For the benefit of my Constant Readers (both of you) .. yes, I am still here and the reason that I have not been blogging recently is because I have endeavored to accept a kinder, gentler attitude towards the world at large.
I thought that would make it a better place to live. Unfortunately, nobody else noticed the movement and it's still a crappy place to live, so I will now resume my normal schedule of broadcasting the news that sucks:
In Oregon:
Portland Statue University (a community college at best) demands that Campus Cops patrol without firearms because it "makes the students feel safer".
Apparently, a Campus Cop drew down on a student, mistaking him for a nefarious individual who had been threatening other students. This student freaked out and so the entire campus freaked out .. never mind that the cops are trained and experienced, and the unidentified wanna-be terrorist is now "The Only One" on the campus with a gun.
Well, if it makes you teen-age students feel safer knowing that a freak with a gun will NOT be countered by a "good guy with a gun", that's your choice.
I wish you well, and hope that the memorials which your co-students will build in your honor are glorious. They will probably be in place until the expensive floral arrangements die, and the the flowers will hit the same dustbin in which your remains will be consecrated.
AS LONG AS YOU "FEEL SAFE", that's all that's important.
Me? I'd rather know that I was safe. But I'm old, so what do I know?
Parenthetically, as far as I know, PSU (Portland State University) is part of OUS (Oregon University System), which has decided that students and faculty are allowed to possess weapons on campus.
I was an employee of the "system", and I carried a firearm for over 20 years on campus. Never needed it; never worried about it. Everybody in my office knew I carried, and nobody ever mentioned it as a concern for their safety.
Showing posts with label Academics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Academics. Show all posts
Saturday, March 02, 2019
Saturday, October 20, 2018
That Was No Lady, That Was My Mom!
Been there, done that, paid the price, never did it again!
There comes a time in a young man's life when he just HAS to rebel against authority.
I once stole my mom's car for a joy ride while she was shopping. Didn't get it back in time ... but I DID get it back to her.
Not every young man is as lucky:
Some moms are more ... proactive ... than my mother was.
You can rail against "Corporal Punishment", but that's one young man who now understands that you don't compromise all of your in-home security measures just for a joy ride!
He won't be sitting down for a while.
Texas Mom Punishes 14-Year-Old Son With Belt After He Takes Family’s BMW - YouTube:
Good thing she caught him in his formative years; if he had continued to "get away" with this anti-social behavior, he might someday wind up in the Oval Office!
There comes a time in a young man's life when he just HAS to rebel against authority.
I once stole my mom's car for a joy ride while she was shopping. Didn't get it back in time ... but I DID get it back to her.
Not every young man is as lucky:
Some moms are more ... proactive ... than my mother was.
You can rail against "Corporal Punishment", but that's one young man who now understands that you don't compromise all of your in-home security measures just for a joy ride!
He won't be sitting down for a while.
Texas Mom Punishes 14-Year-Old Son With Belt After He Takes Family’s BMW - YouTube:
Good thing she caught him in his formative years; if he had continued to "get away" with this anti-social behavior, he might someday wind up in the Oval Office!
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
A mean-minded, inane, ill-considered interpretation of the Second Amendment
Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History | History News Network:
(1) "Gun Control" is a recent abrogation of the Second Amendment, and one proposed by weak-minded people who assume that police are competent to defend your person and your property. The police are not obliged to protect either your person or your property; their mandate is to investigate the crime scene and attempt to arrest the perpetrators. They are not your protectors.
(2) a "Wheel Gun" is neither more reliable nor more effective in defense of self, family or property. They are subject to malfunction as much as is a semi-automatic pistol. Auto-loading firearms may actually be less susceptible to malfunction in the event of, say, a primer which has not been fully seated (admittedly a situation which is most experienced with reloaded ammunition).
Also, anyone who owns a firearm and does not pay close attention to the proper maintenance is equally likely to experience failure-to-feed problems, whether using a pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle.
(3) "Military Style" weapons not only have a place in the hands of civilians, but they are prominent in regards to the original intent of the Second Amendment. That Constitutional Right was not promulgated to protect duck hunters or target shooters, but to provide citizens the means to oppose an oppressive government by force of arms. When civilians are not allowed access to firearms which are the functional equivalent of those weapons issued to the military, citizens are at a decided disadvantage when the government turns against them. (And that is the situation which resulted in the American Revolution against the British occupiers.)
