Fish In A Barrel

It's just too damned bad that no one told the suicidal gunman at Northern Illinois University that he was in a "Gun Free Zone". Maybe if he knew that it were "against the law" to have a gun on campus, he would have refrained from going on this rampage. Good thing that everyone else there was following the law, though huh? I mean at least they died as "law abiding citizens", right? That's all that really counts, isn't it? I wonder how come you never hear of a "crazed gunman" going on a shooting spree at an NRA convention? Quite puzzling.

This is getting old, folks. It's getting ridiculous. Anti-gun moonbats continue to demand that college students remain defenseless while a crazy man takes as many as he can with him to his grave. The law protects no one. No law ever has. The law punishes offenders "after" they have committed their crime. So what if it's "illegal" to have a gun on campus? It's also illegal to shoot people! So when a man sets out fully intent on killing a bunch of people and then ending his own life, he surely doesn't care that it's illegal to possess the tool with which he plans to execute them. Any laws that supposedly "prohibit" such actions mean absolutely nothing! And this is not unique to college campuses, either. It is true of any place where the government says you cannot carry a weapon to defend yourself.

I propose that instead of posting a sign that reads "No Firearms Allowed", or "This is a Gun Free Zone", that they advertise with the following words: "It is illegal for you to defend yourself in this place. If attacked by someone with a gun, yell, scream, pray, or cower but you may not use deadly force to protect your own life." As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, one thing will always remain true: The only thing that will ever stop a person with a gun, is another person with a gun. That is an indisputable fact. The question is: Who will that person be? A cop? Yes, that would be nice and tidy provided there happens to be one nearby. But just as a kid doesn't stick gum under the desk when the teacher is looking, neither will a criminal decide to act when a police officer is present.

So let's say you're the helpless citizen trapped in a building with a crazed gunman or worse yet, more than one. What will you do? Call the police? Yeah, that's a good idea. What's that? They're on the way, you say? Oh, OK! Well then, that makes it all better now doesn't it? We'll just wait for them to arrive and put a stop to this madness. Good thing this gunman is busy shooting "other people" while we all wait on the police to arrive and not YOU, right? Oh, look! Look out there! There's a policeman outside. Hurry, dude! What's he doing? He's hiding behind his car with his gun drawn and talking on his radio! Why is he not rushing in to save the day? My God, there are people dying in here! What the hell is he waiting for!!?? BACK UP? We don't have time for back up! He's coming my way, I'm going to be next. Oh my God, here he comes! Please! Please! Oh God, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME!

So what will you do when there's no cop around? You don't know? I'll tell you what you're going to do. If you are a law abiding citizen in a "Gun Free Zone", YOU WILL DIE! In an horrific and grotesque fashion, you will meet your end at a time of someone else's choosing. No glory or purpose shall have come from your sacrifice. No greater good shall have been served by your willingness to adopt no means of protection. All of your struggles and pleadings will have been in vain and it will be then, amidst your suffering that you will come to the stark realization that no sign, no policy, no law, no court opinion or interpretation, no blind faith in the gentleness of mankind, no pacifist philosophy and no chanted slogans, could have saved you nor prevented the tragedy you have become a part of. Like so many cattle, you and those around you will have been put down, all without a single means of protest. Death will be the only release from your pain. You will have been forced to this point. You will have followed the wide, paved, well beaten path of law abiding citizenship to this very cliff's edge. You will have had no choice. You will have had no alternative. You will have had no escape and above all....You will have had no protection. You will have met this demise....because the government says so.

How long can we stand for this madness?

Why debating a Progressive/Liberal is akin to bashing one's head against the wall:

Civilized debate: What the heck is that? What makes it civilized? Why would civilized people want to argue with one another? What’s the difference between a free exchange of ideas in a civilized manner and just bashing one another with insults and innuendo? Inevitably, during a debate, someone’s going to get their feelings hurt. More often than not, that person will be the liberal in the bunch because their lives are led and their decisions are made based not on reason or logic but rather upon how they feel. It’s what makes debating with a liberal so doggoned difficult. Their emotions are a hindrance to a free flowing give and take conversation. Sooner or later they will become offended and then everyone will have to spend hours trying to decide who the offending party was and by that time the subject has been lost. It seems to become a sub-topic every time a hot debate begins. Thin skinned people who are short in mental stature always seem to be gravitated toward popular topics that are being debated about and they lash out with pointless comments meant only to enrage either because their ineptitude and inability to keep up frustrates them or because they feel as though you have insulted them, the end result being the same, the conversation gets steered way off topic. Often times one will note that, mysteriously enough, these occasions seem to present themselves at a time when the liberal needs to dodge a bullet, so to speak.

