Abusus non tollit usum. (Misuse does not preclude proper use)

In keeping with the subject matter of the past three posts, I've felt it necessary to compose yet another. Why? Because I have more to say, that's why. And the more I think about it, the more pissed off I get.

Take a look at the map above. You'll see that there are 4 colors on this map of the 50 States. The blue States are called "Shall Issue" States and have adopted a "Florida style" policy on the issuance of concealed weapons permits. That simply means that when applying to obtain a concealed weapons permit, unless you are legally disqualified you "shall be issued" the license provided you complete all of the required steps.

The yellow States are known as "May Issue" States. In these States, you must demonstrate a "need" above and beyond the simple desire to obtain one to be issued a license to carry a firearm. For instance, carrying large sums of money as a condition of one's employment might be a qualifying "need" to be issued a concealed weapons permit in California or New York.

The green States have little or no restrictions on firearms. Anyone, save convicted felons and children under 18 can purchase, obtain, possess, and carry a firearm on or about his or her person, either concealed or openly with no licensing or registration requirements.

Then there are the red States. In these States, the right to bear arms is unconstitutionally denied. No one is issued concealed weapons permits. No demonstrated "need" is good enough. No one can carry a gun on their person under any circumstances except law enforcement and criminals. Everyone else must fall into the inevitable and unfortunate category of "hapless and helpless victims".

One of those red States, you may notice, is Illinois. Illinois is where the most recent university shooting happened. Illinois is where the department store shooting that killed 5 women happened. Illinois is also where one of the most violent cities in America happens to be. No one had a snowball's chance in hell of stopping these men because no one had a firearm. Had one not killed himself and the other not fled, more people would have surely died in a cowering heap of pathetic pleadings for mercy.

How can this not anger the hell out of you? Who the hell is the State Legislature to tell you that you cannot protect yourself? Who the hell are these self-righteous imbeciles at the Brady Campaign to assume that you cannot safely handle the situation of using a firearm to protect your own life and should therefore just die? What gives them the right? Who gives them the authority?

I am constantly outraged by the audacity of those who speak for the Brady Campaign when they argue against legislation that would allow law abiding, adult citizens to purchase, own, or carry firearms. Their arguments are never based on statistical data or facts. On the contrary, they are nearly always based on assumptions and opinions and always presented as though they were fact. They cannot argue with statistics that show that States with looser gun laws suffer less violent crime. They cannot discount the factual data that shows that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit violent crimes. They cannot argue, intelligently so they don't. Instead, they appeal to the audience's emotions by postulating, speculating and theorizing based solely on conjecture or otherwise using the SWAG method to presuppose what they think might happen. SWAG...that stands for Scientific Wild Assed Guess!

In a recent Newsweek interview with a nonprofit organization called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus or SCCC (referenced in a post below), Brian Malte, the State Legislation and Politics Director at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, of course, that the legislation that SCCC seeks simply would not work. He had no valid reasoning for such a conclusion, mind you...just speculation. "It's ridiculous to say someone with a gun could have saved the day"..."with people running all over the place and people getting caught in the crossfire." Newsweek went on to quote Malte as saying that "...his group opposes the concealed-carry legislation, because allowing firearms to saturate college campuses, where young people drink heavily and live communally, would only heighten the danger of deadly violence."

Did you see that? Did you see what he did? He made an assumption and then projected that assumption onto you as fact. How does he know that people would be running into the line of fire and not taking the natural reaction of getting as low as possible? How does he know that the person who may be carrying concealed would not exercise due caution so as not to shoot innocent bystanders? How can he say that college campuses would be "saturated" with guns if this legislation is passed? Saturated? Not everyone qualifies. Not everyone would want to carry a gun. One would have no reason to believe that any different proportion of the campus population would choose to carry concealed firearms than the general population as a whole. And because stereotypical college students binge drink on movies like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds, it would be irresponsible to allow such an out of control group to have guns. Never mind the fact that these same people already have the permits necessary to carry guns concealed in places like restaurants and malls and marketplaces. Somehow, this genius concludes that the specific surrounding of a college campus makes it too dangerous for these same people to carry those same guns under the same constraints of the law with the same responsibilities and with the same standards and expectations of reasonable behavior. Why? How?