(4) "The Clumsy Second Amendment" stipulated that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". There is nothing "clumsy" about that, any more than the wording of any other Constitutional Amendment. The first amendment states freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, etc. When the Internet replaced the printing press, Americans found it easy to include technological advances under the aegis of 200-year-old phraseology. There is no reason to assume that advances in firearm designs should be more controversial than the Internet.
(5) " No need for a large capacity magazine" is simply a feel-good way of imposing a limitation on the Second Amendment. If assaulted by multiple attackers (who also may have "large capacity magazines"), the honest citizen should not be limited by a law which is not observed by his attackers. Moreover, the individual may find it necessary to protect himself, family, home and property against multiple attackers. The attackers have the advantage if the citizen is disadvantaged. I do not think this was the intent of the founders of the Constitution.
(6) "... a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is". Says who? In the confines of a private residence, a long gun is more unwieldy because of it's length, which makes it difficult to return fire around a doorway (for example). Also, a shotgun is VERY LOUD! One shot renders the home-defender temporarily deaf, which negates his ability to hear the movement of his attackers. The advantages of a shotgun are the ability to spread the shot in a wider pattern than a pistol (or rifle), but in a close-combat environment such as a residence, that questionable advantage is negated because most encounters are likely to be engaged in distances of, say, twenty feet or less. There is no significant expansion of a shot pattern at that distance; hence, no increase in efficacy. Also, shotguns which are used for hunting are often limited to a three-round capacity as they are intended for "sporting purposes" (small-game hunting). A pistol or revolver will typically allow at last five or six shots before reloading is required.
(NOTE: there are shotguns which are not intended for hunting, and which have a higher "magazine capacity"; Mossberg has a few.)
(7) "Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough." What a strange statement to make in an article which is not themed on hunting, but on self-defense. Actually, semi-automatic weapons are becoming more prevalent in hunting (the same gun used for home defense may be used for hunting, in many cases), and it only makes sense that the firearm owner uses the same weapon for multiple uses ... if only to maintain his familiarity and efficiency with a single weapon. And why NOT use a semi-automatic weapon for hunting? Is this a moral wrong in the view of the original author?
(8) "In the hands of an untrained and frightened person ..." is a base canard in which the author assumes that anyone who chooses to defend hearth/home/family is either untrained or frightened.
Okay, I will grant you "frightened". I spent the year from September 1969 - 1970 being frightened, in Viet Nam. I survived because I received a LOT of training (over a year) before I rotated to "The Land of Bad Things" and I was familiar with a number of weapons.
I so much believe in training that I teach a class in "Practical Pistol Shooting" at my local gun club, where I introduce new shooters in the techniques and practices of shooting a pistol under conditions of (sometimes) 'extreme' stress. Competition shooting is a great way for people to learn and practice safe gun-handling procedures. I do not charge, nor does my home gun club charge, for this instruction; we do it because we want everyone to be well versed in safe gun-handling. I very much encourage anyone who chooses to use a firearm for self-defense to seek out and take advantage of any training offered by a local gun club.
Sometimes there is a nominal fee involved (for materials, etc.) but most frequently the training is either at a very low expense, or (in the instance of my class) is free of charge.
(9) Restricting the number of rounds at a time" ... is a very, very BAD idea!
The only way to achieve proficiency and safe gun-handling expertise is practice, practice, practice!
Thinking that limiting the amount of ammunition an individual may be "allowed" to expend is the best way to keep him from learning to be a safe and proficient shooter. Is this what people who don't really know anything about shooting think is the best way to be safe? The only way to learn to be a proficient, SAFE shooter is to shoot a lot, frequently, and pay attention to getting the best hits in the shortest possible time. Shooting skills deteriorate without frequent and intense practice.
Did the author of this article learn to drive a car by reading a book and sitting through a long and boring lecture? (That seems likely, and I do not want to be on the same road with him!)
Nobody learns a complex physical skill without constant practice, and practical exercises. You cannot learn without making mistakes .. we learn more from our mistakes than we do from taking a written test.
I seriously question the qualifications of Bob to expound on the Second Amendment, or any subject which has to do withsafe gun-handling. Did he ever fire a pistol? Has he ever competed in a shooting match? Gone hunting? Gutted a deer? Wounded an animal which escaped, and died in pain because he didn't track it down in time to end its misery ... and wept at the pain?
Has he ever been shot at, or shot at another living entity? At ALL?
