeanor of domestic battery, mental disorders, or if so adjudicated by a judge. Driving is… Continue reading Parkland High School Shooting Thoughts
ORLANDO PULSE CLUB SHOOTING, MY THOUGHTS.
I feel sorrow for the families of both victims, and shooters family. It is a hard thing to accept on both sides. That a friend or family member uselessly had their life terminated, or suffered injury. Some of which could prove to be a life altering thing. I am certain the memory will always be life changing. The shooter’s family, because it has to be hard to accept the fact that someone you knew,cared for, and LOVED, could possibly be involved in such a cowardly act. By the way ISIS has reportedly admitted they were behind the attack. CAN YOU SAY “TERRORIST”? Apparently Barack nor Hillary can’t. Hillary and her gun hating lemmings will have a field day with this one as they always do. It seems they look forward to unfortunate events, (I don’t particular like to use “event” here but, I think it adequately fits, the way Hillary/Barack look at this); It gives them a exvuse to strut their DIS-ARMING AMERICA agenda. I can’t help but wonder how they would feel if the people they have guarding them were to suddenly lose the guns. Then the agents would not be there. I can’t afford to hire people to be my personal guards. That would put them on equal ground with me. Walking around in a city or country side with no means to protect me from harm. Many times I read of people in perfectly NICE neighborhoods being injured or killed. Not just guns,…. But Knives, Arrows, Strangulation, Arson. Beaten to death, just to name a few. Many times when I go to major sporting events, or Conventions, I must make my way on dark streets, or by alleyways, or even recessed doorways. AND don’t give me that old “police presence” will protect me. I could be attacked and my assailant far away before the nearest police officer could come to my aid. BUT, if I get to my destination I most likely not be allowed to have any means of protection on me. Thus I am open to attack. Excuse me for straying a little, however I believe it is important in relating my feeling on these MASS KILLINGS. 1. Have these anti gun people realized. MOST ALL, of these mass killings have been in “gun free” zones. Schools, Churches, even Government buildings, or annexes. Cowards will take a path of least resistance. FIFTY people killed. I just can’t help but wonder why so many killed and injured before police arrived. After all according to the anti gun people this is why we have them to protect and prevent something like this from happening. Always in the right place at the right time. (Apparently even after they arrived). Perhaps if one or two of the patrons, or employees had a a legally permited GUN; MAYBE, JUST, one of them could have stopped the perpetrator, before all of the death and injury. HOW, many people might still be alive? Uninjured? If only HALF of them, heck even one would have been saved. Isn’t that worth something? Apparently not according to those who want to be like Hitler, and those others whose first steps were to disarm the citizenry). GEE! Just think if the British had of thought of this we COULD all still be British subjects, OR overrun by some other country. 2. While, as a CHRISTIAN, I can’t condone homosexuality. But neither do I wish to give up my rights to them either. I, in fact, still can’t stop wondering if a boy in a neighboring school, of mine, who everyone knew was a homosexual, but no one I know of treated him any differently, BUT the fact that when he “hit the beach” of Viet Nam, It was reported he was the first one killed. Enemy coincidence, or was he killed by “friendly fire” I have always wondered about that. I am affronted by their constant public displays (as a group), (“LGBT”). It would appear to me, this group of people were not hurting anyone, they were not blatantly displaying their sexuality in anyone’s face, The assassin may have been known to some of the club attendees, as it was stated he was a “REGULAR” at the club. BUT it is not my place to judge them. That is up to GOD. I am not qualified to say what his Judgement will be. I guess I am more offended by what appears to me a CALL to put my religious beliefs on the back burner while demanding I accept their lifestyle. I treat all people equally, unless they give me reason not to. Being Homosexual is not one of them. But I would surely like to be able to use the word “GAY” properly, and not have it confused with homosexual . As it is now used, apparently everyone in the 1890’s were homosexual. “GAY NINETIES” We even had a little eating place “very small, really good food. The name was GAY DAN’S. ( meaning a fun place to eat, apparently owned by someone named DAN). When homosexuals became associated with the word “GAY” the small eating chain had to close it’s doors. 3. Need for more extensive background checks? EXCUSE ME! I believe the FBI investigated Omar Marteen at least 3 times, before he purchased his weapons. Why this didn’t trigger a flag on the background check is beyond me. That seems pretty EXTENSIVE to me. In the state where I live we have the NICS background check, even when purchasing a squirrel rifle. I also know IF there is a flag of something unverified, or whatevere reason, the inquiry comes back with a hold, ( I think of 5 or 7 days), so a more extensive background check can be made. 4. A woman I recall being interviewed about gun laws, stated, “All anyone has to do is go online and buy a gun and have it shipped to his door.” Ignorance of the law is no excuse. In my state, YES! I… Continue reading ORLANDO PULSE CLUB SHOOTING, MY THOUGHTS.