Can you smell the bullshit? These people are living in a fantasy land. A land where they honestly believe that it is possible to get control of all of the hundreds of millions of guns out on the street. They envision a day where guns are only in the hands of the police and the military....preferably only the military. They are delusioned idealists who couldn't rub two statistical facts together to come up with a coherent conclusion to save their pathetic pacifist butts. If you could magically wave a wand and make all privately owned guns, both legal and illegal just disappear from within the borders of our country today...then tomorrow, people would kill, rob and carjack other people with knives, baseball bats, claw hammers and power drills. History supports this. People have been killing people since Caine smacked Abel over the head with a rock! And people will continue to kill people no matter what sorts of primitive or technologically advanced weapons are afforded them. But the simple fact is, you have no magic wand. You can never get control over all of the guns available on the black market...ever. The German Gestapo couldn't do it in WWII, and you most certainly cannot do it with any of the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States intact.

Guns aren't going anywhere, folks. This is about evening the odds. This is about allowing victims to have a sporting chance at survival and giving predators a legitimate deterrent. This is about recognizing that the right to live and the right of self-preservation is inherent and inalienable to all sapient beings and cannot by their very nature be relieved from one by another because, despite any law prohibiting them, they will be enacted anyway as a natural course of instinctual reaction. You cannot make it illegal for me to meet a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm with the same or a greater amount of force anymore than you can make it illegal for me to breath. My life depends on both and despite any law to the contrary I will continue to do both. On the same side of that coin, depriving me of the very means of self preservation is akin, in my opinion, of depriving me of oxygen to breath....tantamount to murder. It is not for the law to presume whether I will act reasonably in any given hypothetical life threatening situation. It is only for the law to decide whether I have acted reasonably after the fact. For the law to step in and preemptively judge that I might act unreasonably and then, for that reason, remove from me the right or ability to act in that instance, forces the law to act in my place. Any failure of the law to act in my place under such circumstances should thus constitute negligence or malpractice, up to and including not having any representatives (ie, law enforcement) nearby.

Now I know that might be a far reach in legal interpretation on my part but theoretically it is sound and there are integral parts of that theory that cannot be refuted, such as the inherent instinctual compulsion to act with deadly force in defense of one's own life. If it is true that access to black market firearms cannot be feasibly curtailed, especially in a free state, and it is also true that all humans have the right to defend themselves and others with deadly force if a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is met and it is also true that to deny a person either the right or the ability to apply that force in a situation where it is needed might cost that person their life, then it must be reasonably concluded that a person has the inherent right to arm themselves with weapons likely to be capable of deterring, repelling, or quashing an encountered deadly force. Whether I act reasonably and in accordance with the law is up to a jury to decide after the fact, not for legislators to decide before it ever happens under hypothetical presumptions.

Cruciatus reductus ad absurdum

Torture reduced to the absurd. Also known as an apagogical argument, when debating an issue, reducing something to its most extreme is a form of logical reasoning that makes use of the principal of Tertium non datur meaning: There is no third possibility. Basically, a statement is either true, or it is false. It cannot be both.

Some non-absolutists would argue that life is not made up of "true and false", "right and wrong", or "black and white". I am not a non-absolutist. I believe that most, if not all things can be sorted into that which is true and that which is false. Of course this form of logic only works if one concedes that there is in fact an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Now there are pros and cons to both schools of thought and I in no way intend to suggest that my way of thinking is the only way. But I do believe that it is the right way based upon my experiences and views of the world around me, illuminated by the light of my faith. But if it is reasonable to suggest that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time, then it is also reasonable to conclude that the truth of any matter can be determined by reducing the complexity of the problem to its simplest terms.

So it is on this predication of the belief in an absolute "right and wrong" that I submit to you the following. I want you to test yourself. I want you to explore your concept of what is acceptable and what is not. The subject is torture. It's a terrible word conjuring images of medieval dungeons and all types of dastardly tools wielded by masked executioners or mad scientists. Each of us draws lines in our psyche, if only subconsciously, defining the acceptable field of play. What is Ok? And what is not? There must be a line. It must exist for all but the moral relativist, who is illogical and unreasonable anyway and thus excluded from all consideration in this discussion. But what constitutes "torture"? And is it ever acceptable? If so, when? If not, why? It is easy to juggle one's reasoning when the subject is as broad as that outlined in the preceding questions. One can easily say "NO", it is wrong and barbaric and should never be considered under any circumstances by civilized society. OK. Let us assume for a moment that that is your position. Let us then apply the logic of reducing the subject to it's most absurd extreme, for it is either true or it is false. It is right or it is wrong.