I think not.
I think he's an academic who has never been in the field, never fired a shot in anger, never killed, never had to defend himself, never got blood on his hands and ... in short ... does not know what he's talking about.
I may be wrong about Bob. He may be a war veteran who ... oh, no?
This is Robert W. Thurston.
He's an Academic.
Never mind; for all of his scholarship, he don't know a damn thing about "Real Life".
Move on. There's nothing to see here. He's a nobody.
Shame.
(H/T: Say Uncle)
(....) there is a way forward to more rational gun control through the Second Amendment and a close look at that critical year in American history, 1794. (1) Gun control is a long-established principle and practice in the U.S. (2) Military-type weapons have no place in the hands of private citizens, at least where they can be used in public. Assault rifles, and indeed any semi-automatic weapon, can be banned or confined to closed ranges for sport shooting. (3) Citizens do have a right, as the clumsy Second Amendment states, to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms is the question; why not adopt the notion of some gun magazines and websites, that a revolver is a better choice for personal self defense than a semi-automatic weapon? A “wheel gun” is much less likely to jam than a semi-automatic, which must be cleaned and oiled regularly to work properly. Revolvers are slower to fire and to reload, giving the public more protection from mentally disturbed shooters, while giving good guys a reliable chance to shoot. Nor is there any self-defense need for a large magazine. In the hands of an untrained and frightened person, a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough. (4) Let each gun owner be restricted to a certain number of rounds at a time, say 12, a number that again provides for self-defense. Israel limits gun owners to 50 rounds a year. We can do that, although the task of reducing the 10-12 billion bullets and shells purchased each year in the U.S. to a manageable number will be immense. But there is no longer any excuse for not starting the process.
(1) "Gun Control" is a recent abrogation of the Second Amendment, and one proposed by weak-minded people who assume that police are competent to defend your person and your property. The police are not obliged to protect either your person or your property; their mandate is to investigate the crime scene and attempt to arrest the perpetrators. They are not your protectors.
(2) a "Wheel Gun" is neither more reliable nor more effective in defense of self, family or property. They are subject to malfunction as much as is a semi-automatic pistol. Auto-loading firearms may actually be less susceptible to malfunction in the event of, say, a primer which has not been fully seated (admittedly a situation which is most experienced with reloaded ammunition).
Also, anyone who owns a firearm and does not pay close attention to the proper maintenance is equally likely to experience failure-to-feed problems, whether using a pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle.
(3) "Military Style" weapons not only have a place in the hands of civilians, but they are prominent in regards to the original intent of the Second Amendment. That Constitutional Right was not promulgated to protect duck hunters or target shooters, but to provide citizens the means to oppose an oppressive government by force of arms. When civilians are not allowed access to firearms which are the functional equivalent of those weapons issued to the military, citizens are at a decided disadvantage when the government turns against them. (And that is the situation which resulted in the American Revolution against the British occupiers.)
(4) "The Clumsy Second Amendment" stipulated that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". There is nothing "clumsy" about that, any more than the wording of any other Constitutional Amendment. The first amendment states freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, etc. When the Internet replaced the printing press, Americans found it easy to include technological advances under the aegis of 200-year-old phraseology. There is no reason to assume that advances in firearm designs should be more controversial than the Internet.
(5) " No need for a large capacity magazine" is simply a feel-good way of imposing a limitation on the Second Amendment. If assaulted by multiple attackers (who also may have "large capacity magazines"), the honest citizen should not be limited by a law which is not observed by his attackers. Moreover, the individual may find it necessary to protect himself, family, home and property against multiple attackers. The attackers have the advantage if the citizen is disadvantaged. I do not think this was the intent of the founders of the Constitution.
(6) "... a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is". Says who? In the confines of a private residence, a long gun is more unwieldy because of it's length, which makes it difficult to return fire around a doorway (for example). Also, a shotgun is VERY LOUD! One shot renders the home-defender temporarily deaf, which negates his ability to hear the movement of his attackers. The advantages of a shotgun are the ability to spread the shot in a wider pattern than a pistol (or rifle), but in a close-combat environment such as a residence, that questionable advantage is negated because most encounters are likely to be engaged in distances of, say, twenty feet or less. There is no significant expansion of a shot pattern at that distance; hence, no increase in efficacy. Also, shotguns which are used for hunting are often limited to a three-round capacity as they are intended for "sporting purposes" (small-game hunting). A pistol or revolver will typically allow at last five or six shots before reloading is required.
