Sometimes, it just sucks to be you

NEW YORK, Nov 21 (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp employees on Thursday sued the fast food giant and several of its franchisees in Chicago over a store redesign that staffers say has made it easier for angry customers to leap over the counter and attack them.

There's a reason for "Big Mack Attacks" ... it's because the "angry customers" know that the workers have no defense against gratuitous violence.

Either put a cage between the customer and the employees, or arm the employees.

Anybody here have a better solution?

Yeah ... I know.  Neither is an acceptable solution.

If I was a McDonald's employee, I would rather my employer find a solution.

I'm not suggesting that teenage employees be armed, but  I wouldn't want to work at a place where I was such an easy target.

NEW YORK, Nov 21 (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp employees on Thursday sued the fast food giant and several of its franchisees in Chicago over a store redesign that staffers say has made it easier for angry customers to leap over the counter and attack them.
The suit, filed in Illinois' Circuit Court of Cook County by 17 Chicago-area McDonald's workers, claims McDonald's has failed to protect them from a pattern of violence.
Employees have been threatened with guns, beaten with a wet-floor sign, had kitchen equipment thrown at them by a naked customer, been pepper-sprayed, been flashed and propositioned, and even urinated on, according to the complaint.

x

Midnight at the Oasis

It's 2am in my quiet little college town.

I'm tired and I want to go to bed, but I'm heading out to "the Smoking Porch" for a last cigarette before I go to bed.

I've got a Marlboro, a Lighter, and a pistol.  The cigarette and lighter are for a "Last Smoke of the Night", and the Pistol is so  .. if I am interrupted by an interloper, I need not be uncomfortable about smoking alone on my patio in the dark of the night.

No, I'm serious.

I would feel vulnerable standing in the dark behind my patio fence; if someone were to barge in on me, in my pajamas, I would be defenseless.

I live alone.  I have nobody to call to for help.  Knowing that I can defend myself isn't a lot better than having a "back-up", but it's better than nothing.

Yes I feel silly standing alone on my patio with a gun in my pocket;
but it's at least better than standing alone on my patio feeling entirely defenseless.

I sleep better at night, knowing I'm safe.

Assault Weapons Ban Imminent

Congressional hearings are warming toward DE-legitimating any firearm which might be defined as an "Assault Weapon" ... which means (apparently) any firearms which might be used to "hunt a human being".

I think that's fairly all-encompassing .. don't you agree?

Congress holds "Protecting America from Assault Weapons" hearing | Buckeye Firearms Association: by Jim Irvine 7:00AM THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

On September 25, 2019 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled, "Protecting America from Assault Weapons." This was a giant display of hatred of guns, and those who own one, or might benefit from defensive use of a firearm. Chief RaShall Brackney insisted that, "Any weapon that can be used to hunt a human being  *emphasis added* should be banned." That was applauded (inappropriately) from the audience and defended when given a chance to modify that statement. She meant what she said.  David Chipman testified that every gun should be subject to the NFA restrictions currently placed on fully-automatic firearms and suppressors. He wants to ban any gun capable of defeating law-enforcement armor (every rifle) as a first step.]

 Nota Bene: not all of the previous paragraph is included in the original article.

(I have no doubt they would like to ban every gun that any of you own.)

He testified that a barrel shroud (a safety device to protect one's hands from burns) allows killers to kill more people ...which is a bizarre extension of his outrageous precept!

It is true that any firearm  might be proven to be a fatal weapon when used against a fellow human being ... which is why guns are a popular possession; many people consider them to be an effective first-level means of self defense against would-be felons (who also are armed with guns!)

'Firearms owners' can usually be grouped among one or more of the following  categories:

• competition shooters
• self defense firearms owners
• hunters
• plinkers

ALL of these groups may own firearms which would prove lethal when  used against aggressors!  (Often, if their guns were to be used against people .... even the lowly .22 long rifle cartridge, which is generally considered among the "least lethal" cartridges,  may prove lethal when used to defend against a person!)

However, the concept ignores the need for less physically able (women, elderly, etc.) may need to arm themselves in defense against their stronger, more physically powerful attackers.  

It is a consistent trend among anti-gun folks to ignore the need for weaker people to defend themselves against stronger attackers.  Articles (such as the one cited above) tend to ignore this subset of human frailties, and in doing so they perform a disservice to those who most need an "edge" to defend themselves against aggressive people who may otherwise become their predators.

In many communities, it is typical that aggressors are reluctant to attack "frail people" because the local firearms laws allow potential victims to be armed for self defense.   Often, it's not even necessary that potential victims be armed ... the very fact that they are "allowed" by their government to be armed is sufficient to provide a cautionary warning against would-be predators.

This is why we must be liberal in allowing people to arm themselves against potential predators.  

There are a plethora of tales where innocents are protected against malicious attacks because local laws allow innocents to be armed,

The very fact that they MAY be "Packing Heat" is often sufficient to dissuade attackers from predating their weaker prey; not because their prey is armed, but because local laws allow that their potential victims MAY be armed.

Criminals are cowards, in the end.  

We must allow our innocents to arm themselves .. even if they choose NOT to do so!

Often, the very threat is sufficient.   But let's let them pack heat, anyway ...  using a gun to threaten a mugger is marginally less traumatic than being beaten and robbed of all you possess.

HUMANITY

What do I believe in?

I believe in Humanity.

I believe in the willingness of one person to sacrifice himself for the benefit of another.

If I don't believe in that, I can't believe in ANYTHING!

