notablog
Revisions and Y2k |
Monday, August 24, 1998 10:49 PM |
|
Okay, I've reworked the way this section works. As you can see, the
format is different. I'm going to try to be a little more consistent in
my little rants here, and I'll try to focus on more realms of interest
besides guns! Not that I think anyone reads these things, but what the
hell... everyone else on the net is publishing their own worthless
opinions. What's one more?
I spent the better part of the day reading Year 2000 doomsday
predictions and how people are preparing for the chaos that will
supposedly ensue. I can tell you surely, from my rather minor research
into the topic, that absolutely no one really has any idea how bad the
situation will be when the calendar flips to the year 2000. Most people
agree that there will be problems, though there are those (a minority)
that believe no effects will be felt. It seems that a lot of folks
expect noticeable problems; there are those who think there will be
power outages and economic crises for a period between a week and a
couple months; then there are those who predict the breakdown of all
social order and the end of American civilization as we know it.
Put me somewhere between second and third category. I hope to be
prepared to survive for some two to three months on food and water
stores. As you might have guessed, I have my own store of firearms,
know how to use them, and plan to have quite a bit of ammunition stored
up. One of my personal mottos I borrowed from the Boy Scouts: "Be
prepared". Even better, "Hope for the best; prepare for the worst." My
advice is this: do what you need to make through two or three months of
uncertainty, but don't make any permanent changes that will leave
you high and dry if nothing happens. You'll look pretty silly in your
camouflaged Montana underground bunker if all that happens is a few
banks fail. If worse comes to worse, we can all pack up everything that
fits in our cars and caravan down to my friend's relative's house in the
deep woods of North Carolina. But I don't think that will be necessary.
On the other hand, if you live in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago,
or any other large, extremely urban locale... ignore what I said. Get
out of there; at least to the outskirts of the suburbs. The social
order is so tenuous in these places as it is. The slightest nudge will
push them over the edge. You just wait and see.
|
|
Clinton the liar |
Wednesday, August 19, 1998 7:08 PM |
|
Well, Clinton has admitted his "relationship" with Monica Lewinsky, as if
that was a big surprise. What's surprising is how many people were
actually shocked at the truth of the matter, and how few people are
outraged that the President of the United States would blatantly lie to
some 300 million American citizens for months. Some of us have known for
a while that Mr. Clinton was a bald-faced liar and had no problem with
publicly lying to people who knew the truth. But apparently when you
point it out, people just don't care.
"Let's put this behind us"? It boggles the mind that people can still
support a man without any personal integrity at all in the role of the
leader of our country. He didn't even have the decency to actually
apologize for his deception... instead he cites embarrassment to himself
and his family. It used to be that national security was the only good
reason for lying to the people. I guess times have changed.
They just don't make presidents like they used to.
|
|
Handgun Control, Inc. and friends |
Thursday, January 22, 1998 12:47 AM |
|
More and more these anti-gun zealots irk me. While organizations such as
Handgun Control, Inc. and Cease Fire continue to present their facade of
concern for public safety, the simple truth is that the founders of these
groups hate and detest firearms. That is the entire reason for their
existence: these people hate guns and want to ban them from the face of
the Earth. While many of the misguided members and employees of these
organizations may truly believe they are helping make the world safer,
that is not the origin of these religious crusades.
It's just not logical to link the banning of firearms to increased public
safety. Who the hell is going to protect me from the violent criminals that
slip through the gaping cracks of our justice system? What am I going to
do when a masked intruder steps through the broken glass of my back door
and confronts me in my own home? Call 911? Oh, sorry, he cut the phone
lines. Even if I could call the police, by the time they show up, all the
may be able to do is lay down a nice chalk outline around me. That's a
comfort.
Instead of spending on their money on their persecution of law-abiding gun
owners, maybe these folks could divert their funds into something that may
actually save lives, like building more prisons. Or pressuring the
justice system to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books,
keeping criminals in jail. Or helping out the less fortunate, getting
them back on their feet. Not taking away the rights and freedoms of
millions of Americans.
|
|
Anti-gun Bill Clinton |
Friday, December 19, 1997 1:31 AM |
|
I tell you, Bill Clinton and his anti-gun fanatics have some nerve. Here
he is, the executive representative of the American people, and he
continues to try to pass laws that are plainly not supported by the
majority of people. Over half of the states of America (31 at last count,
if I recall correctly) now have some form of concealed-carry laws allowing
their citizens to carry handguns upon their person. While the state
governments are, as a whole, becoming pro-gun, Bill Clinton and the
Federal government are still attempting to enact tougher restrictions on
the law-abiding citizens of the U.S. Who is it that he's supposed
to represent? The people as a whole or special interest groups, like Sarah
Brady's Handgun Control, Inc? Why doesn't he take the hint and realize
that state and local governments do not believe his bullshit lies
about the dangers of firearm possession, and that he should be spending our
tax money, not on biased "research" and funding for eliminating our
constitutional rights, but on enforcing the myriad of federal gun laws
already on the books, but so often ignored.
And have you ever heard a member of the anti-gun movement ask themselves in
amazement, "How in the world did the NRA become such a powerful lobbying
group?" It's simple. The NRA has the moral and financial support of the
people of the United States of America. Not all, no, but it's lobbying
status (ranked the 6th most powerful American lobbying group by one insider
poll) is derived from its massive number of loyal followers and members,
not donations from Chinese special interests. Stop and consider that
there's a reason for the NRA's lobbying strength before you whine about how
unfair it is.
|
|
notablog RSS 2.0 feed
|