Debate is healthy. Open dialogue with one’s opposition is mentally stimulating. Some find it entertaining. Others find it informative. But very seldom is one actually swayed in their opinion. If anyone is actually swayed it is not the participants but rather the silent observers and even this is a rarity. So, why? Why even bother? Is it for the satisfaction that you’ve outlasted your opponent? Is anyone so shallow as to think that because an opponent disengages that it means victory? Some, perhaps. For those, it is more about their word being last rather than being significant. But for me debate solidifies my resolve to constantly evaluate my position. Why do I believe the things I do? Can I articulate to another not only what I believe, but why I believe it? Can I be persuasive enough in my statements to give an opponent a moment of pause to consider their position? Can I glean from their responses anything that would give me pause to do the same? What can I learn from my opponent? Is he crazy, misguided, embittered, or have I misread him? It is easy for one to assume that those who are polar opposites or spectrally different are stupid. I’ve been guilty of that very thing on occasion. Recognizing the ignorance and bigotry of such an assumption it is for this very reason that I seek to engage those who see the world differently than I do. To seek dialogue with a person in an effort, not necessarily to sway their opinion but rather to understand them and their point of view is what freedom is all about. If, in the end, all we have gained is a little better understanding or tolerance for another’s point of view, was it not time well spent?

Unfortunately this endeavor is rarely successful for the traditional/conservative. I speak not from some random, arbitrary opinion but from experience when I say that debating a progressive/liberal point for point is almost impossible. Emotions absolutely cannot be put aside in favor of logic and reason in a liberal mind. They are a constant in the liberal equation. It is the progressive/liberal who leads the forefront of the professionally offended left. Seeking out new things to be offended by is their pastime. They are the inventors of “political correctness” which hinders if not prevents altogether, honesty and the free exchange of ideas. One can no longer call a “spade” a “spade” in the world of the progressive liberal. One must call a “spade” a “perfectly legitimate suit of color which is normal and equivalent in every way, fitting the lifestyles of some but not others that may or may not resemble the head of a shovel.” Often harboring a double standard, progressive/liberals are free to temporarily dismiss this practice to put you in your proverbial place so long as you are not a member of a protected class of peoples. If you are a white, male, Christian, you can be attacked and insulted with no preclusions whatsoever. You however cannot respond in kind lest you be labeled a racist, fascist, or a bigot. Any point you make that cannot be disputed with fact, will be summarily dismissed with prejudice. Their creed is:

“I am a proud liberal, free from the bonds of archaic religious practice. I am the “enlightened” and you are the blind. I am tolerant and you are a bigot. I am open-minded and YOU ARE WRONG!”

They are elitists in their own right. Believing themselves to be above reproach, they make no attempt to defend their position based on any accepted form of reason and logic for it is that “reason” and “logic” that they reject. They are self-appointed custodians of the unfortunate and downtrodden. They are Socialists in Democrat’s clothing. To engage in civil debate would mean that one would have to be open to receiving suggestions from another. Progressive/Liberals aren’t open to anything except slamming the door on Traditionalist/Conservatives. They are looking for conformists. Dissenting viewpoints need not apply.

Mmmmm, MOONBAT MEAT!

Quite a spirited debate raging over at "Jenn's Journey as a Conservative Chic."

Pretty good site, I've dropped her link in the scrollbar to the right. Moonbats a plenty. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Robert's cleaning moonbat meat out of his teeth right now! Come and get you some!

Time for a "Wadical Award"

J. David McSwane, editor in chief of The Colorado State University's student newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian is the first official recipient of the Wight Wing Wadical's "Somebody ought to whoop yer ass!" award. His recent editorial about the tasing of a University of Florida student was titled in large block letters, "Taser this. F**K BUSH."

Nice job McSwane. That must've took a significant dose of moonbat brainpower to come up with that catchy little headline. How you arrive at the conclusion that the tasing of a student for refusing to cooperate with police is somehow the fault of our President forges new frontiers in jackassery for the liberal elitists of America's academia. How can you expect to be taken seriously with such a preposterous message much less by delivering it with the unimaginative vocabulary of a high school drop out? One would expect to read such parochial commentary as yours on a bathroom stall but never on the pages of a newspaper representing the entire student body of a major state university. Your advertisers seem to agree. $50, 000 in reduced advertising revenue has got to sting a little, no?