I believe that any of us can find a way, a time, a moment, when we "give up" a part of our self to help make a life better for one, or all, of our fellow man.

I believe in People.  I believe that making life for the next person is not only a way that we can make the world better, but a way to make The World a better place.  I think it's our duty.

I don't have to "Give Up" a part of myself to achieve this goal, but instead we make ourself a better person ... a better neighbor ... by sacrificing our personal goals.

I think we gain more by sacrifice than by achievement.

I think we expand our lives by giving, better than demanding, achievements.

What do YOU think?

Okay ... you think I'm being a Dork.

What's wrong with being a Dork?

Gun Violence in Chicago .. et al

“[I] have never understood why, if all the guns in Chicago come from Indiana, then why doesn’t Indiana have a similar murder rate?”

We all know why Chicago guns come from "out of state". Because Indianans are Democrats, so they make every legality  as confusing as possible.  (It's cumbersome, but it supports a lot of professional politicians who would otherwise be unable to hold down a job.)

If Chicago laws are too strict to let potential gun owners buy guns locally, they just go to another state (Indiana is very conveniently located) to buy guns.

And Indiana's laws are much more lenient (say ... more adherent to the Second Amendment) than are those in Illinois). 

We might ask why Illinoisans even bothers to circumvent the 2nd Amendment ... but then we would have to question why people who wish to exercise their Constitutional rights have to leave their state to be Americans ..... and again, we wonder why they vote Democratic.

Again, we wonder why people choose to undermine their own personal self-interest; but that's what makes us a two-party nation, so go figure!

But I digress.

A Pastor's Wife is Not a Happy One

We're accustomed to "A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One"  (Pirates of Penzance)

... but this is a new twist on an old theme.

A pastor's wife in West Virginia has been charged with reckless endangerment after allegedly firing a gun in a church parking lot.
Melinda Frye Toney, 44, is accused of pulling out a pistol that accidentally discharged during an argument with another pastor's wife at New Life Apostolic Church in Oak Hill on May 11.

We would be excused for assuming that a clergyman's wife would be the epitome of decorum and social responsibility, but we would be wrong ... in this case, at least.

It would be safer to assume that the pastoral spouse has lost her CHL, her handgun, and her freedom for a long time.   "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" would lead the list of offenses.

As much as we cherish and defend the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, there are admittedly a number of citizens who are obviously incompetent to accept the responsibilities which accompany these rights.   Just as the First Amendment does not grant the "right" to shout FIRE in a theater (classic example), the Second Amendment does not grant the "right" to wave a tun at a stranger because they have offended us.

All those who are unclear on this (not too difficult) ethical point may be assumed to have voluntarily waived that right.

The Constitution does not protect Idiots.  It protects responsible citizens.

(Hat Tip: Tam)

BLOGGER, YouTube and the Second Amendment

The Internet is not as free today as it was last week.
Why?

Major Internet websites have decided to bowlderize their content by dissuading Second Amendment websites from publishing on their internet access mechanisms.

YouTube is tightening its restrictions for content about guns and now forbids videos about the selling and making of firearms, ammunition and accessories.The Google-owned video sharing site recently banned videos about how to convert firearms to make them fire more quickly, such as bump stocks. The Justice Department recently took action to ban the devices that speed up the pace of gunfire and allow semi-automatic guns to fire at a rate that mimics a fully automatic firearm. 

I DON'T KNOW how you feel about this, but as far as I'm concerned this is the equivalent of denying individuals the right to exercise their first amendment rights on the most popular means of public expression on the internet.

It's not just about the second amendment, although that's the way it reads on the surface.

Instead, it's "This is MY Website and *_I_* get to decide what I allow you to say here!"

Oh, well, we can't argue with that.  Although, one would think that the most visible website in the WORLD would make an effort to remain neutral about the content it hosts.

Unfortunately, the consequence of this corporate decision is to equate the Constitutional rights of Americans (2nd amendment, remember that?)  as the equivalent of hard pornography.

So the "most visible" website in the world has now assumed the position of the "most powerful".

I'm pretty sure there's a "back story" to this decision, and I would love to learn what it is.
I'm equally certain that you and I will never learn about the discussions which lead to this corporate decision.

The Second amendment ... why isn't it the FIRST Amendment?

Like many of you who read this spiel, I consider the Second Amendment (the right to "Keep and Bear Arms") to be one of the most important freedoms which are recognized by out Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

(You have no idea how awkward it was to find the actual text of the 2nd Amendment!)

Like many of you, I find it ... "awkward" ... to rely on a Constitutional Amendment to define our right to defend ourselves against armed predators.  

And more important, it seems that the right is so obvious, it doesn't seem necessary to include it in our Constitution.  

But sadly, there are so many people who think that the whole "GUNS ARE BAD" thingie should predominate American thought, we who depend upon our own willingness not to be predated upon (rather than expect "police" to protect us) ... we find ourselves in the minority.

As it happens, the First Amendment (freedom of speach, etc.) is PROTECTED by the Second Amendment ... the right to keep and bear arms.  

If we can speak our mind, and if some violent persons disagree with us ... we cam only counter violence with superior violence.  Witness the American Revolution, when England was our master and we revolted against a country which was stronger and as well-armed.  

Americans prevailed because they were armed, and willing to use those arms to support their cause of independence.

Today, America is the most powerful nation n the world, and we continue to support our independence through force of arms.  We don't have to fight our enemies, because the know that (A) our force of arms dominate the power of any other nation, and (B) our armed citizenry is well known for being feisty and aggressive against would-be aggressors.  


(And they can't afford a war against the richest nation.)