Assume for a moment that I have broken into your house while you slept. I've kidnapped your daughter. Your daughter has a deadly medical condition which requires regular doses of medication. I've hidden her away in an undisclosed and untraceable location and her very life is at stake because without immediate intervention, she will die. Now, assume that I've been captured and indisputable evidence exists that links me to your daughter's disappearance....perhaps photographic....perhaps eyewitness...perhaps DNA. Perhaps all of the above. Perhaps I've confessed but remain unwilling to reveal her whereabouts. Assume it is up to you. What coercive methods would you be willing to inflict to obtain the desperately needed location of your daughter? Think before you answer. This is your child. Your love. Your life. You'd take her place in death without a second thought if only you could. But you can't. And now her very existence hangs in the balance of your preconceived notions of the morality of torture and the sanctity of life. What do you do? Do you forsake your principles to save your child's life? Or do you stand on them in spite of the horrific cost? You are human. Be honest with yourself. For it is not your principles at stake here, it is truth itself.

We are a nation of laws, of rights, of reason. We do not, as a society, condone torturing anyone to obtain any information no matter how valuable. Or do we? The question today is not: "Is it right for our society?" The question today is: "Is it ever right at all?" I have no problem telling you where I stand. I am not afraid of the introspective consequences of discovering that I am human and that while I revere humanity for all of its goodness and charity, I also recognize the inescapable truth that man, despite all of his noble acts of selflessness will always have a tendency to act in favor of his own self preservation. I would inflict any amount of pain upon you if it meant that the information you gave would save my child from certain demise.

This example is extreme. It is meant to be. It is meant only to illustrate that there IS a line. There IS a boundary. There IS a limit to man's tolerance of predation by other men. The question is: "Where is that line?" It is no doubt different for everyone. Personally, I wouldn't require near the extreme example cited above to resort to torture. I recognize the sanctity of innocent life. Why should the life of an innocent stranger be any more sacred than the life of my own child? It must be nasty business to torture someone. I don't believe I could make a living out of it. But I have no doubt about my willingness to engage in it should the outcome be that an innocent person lives to see another day, be it my child or yours.

One can attach whatever stipulations one likes such as "It must be confirmed that this person actually possesses this intelligence." or "It must be time sensitive." or "It must be a last resort." Those stipulations are matters for policy makers to address. This post is not meant to delve that deeply into the subject but rather only to illuminate the fact that there are times when even the most staunch opponent of torture would consider it as a reasonable alternative and if that be the case, that the person must reflect honestly upon his or her moral fabric and make a judgment as to when it is acceptable and how far it should go. It is not an easy subject to consider, but neither should it be an easy subject to avoid. For while this example was extreme, the underlying theme is not so far fetched. Much is at stake in our world today. We face an enemy who sees his own death as a victory. The technology exists to literally exterminate life as we know it and it is conceivable that plans are already underway to bring about such an end to our way of life on this planet. Are our principles really so unswayable that we would just willingly concede such a heavy cost for the sake of adhering to them? Not mine.

It's no "MAGNUM OPUS"....but it ain't that bad either!

So THIS is what all the fuss was about? You gotta be kidding me! This is the Opus Cartoon that might have ...(here's that word again)..."offended" some Muslims. Well, imagine that....Muslim's offended! Berkely Breathed is an Athiest and has also been known to fry up some Christians in his cartoons from time to time. The Washington Post, of course, has never had a moment's pause about "offending" those Christians whenever a cartoon lends itself to do so but, amazingly enough, their "testicular fortitude" fails them when it comes time to be "fair" and "balanced". Along with some 25 other newspapers, they chose not to carry this particular strip.

Well, let it never be said that I didn't have the balls to "offend" a few Muslims because I was afraid of getting bombed. This cartoon isn't that bad. But like many of Berkeley Breathed's cartoons, it isn't all that good either...(sigh). Whatever. Here it is.

(shamelessly lifted from Eugene Volokh)

Babe Ruth did it on Hotdogs and beer...

And the award goes to....(drum roll)....Barry Bonds! That's right ladies and gentlemen. Mr Bonds is the first recipient of the newly created "Wadical's Jackass Award". For those of you who live in a cave, Barry is on the fast track to surpassing Hank Aaron's MLB All-time Homerun Record. He's already surpassed Babe Ruth and steadily creeps up on the long standing and well respected record of Henry Aaron.

Barry Bonds is an asshole. His fellow players know this all too well. He's a one man show. It is even reported that during his three years at Arizona State University, that his conflicts with teammates eventually prompted Coach Jim Brock to leave his fate to a team vote..."thumbs up" or "thumbs down". The team spoke loudly with the "thumbs down" as Bonds was voted off the team by a margin of 22-2. Brock obviously was trying to prove the value of some team cohesion by initiating this vote and expected the team to keep Bonds. But when the results proved opposite of what he expected he was eventually forced to overrule them.

