1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Shooting, and Splintering

Geoff34 Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 9:58 AM
So, if Scotland splits off, would they elect Sean Connery as their leader? That was being proposed there a few years ago. Yes, I know he's actually Irish. On a different level though, the idea of letting the English vote on whether or not Scotland should be allowed to secede seems out of line. After all, it is the Scots who live in Scotland, and they are the ones considering secession from the UK. Why should anyone else get a vote? That would be akin to saying everyone in the world gets to vote on whether or not the USA should be allowed to drop out of the UN if we choose to do so.
In response to:

The American Flag: 'A Threat'?

Geoff34 Wrote: Jul 01, 2014 9:52 AM
I would strongly suggest that no one ever again be encouraged to RECITE the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, why not encourage everyone who feels loyalty to the USA to actually PLEDGE their allegiance? It is a very different thing. It's like saying you want someone to RECITE the Lord's Prayer. You don't recite a prayer. As Yoda would say, "Pray or pray not; there is no recite." The same is true for pledging allegiance to our country. So, "Pledge or pledge not; there is no RECITE!"
In response to:

You Bet This is Swiftboating

Geoff34 Wrote: Jun 19, 2014 2:35 PM
1) I agree totally about the "Swiftboating," in all regards. When your own fellow troops rat you out, it is hard to refute. Further, it is important to recognize that "Swiftboating" only occurs when fellow vets see an egregiously erroneous story being put out, one so wrong that they feel obligated to speak out with the truth as they saw it at the time. 2) There is no reason to appoint a general officer to "investigate" the situation now. It was already well investigated by a lieutenant, whose report was forwarded with his endorsement, by a captain, and accepted through the chain of command. Thee is nothing further to investigate now. Bergdahl clearly left his post and went AWOL (and apparently not for the first time). The legal question that may still remain (I'm not sure if it does because I'm not a military lawyer) is whether his valid charge of AWOL is automatically upgraded to Desertion after 30 days (which would be the normal thing) if he was actually being held prisoner against his will and therefore unable to return before the 30 day limit on AWOL charges. THAT may require some investigation, but it hardly requires a general officer, a legal clerk should be sufficient.
In response to:

This is How You Lose a War

Geoff34 Wrote: Jun 13, 2014 4:49 PM
Obama has dishonored us as a nation, and the loss of honor always exacts a price. In this case, we had better give up an any future plans to engage in nation building, or even "ally developing" because our behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan has now shown the world that Viet Nam was not an aberration, but a harbinger of what potential allies can expect if they join with the US. They can now see a consistent history of betrayals on our part, and the only thing necessary to ensure they will be betrayed, is the election of a new president here. Anyone seriously considering allying themselves with us in the future, will have to consider the fact that no US foreign policy or treaty can seriously be trusted to last beyond the 4-8 years that the president who makes the agreement may be in office. THAT is the consequence we must now endure because of Obama's unwillingness to honor his predecessor's commitments on our behalf. And trust, like money, must be earned by long hard work. We can't simply print more of it the way Obama does with money. It will be a long time before other nations will trust us again as allies.
Unfortunately, such a national law would be a clear violation of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) because it restricts, read "infringes," the right to keep and bear arms. The power to regulate inevitably involves the power to restrict, and that power is specifically denied the federal government by the 2nd Amendment.
Cornyn introduced the bill after failing to support Ted Cruz on defunding Obamacare, when he suddenly realized he was not seen as very conservative by many TX voters, and that he might be in a serious primary battle this year. In fact, similar bills get introduced almost every year, but they never get any traction in the federal legislature. Here's MY theory about how to address the issue. We need the SAF or NRA to file suit on the basis that the refusal to recognize other state's CCW licenses is in violation of the Constitution's "Commerce Clause" in that its unfair discrimination against residents of some states impedes, rather than encourages, interstate travel and commerce. I, for one, and there are many more like me, refuse to travel to , or through, states where my travel would be inherently less safe, because they won't recognize my TX CHL license. This reduces the interstate commerce in which I might otherwise be engaging, all because those states discriminate against me, and deny my constitutionally protected rights. It is certainly a civil rights violation, but I don't think anyone has tried using the "Commerce Clause" argument in court yet, even though that clause is the basis of ALL existing federal anti-gun laws. Maybe it's time to turn the tables on the anti-gun politicians, using their own clause against them!
In fact, it is simply impossible know which, open, or concealed, carry is more of a deterrent to crime. There are few examples of open carry stopping crime because if it is effective, no crime occurs, and the criminals go elsewhere looking for victims. There is at least one example, in a Waffle House, where security cameras clearly show that 3 armed robbers sent 1 person inside to "case the place" and he left after seeing two patrons eating there, who were openly carrying handguns. They waited in vehicle in the parking lot until those 2 patrons left and then robbed the restaurant. In addition, mass murderers seem to try to find places where they won't be opposed by armed people (either LEOs or citizens) to commit their depredations. The young man in Santa Barbara commented in his "manifesto" that he gave up on plans to kill on Halloween, because it was too likely he would encounter an LEO before he killed many people. This also suggests that, had he seen anyone carrying a gun openly, he would have gone elsewhere or waited for a "better" time. On balance, it seems to me that, 1) open carry is more of a crime deterrent (when and where it is being practiced), and, 2) concealed carry gives the carrier a tactical advantage (should severe violence occur in his/her presence).
Concern for the safety of oneself and one's family does not "lead inevitably to concealed carry." In fact, throughout most of our country's history, it has actually led to open carry. As the article pointed out, concealed carry was previously considered somewhat shady and potentially dishonorable, something nefarious professional gamblers might do so others would not know they were prepared to defend themselves. Today in states like AZ, AK, and WY, seeing guns carried openly (either long or short guns) causes no concern among others, nor does it serve as a "provocation to the unstable," in fact, the opposite is more likely the case. You will note that "the unstable" have exhibited an odd penchant over the past 40 years or so, to become unstable enough to attack people, almost exclusively, in places where they can reasonably assume they will not be opposed by an armed person. No one seems to do this in the presence of an armed LEO or visibly armed citizen. The cases in which concealed carry licensees have stopped violent assaults in public might be misleading, in that the assaults might very well not have occurred at that time and place at all, if the "unstable" person had been aware of the presence of someone who was armed. The whole point of the OCT group/movement is to accustom Texans to seeing people openly carrying guns in public, and thereby to desensitize the public to it. In addition, they hop[e to bring public attention to the fact that TX remains one of only 6 states that ban open carry of handguns, something most people, even in TX, are (or used to be) unaware of. Indeed, they carry long guns openly because the open carry of handguns is illegal, which is their whole point. Today, if you travel through small rural towns in TX, no one would be upset to see someone carrying a long gun in public. The "problems" associated with this issue have only arisen in large cities, and this is being hyped primarily by radical anti-gun groups like those backed by Bloomberg, who have gone to the restaurants where the OCT groups stopped to eat, and tried to get them to ban guns on their premises. In fact, the publicity given to this issue has already had a dramatic impact on the TX political scene, and there are now a number of political candidates who have publicly pledged to support the desired change to TX laws in the next legislature. Which, of course, is exactly what the movement wanted to accomplish in the first place.
Would you also have put up a sign saying "Whites Only" at your lunch counter in 1962? The same principle is involved here. This has nothing to do with carrying long guns for hunting or self protection. It is solely a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. Further, exactly the same arguments are being made by the "establishment" groups (like the NRA - of which I am a Life Member), that were made in the late 1950s and early '60s, by "establishment" minority advocacy groups like the NAACP. The established groups warned about "scaring the public," and "political backlash" from the majority White community. If MLK had listened to them, we'd probably still have segregation in the US today. Change ALWAYS makes large portions of the population nervous. In fact, the movement has already had a major impact on TX congressional and gubernatorial candidates, who are now racing to support the open carry of handguns, an issue that has been "on their back burner" for years now. As Hollywood well knows, sometimes ANY publicity is good publicity.
Actually, if I were robbing a bank, I would wait outside until the guys in the lobby who had guns on their hips had finished their business and left the premises. Which, of course, is exactly what happened a couple of years ago at a Waffle House Restaurant. The three armed robbers are on security camera tape waiting in their vehicle after coming in to "case the place," and discovering 2 open carry guys eating dinner inside.
1 - 10 Next