As is typical of your kind, you conveniently hide behind the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, an amendment that you would enforce only when it suits your cause. No surprise, your voice is absent when elementary school students must sing "modified" carols in what must be called their "winter play" because the word "Christmas" is forbidden. You and your fence hopping, morally bankrupt, liberal pals beat a different drum when a judge chooses to display the 10 Commandments on the wall of a courtroom.

I believe your fellow student, Nick Hemenway, proved that he has a much better grasp on the concept that with liberty, comes responsibility when he said, "Although the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, nowhere does it claim to provide freedom of consequence." Your parents must be so proud that those college level English Composition and Journalism courses have taught you to publicly express yourself in such colorful ways. But then again, one might convincingly argue that your lack of class and warped social graces would reflect poorly on them to begin with and that you are just an extension of the upbringing you received. Either way, you're an ignorant putz, McSwane, and somebody ought to Whoop Yer Ass!

It matters, not so much what we've done, as what we're going to do

No cowardly moonbat at the traitorous, Soros funded "MoveOn.org" possesses the honor required to look a man like General David Petraeus in the eye, much less spit in it as they did by taking out a despicable ad in their puppet newspaper, The New York Times accusing him of betrayal. Where Hilary gets the gall to damn near accuse the man of lying, replying to his report by saying : "I think that the reports you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." I'll never know. One thing is for certain, though. The left is willing to do ANYTHING to derail any plan for victory in Iraq, because they see it as a victory for Republicans. The typical "smoke and mirrors"/"distraction" tactics apply, as usual, when they debate the issue, choosing to concentrate on the pointless position that invading Iraq was wrong to begin with. Well let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are right, that the entire invasion was an ill conceived idea by an idiot President.....So the hell what?

Life is not a series of perfect decisions, made with perfect interpretations and carried out by perfect execution. Hypothetically speaking, (and I do mean HYPOTHETICALLY) if you or I made a mistake, then upon realization of that mistake we would reasonably be expected to make the best decisions we could to rectify (if possible) or at least minimize its immediate and long term impacts. It's what responsible people do. It's commonly referred to as "Damage Control". Why is this concept so difficult to grasp for the Democratic elitists in Washington, so many of whom conveniently forget that they too voted in confidence for the plan to invade Iraq? Why are they so hell bent on the absolute defeat of American forces in the Middle East? Why would they accept such an absurd notion as retreat, and thus defeat?

Save your answer to that question and consider the following. Though I believe that calling the invasion of Iraq a "mistake" is in itself a "mistake", if it allows the Democrats to save face, why can't we all just agree to disagree on that fact and move the hell on? Why wouldn't they take the responsible, patriotic route of insuring that any subsequent moves by the United States wouldn't jeopardize it further (such as tucking tail and running)? Why do they steadfastly refuse to concede the very factual and obvious point that retreating now would, negate and nullify any sacrifice made by our armed forces thus far, contribute to the rapid destabilization of the entire region, create a safe haven environment for terrorist organizations and, at the same time, embolden, encourage, and empower our enemy even further, thus endangering American lives and interests both at home and abroad? We can disagree all day long whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong. Historians will be debating that issue long after we're gone, but at the same time, it is ludicrous to suggest that, accepting that disagreement as a given, we cannot still adopt a common goal of the best route to achieving peace and stability through victory. How we got on this particular square in the first place is a moot point, but one the Democrats continue to harp on at the expense of ignoring the obvious and very valid question, "How are we going to proceed with the plan for victory, NOW?", that is unless the opposition doesn't like the concept of victory, preferring instead our subservience to our victors, in which case retreat would be the logical course of action.

Are there any patriots left among Democrats? Are there any who wouldn't sell out this Country and its brave servicemen and women for a few points on the latest political poll? Is making our Republican President into a buffoon that damned important? If there are any true Americans left among you, for the sake of our posterity, SPEAK THE HELL UP! Otherwise, go ahead and buy your Burqas, Qurans, cheap sandals and prayer mats now, because if our nation follows your lead, THAT will be its reward. First, we'll all speak Spanish, and then we'll all speak Arabic.

For those of you who believe that, despite any hypothetical mistake we may or may not have made in our decision to invade Iraq, VICTORY is the only acceptable outcome to this war, then click the link on the pic below and sign the petition so that your voice might be heard over the deafening flapping of the white Democratic flag of surrender.

(link lifted from the beautiful and talented Michelle Malkin.)