Improper Police Chase Procedure
Just a couple of weeks ago I posted a story about the PROPER CHASE PROCEDURE. In that post I told of how a police officer ceased his HOT PURSUIT, and called ahead to make the stop. TODAY, I am relaying a story just a couple of counties away from that pursuit. Only this time the police did not radio ahead. They continued the chase. The outcome of that chase was not an ideal one. The officers involved deemed it more important to make a traffic stop, than to consider the consequences. Instead of asking for help from fellow officers, they pursued the purported offender, without regard for the safety of John Q. Public. This resulted in the death of two innocent females, unaware of the fate the police were driving their way. The pursued vehicle, crashed into the ladies. Both were KILLED. Yes killed may sound harsh but, that is what it is. They died the same as if someone had shot them. The SAME DEAD. Now you may say the driver of the pursued vehicle is guilty of Vehicular Homicide, (or whatever the proper legal term is), as a fact. Had he or she, not chose to run, the ladies would still be alive. BUT, we know that in this case there was an ABETTOR. THE POLICE. Had they not chosen to pursue, the ladies would have been alive. Most likely the pursued would have slowed and not crashed into them. They could have been stopped by use of the technology available now. Chances are once they were away from the first attempted stop.thinking they had not broken any laws in that area, could have been stopped by any means, be it a controlled traffic jam, or a seatbelt checkpoint, which we have in this state. By continuing the chase, these officers are just as guilty, (in my mind), as the actual driver who collided with the ladies. What will happen to them. NOT A THING! After all they ARE the POLICE, doing their job. BUT WAIT, isn’t it their JOB to SERVE AND PROTECT? Does Serving and Protecting, include being a party to the death of innocent bystanders? As I see it, the police should face the same penalties. Both parties had a hand in the deaths. The Officer or Officers involved made an informed and conscious decision to put the public in danger by pursuing this vehicle. There is a time when one must use some common sense. A question we all must ask ourselves. ARE, police above the law. It would seem that way in so many ways. (Which I will not go into here). Not all Cops are included. But where I live We have had cops not so inclined to behave ethically. The new Police Chief, claims to be trying to correct this. I must admit I have seen some progress that way. That Is How I See It. Post Views: 79
GUN CONTROL IS IT NEEDED: WRAP UP
Well, here are at either a stopping place or a pausing place. It depends on how things go, if anything else comes up. I have made my decision that it is not guns that need control it is PEOPLE which need control. For the most part, it would be control of the people who have no respect for property or life. I see no fool proof way to do this. BUT, it surely isn’t taking away the rights of law abiding citizens. I firmly believe in the right of each U.S. patriot to have a gun for self protection, (as well as hunting, and sport). (What I am going into now is the considerations of whether carrying a gun is for me. 1. Will I be comfortable with a weapon on my person? (in my home I am fine with). 2. Would I be able to handle killing someone? (Justified or not). I know some of you would consider it the same as killing in a war. 3. What about the financial responsibility? Just like farmer Tony Martin. Defending himself and property, yet taken to court by the criminal for injuries. Maybe I mistakenly take a good guy as a criminal, If I see a CRIME being committed. OR, accidental discharge. Other things I must consider include the fact, where I live, (in a small town), the probability of my needing it for defense is very, very low. But I would feel more comfortable with a gun to protect my family and friends. PROPERTY, does not mean that much to me. Where I would be more in need of personal protection is when we go to the BIG CITY, (where there are multiple murders each night, not to mention other crimes), for sporting events. We may need to walk many blocks to get the sporting event, at night, and you have the parking garages where it would be easy to be mugged. Usually the only employee they have is the one who collects the fees. Here is the big CATCH, we are not allowed to take a weapon into the arenas, and they don’t have lockers to stow any. I know. I have a pocket knife I have carried for over….well let’s just say the majority of my life. It has been lost and found so many times. Once I lost it over a thousand miles away. It was lost for about 3 years. A friend bought a truck with a title from that state, and while cleaning it up we found MY Lucky knife. But back to my point. Open the total length, handle and all is about 3 inches. I had to take it back to my car, or not see the game. Ridiculous, isn’t it? These are the things, I believe everyone, should consider. I may get a permit, whether I decide to get a handgun or not. Some of my friends have been known to forget one of their guns in my vehicle. If something were to happen and a police officer or game warden sees it…I’m busted for illegally carrying. That is what my retired Sheriff told me. One other thing, whether or not I decide to purchase a hand gun, I do not think getting some training would hurt. It might even help me make up my mind. I will think these things through and decide if I want to even own a hand gun. I have rifles, and shotguns, after all. That Is How I See It. Post Views: 98
