Jump to content
"It is argued that guns don’t kill. People are killers. Perhaps, but a gunman without a gun
is not a gunman"
A killer without a gun is still a killer.
We don't need gun control, we need killer control. Guns can be helpful with that.
There must be more to this story. Note that Peter has not given his version of events .If the animal had been leading a blind man there would not likely have been an incident. But the customer may well have been asked why a person with no apparent disability claimed ADA exemption from a policy.The answer may not have been persuasive. The customer may have been confrontational. We don't know.
If The customer had tried to bring the animal into a restaurant or supermarket, would he have been questioned? Is there an ADA identification card that certifies exemption from policies, like a handicapped parking permit?
I know Peter has dealt with a great deal of government interference in running a legitimate business in a reasonable manner. I also know he declines much potential business to avoid abuse of his facility. I would not be quick to judge the validity of his position.
The Founders knew that the system of government they helped establish was imperfect. They warned that like all governments it would naturally move in the direction of usurpation of individual liberty in favor of greater governmental powers. They gave the People as many tools as they could to resist this natural process, and strongly advised the succeeding generations to be vigilant and use those tools regularly.
They also made provision for the changing of the constitution. If the right to keep and bear arms is to be infringed, it can only be properly and legally done by that process. In fact it is being infringed by other means such as executive orders, as are other constitutional provisions. Such actions are eventually heard by the Supreme Court in many cases, and often struck down.
But Marie's point that we believe tyranny is coming is valid. It always has been coming, will always be coming. Many think it has arrived in such forms as the EPA attempt to declare runoff a pollutant, or the health care law's mandate that religious organizations provide drugs and procedures to their employees that are forbidden by their doctrines.
It is a terrifying concept that the government would try to force the population to give up the means for individual self defense in favor of protection by the State. It is a comfort to know that such an effort would be resisted by many of those directed to execute it.
Not on our watch!
Very meaningful to me. It brings me back to last spring, as I stood at the graves of Washington then Jefferson and gave a silent prayer of gratitude for their service. In each case I was struck with a powerful manifestation, with a clear impression of the message "now it's your watch"
Still gives me chills just remembering it.
Tom, what is an oath taker?
Sorry to pick on New York, only did it because I referred to their Governor's rant. In fact I would be even more apprehensive in the event of a serious, prolonged social disruption in LA. or Chicago. Or, for that matter, Denver.
People who create contingency plans predict that if the grid crashed hard, such as in the event of a major solar flare, (or a nuclear device being detonated) that civilian on civilian conflict would become extreme within 2-3 weeks after the supermarket shelves were empty. Not just gang members either, some of your starving neighbors might know you keep a stockpile of food, water, fuel, etc, just in case of an emergency such as this. Some of them have semi-automatic rifles too, whether military style or hunting style makes little difference. Their survival plan is their gun and your food stockpile.
You go ahead and count on the police to protect you, I'll take care of myself and my family.
I just shake my head when someone like Gov. Como shouts out you don't hunt deer with an assault rifle. Of course not, those guns are for self defense. If I lived in downstate New York I would definitely want one against the contingency of some social disruption (extended power outage?) causing the gangsters to leave the inner city and start pillaging the suburbs. They would be well armed and work in packs, a pistol or shotgun might not be enough firepower to protect your life and family from a car full of them. And don't believe that the police and national guard will be able to provide security for everyone, mostly yes but I don't want to be one of the unlucky ones.
Self reliance, not dependence on government protection. That's what made this country great, and the opposite is bringing it down.
Some of this issue is due to ever increasing standards of sufficiency. When our roads and bridges were first being built a century ago, something that was good for a decade was sufficient. It got replaced when it showed too much deterioration. Even half as long ago culvert sizing was not based on the hundred year maximum storm because they never lasted more than thirty years, nor are they expected to last much longer now, certainly not a century. And that "hundred year event" might just take two hundred years to actually happen.
We certainly should perform proper maintenance on our bridges. But we ought not to replace them before they actully wear out unless the increase in routine demand from increased runoff renders them inadequate. If the hundred year flood does wash them out before that, them replace then. It will not likely cost much more, and probably does not have to be done in the immediate future.
I miss Yampa Valley Boy, Seeuski, and especially Mr. Tai Chi.
Scott's most memorable comment was at the time of the policy change when he declared he would never post on this forum again. I was tempted to see if I could hold my breath till he reconsidered.
I do assume the government has taken responsibility for our safety. There are a few instances where I think they have not gone too far, very few. I personally favor a great deal more individual responsibility.
A perfect example is pasteurized milk. I produce my own milk, and do not pasteurize it. I believe it is far more healthful and certainly does not make me sick. I have also been known to kiss animals, especially dogs, and not always wash my hands of traces of manure or other dirt before eating with my fingers. I believe I actually strengthen my immune system thereby, and much recent research supports that concept.
But in the article, the statement quoted indicates that if Mr. Weibel was still operating as a raw dairy, there would be a much tougher stance. That is probably why he has moved to pasteurization. In fact pasteurized milk is just as subject to spoilage as raw milk, it only has had its previous biological activity killed. Unless the animal was diseased, that activity is benign or beneficial.
Last login: Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.