Barry Bonds doesn't deserve this record. Not just because he's an asshole, but because there is far too much speculation surrounding his "natural" ability vs. his "enhanced" ability. In my experience, 2 + 2 = 4 ! Or perhaps it can be better illustrated that...

Perhaps Mr. Bonds isn't aware that the following is also true:

The name, Barry Bonds will forever be associated with his "juice" supplying trainer, Greg Anderson and the infamous BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative) scandal. Among other things, Anderson is believed to have given Bonds the anabolic steroid, Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG). Though Bonds eventually escaped direct implication, BALCO founder, Victor Conte's lawyer, Troy Ellerman was eventually jailed for leaking confidential grand jury testimony regarding Bonds' deliberate use of the synthetic steroid, stanozolol.

In January of this year it was reported that Bonds had tested positive for amphetamines sometime during the 2006 season but was not suspended. Rather, he was slated for six more tests with the understanding that another positive test would have resulted in discipline. Initially Bonds tried to fault fellow player Mark Sweeny citing that he had used a balm from his locker which must have contained the amphetamine but later recanted that claim after it was discovered that he would only receive a slap on the wrist. He now claims that Sweeny was not involved in anyway.

Most fans don't even like this guy. Giants fans only root for him because they want their team to win. ABC and ESPN recently ran a poll which suggested that a staggering 52% of fans did not want Bonds to reach the 755 homerun mark. Suprisingly enough though, 58% would support his induction into the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose just made a few bets and was kicked out of baseball altogether, never to have his accomplishments acknowledged at Cooperstown yet this 'roid munchin' fake gets a pass! I'm confused.

Barry Bonds nominated for the "Wadical's Jackass Award" by Badbeans.

Wadical Awards

I decided to create these "awards" to hand out at my liesure to worthy recipients as they avail themselves. As you can see, the "Armed Citizen" award has already been bestowed. I'd like to make them a "semi-regular" appearance on this site, if possible. To aid in that endeavor, I shall accept "nominations" from my fans...ahem, I mean "readers".

You know anyone who needs their ass whipped? Any Jackasses so blessed with Jackassery that they stand out among other Jackasses? Hear of anyone warding off evil with a firearm? By all means, bring them to my attention.

And so, without further adieu...

Wadical's Armed Citizen Award!

Chris Chappell is the first recipient of Wight Wing Wadical's "Armed Citizen Award". Mr Chappel was instrumental in the apprehension of a murdering bank robber and exemplifies the purpose and value of an armed populous.

On May 14th, just after 9 am, Chappell was standing in line waiting for a teller when a thug with a gun entered the bank and with no warning at all, began shooting. Chappell along with some other bank patrons was able to scramble out of the bank, and retrieved his own firearm before taking cover.Meanwhile, unknown to Chappell, inside the bank people were dying.

Though she did not resist, the cowardly thug, piece of shit criminal, William Merriweather Jr. killed bank teller, Eva Lovelady Hudson by shooting her in the face. Then he systematically began shooting each teller, also killing Sheila Prevo and seriously wounding Anita Gordon and LaToya Freeman before ordering Bank Manager, Myron Gooding to open the vault. Money in hand, Merriweather exited the bank only to find himself on the business end of Chris Chappell's firearm and forcing him to retreat back into the bank. Again he attempted to exit but found Chappell standing firm with his firearm drawn. A short while later Sheriff's Deputies arrived and joined Chappell in securing the bank's exit. Merriweather, attempted to escape using Gooding as a hostage but stumbled, giving Deputy Alan Rhea a clear shot which he skillfully placed right in the groin! Falling to the ground and still clutching his bag of illgotten gain, the money had to be pried out of Merriweather's hands so that he could be handcuffed.

Along with the armed robbery charge, Merriweather faces two counts of Capital Murder, and two counts of attempted murder and Chris Chappell stands as one solid reason why this piece of shit predator isn't still out there robbing and killing. True to the criminal justice standard in the south, The Great State of Alabama will most certainly expedite Merriweathers meeting with his maker via a potent cocktail in the arm. But let us imagine for a moment if Chappell's firearm hadn't been in his vehicle that day. Merriweather may well have gotten away only to kill again. While you're considering that, imagine still that instead of in his vehicle, Chappell's firearm had been securly fastened to his hip! Might Hudson and Prevo still be alive? You ponder. I'm giving the guy an award.