(NOTE: there are shotguns which are not intended for hunting, and which have a higher "magazine capacity"; Mossberg has a few.)
(7) "Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough." What a strange statement to make in an article which is not themed on hunting, but on self-defense. Actually, semi-automatic weapons are becoming more prevalent in hunting (the same gun used for home defense may be used for hunting, in many cases), and it only makes sense that the firearm owner uses the same weapon for multiple uses ... if only to maintain his familiarity and efficiency with a single weapon. And why NOT use a semi-automatic weapon for hunting? Is this a moral wrong in the view of the original author?
(8) "In the hands of an untrained and frightened person ..." is a base canard in which the author assumes that anyone who chooses to defend hearth/home/family is either untrained or frightened.
Okay, I will grant you "frightened". I spent the year from September 1969 - 1970 being frightened, in Viet Nam. I survived because I received a LOT of training (over a year) before I rotated to "The Land of Bad Things" and I was familiar with a number of weapons.
I so much believe in training that I teach a class in "Practical Pistol Shooting" at my local gun club, where I introduce new shooters in the techniques and practices of shooting a pistol under conditions of (sometimes) 'extreme' stress. Competition shooting is a great way for people to learn and practice safe gun-handling procedures. I do not charge, nor does my home gun club charge, for this instruction; we do it because we want everyone to be well versed in safe gun-handling. I very much encourage anyone who chooses to use a firearm for self-defense to seek out and take advantage of any training offered by a local gun club.
Sometimes there is a nominal fee involved (for materials, etc.) but most frequently the training is either at a very low expense, or (in the instance of my class) is free of charge.
(9) Restricting the number of rounds at a time" ... is a very, very BAD idea!
The only way to achieve proficiency and safe gun-handling expertise is practice, practice, practice!
Thinking that limiting the amount of ammunition an individual may be "allowed" to expend is the best way to keep him from learning to be a safe and proficient shooter. Is this what people who don't really know anything about shooting think is the best way to be safe? The only way to learn to be a proficient, SAFE shooter is to shoot a lot, frequently, and pay attention to getting the best hits in the shortest possible time. Shooting skills deteriorate without frequent and intense practice.
Did the author of this article learn to drive a car by reading a book and sitting through a long and boring lecture? (That seems likely, and I do not want to be on the same road with him!)
Nobody learns a complex physical skill without constant practice, and practical exercises. You cannot learn without making mistakes .. we learn more from our mistakes than we do from taking a written test.
(10) Academia Sucks!
This original article (see above) was penned by by Robert W. ThurstonI seriously question the qualifications of Bob to expound on the Second Amendment, or any subject which has to do with
Has he ever been shot at, or shot at another living entity? At ALL?
I think not.
I think he's an academic who has never been in the field, never fired a shot in anger, never killed, never had to defend himself, never got blood on his hands and ... in short ... does not know what he's talking about.
I may be wrong about Bob. He may be a war veteran who ... oh, no?
This is Robert W. Thurston.
He's an Academic.
Never mind; for all of his scholarship, he don't know a damn thing about "Real Life".
Move on. There's nothing to see here. He's a nobody.
Shame.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Pusillanimous, Pompous Politician Prohibits Public School Pistol Possession
California Disarms The Victims ... Predictably
Lawmakers Pass Democrat Bill Guaranteeing Teachers Cannot Shoot Back if School Under Attack:
As Breitbart described:
How privileged are the privileged, and should they be? We will discuss that elsewhere.
Lawmakers Pass Democrat Bill Guaranteeing Teachers Cannot Shoot Back if School Under Attack:
On Monday, lawmakers passed a gun control bill introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) to disarm teachers and staff who are currently allowed to carry guns for self-defense in California school districts.On June 20, 2017, a Democratic State Senator in California denies the 2nd Amendment Rights of school teachers because of their educational position.
As Breitbart described:
McCarty introduced his legislation, AB 424 in mid-February. On May 12, Breitbart News reported that he justified his push to disarm teachers by saying, “A safe learning environment is essential for our children to be successful in the classroom. That’s not possible if a school district allows armed civilians to roam California school campuses.”
McCarty did not differentiate between guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens at schools versus guns in the hands of criminals who will attack regardless of gun-free policies. Moreover, he did not list one crime committed by an armed teacher or staff member in the five California districts that allowed such personnel to be armed for defense of themselves and their students.
