1 - 10 Next
Personally, I see no difference between refusing to bake a cake for gays which the owner finds offensive and refusing to write a message on a cake that the owner finds offensive. They are both messages: one is religious and the other is moral. Either both are wrong under the law or both are allowed under the law. The guy who refused to bake the cake for the gays was probably as upset as Ms Silva so where is the difference if both owners refused service for the same reasons?
If Europe is now arming the police, can conceal and carry be far behind. When terrorist realize that 5-20 people around them could be armed with automatic pistols, they are going to have to change their tactics. When they are fleeing the scene and there are armed citizens along the way, it won't be so easy for them. I remember the terrorists who ran down the British soldier and cut his head off, all while Brits could only look on and do nothing. But what if 6 or 7 of those Brits had been armed. Both terrorist would look like Swiss Cheese.
Governor Abbott is going to file for an injunction to stop amnesty until the court case and any appeals are resolved. Let's wish him luck. It is an irony that the Supreme Court unleashed Obamacare upon the American people and it may be the courts that save us from Obamacare, executive amnesty, and the general lawlessness of this administration. However, I note that the administration has so far stonewalled court orders to provide documentation because they know that there is no enforcement behind the court orders. No judge can find the President in contempt and put him in jail until he complies. After all the laws only apply to the little people and not to those in power or their supporters.
Sorry, but God can't hit a one iron either.
WRT to the video's assessment that because the warhead isn't destroyed that Iron Dome is a total failure. I have three years in combat and let me tell you that if the warhead doesn't reach its target, it's not a total failure. Yes the warhead might fall to the ground and cause casualties. but it didn't hit its target and that is at total success. I don't know who the bozo was that equated the failure to destroy the warhead but save the target for which it was destined was a total failure, but I can assure you that he has never been in combat. In Vietnam one night my unit was accidently targeted by friendly artillery believing that we were a North Vietnamese unit. The resulting TOT (Time on Target) salvo of 155 mm artillery from three batteries resulted in many Marine killed and wounded. We spent hours evacuating our dead and wounded after that friendly fire accident. What would I have given to have had a defensive capability to have had those artillery rounds land a several hundred yards from our positions? Everything I own and will own in the future to have saved those Marines who were killed and wounded. People who have not been in combat. People who have not had to conduct a frontal attack against heavy automatic fire, who have not had to see their friends and other fellow Marines die and suffer unthinkable wounds; have no idea what such a significant thing as defeating 80 or so percent of incoming rounds is. It's life saving. It allows Marines to come home when they would have otherwise died. That's like saying, well GPS isn't always available because of clouds and other obstacles. I'm going to tell you first hand. Jesus God GPS with all of its flaws would have saved so many lives in Vietnam because 90% of the time we had little idea where we actually were. We had a compass and out dated maps. That was it. Before you spout off about the flaws of a technology, you need to stop and thing is it better that what we have today. If the answer is YES, then go with it. There is no perfect defense. Barbed wire still slows down the enemy after many decades of technological advances. And technology didn't seem to help anyone in Benghazi--but maybe that was because no one tried to respond.
In response to:

Is Your Firearms Training Realistic?

Frederick78 Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 4:34 PM
Is your firearms training realistic? Yes. I was a Marine infantry officer with three years in combat. In the process, I've trained along side a small CIA contingent in a foreign country on their range and their combat course which included practicing with a variety of weapons (shotguns, pistols, rifles, assault weapons, grenades, and others) while moving on foot and in vehicles. I also took the DIA's offensive driving course to use my vehicle as a weapon or to escape an ambush or to defend myself shooting from or at a speeding vehicle. While in the Marine Corps I scored expert on the rifle and pistol ranges and participated in countless live fire exercises. Anyone invading my home or threatening me or my wife will have made a very bad life ending decision. I learned in Vietnam that a wounded enemy is just as dangerous as a soldier who isn't. Unless a person had dropped their weapon with hands high in the air, he/she is dead. My wife is not that accurate with a pistol at night so I bought her one with a laser pointer and I have her practice everything she needs to do in case there is an intruder before I leave on business trips. Otherwise, I'll take care of business. If you want the most realistic firearms training join the infantry, the CIA's paramilitary, special operations, etc. The author is right. There is a world of difference between firing at a paper target and being under fire while you return fire. The latter is incentive for honing your marksmanship skills.
In response to:

Things I Don't Understand

Frederick78 Wrote: Sep 04, 2014 1:27 PM
There was a book printed many years ago called something like "The Lazlo Letters." The book was a compilation of letters the author sent to celebrities and corporations and the humorous responses he received. I don't remember many of them but one I do was a letter to a company that produced bubble bath power. The label said "Keep Dry." Lazlo wrote and complained no matter how hard he dried the bubble bath power would get wet in the bathtub. The company sent him a serious response. Mr. Williams' article reminded me that many of us have been puzzled for decades about labels, laws, rules, regulations, etc. that ether make no sense, defy common sense, are inconsistent with the laws of the land, or are inconsistently applied from person to person or place to place. Much of the world and government was insane then and times haven't changed much since then.
It's not clear to me how the Democrats can legislate a change to Constitutional rights as set forth by the Supreme Court. The Court didn't rule that the law was somehow flawed. It ruled that Congress could not ignore religious freedoms under very specific circumstances. Even Scalia said that the ruling did not cover those cases where the good of the state was greater that the individual beliefs such as in the cases of transfusion of blood, vaccinations, etc. And although the Supreme Court long ago agreed that abortion was a right, it did agree that those apposed to abortion would be forced to pay for them. The debate continues. And much like the Israeli and Arab conflict that has been ongoing for thousands of years, I see no end to it.
The hypocrisy of liberals knows no bounds. You got it. But you are expected to just shut up, sit down, and quietly accept the dual standard. The government does not have to abide by the laws of the land but you do.
So if ID cards are so discriminatory, then why does the DoJ require an ID card to enter the Department of Justice? Just asking. Shouldn't the DoJ be allowing illegal immigrants to flood into their office to stay for as long as they like without any ID or health evaluation? I smell hypocrisy.
1 - 10 Next