A careful reader might wonder whether, if these teachers had the intent of slaughtering their students, the question whether they might legally bring a gun into the classroom would be moot.
Curiously, at least one Federal Congressman is trying to establish a bill which allows Congressmen to carry concealed weapons in Washington, DC. This is an area where the average citizen faces severe restrictions to provide for themselves the same level of personal protection which the Congressman apparently considers a right..
How privileged are the privileged, and should they be? We will discuss that elsewhere.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Campus SJW's OWNED!
Question on Campus: How about if we take a few points off the GPA of the higher-scoring students and give them to the bottom-scoring students? Okay by you?
Davidson College students furious after they're tricked into rejecting socialist ideal - The College Fix:
I'm thinking of a word .. what is it?
Oh, I've got it; the word is ... HYPOCRISY!
Alternate Title: "The Hypocrisy of the Meritocracy"
The interesting thing is, these students who reject the thesis are the same Social Justice Warriors who think that "Wealth Distribution" is a social "Good".
(But in truth, they just may be part of the meritocracy)
So .. Daddy makes enough money that you can afford to matriculate at Davidson College ...
But it isn't YOUR money, and there's a lot of it. So. if Daddy's money is 'shared', it doesn't hurt you.
However, when the "benefits" are finite, and it's a Zero-Sum game ... you're against it?
Gee, for almost 139% of average annual salary which the average America workers makes (<$44K), you could go to college at Davidson ... and be outraged that some dork wants to take a couple points off your GPA and give them to a lower-ranking student?
That's just so not fair!
[H/T: IRONS]
Davidson College students furious after they're tricked into rejecting socialist ideal - The College Fix:
Some students said the fake petition made them struggle with feelings that they do not belong at Davidson, while others aggressively attacked the video, calling it “oppressive,” “illegally filmed,” and “inflammatory bullsh*t,” according to a video of the April 27 teach-in on Facebook.
I'm thinking of a word .. what is it?
Oh, I've got it; the word is ... HYPOCRISY!
hy·poc·ri·sy
[hi- pok-r uh-see]NOUN [PLURAL HY·POC·RI·SIES.]1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
The interesting thing is, these students who reject the thesis are the same Social Justice Warriors who think that "Wealth Distribution" is a social "Good".
(But in truth, they just may be part of the meritocracy)
So .. Daddy makes enough money that you can afford to matriculate at Davidson College ...
But it isn't YOUR money, and there's a lot of it. So. if Daddy's money is 'shared', it doesn't hurt you.
However, when the "benefits" are finite, and it's a Zero-Sum game ... you're against it?
Let's look at the fee schedule for Davidson College:
FEES FOR 2017-18 ACADEMIC YEAR
- Required student charges (tuition, student activity fee) $49,949; student activity fee covers student publications, student government, and social and cultural activities
- Standard Double Room (other rooms available) $7,102
- Meals, 21 per week (other plans available) $6,852, includes N.C. Board Tax
- Total: $63,903
Gee, for almost 139% of average annual salary which the average America workers makes (<$44K), you could go to college at Davidson ... and be outraged that some dork wants to take a couple points off your GPA and give them to a lower-ranking student?
That's just so not fair!
[H/T: IRONS]
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Liberals Are The party Of Peaceful Weasels .. what?
Oh, go read it. Or not. I'm tired of trying to keep track of liberal crap dumbfucks idiots academics
Rutgers University Lecturer Visited By NYPD After Threatening To Kill All White People With A Gun…UPDATE: Threatened Trump Supporters As Well, Blames Trump For Being Questioned… | Weasel Zippers
*It's a Good Thing that Liberals are The Party of Peace. it would be really gnarly if they were, like, emotional dunderheads with no shut-the-fuck-up valve or anything!)
Naturally some media on left picked this up, hysterically trumpeting, ‘It begins!’.
What begins? An idiot who has issues with white people who shouldn’t be teaching students made threatening remarks that police felt duty bound to check out?
Trump of course is only the president-elect and has no power to change anything or go after anyone.
By the way, Allred who refers to himself as a ‘Beyonce professor'(gee that’s a title, my degree is in Beyonce) isn’t actually a professor. Professor is a title that you earn through teaching and scholarship. He is a just a lecturer.
Allred got some media attention last year for saying there were ‘no good white people’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)