- From the “UXO” Department – A California city was recently put on alert after an artillery or tank shell was found in its business district. Fortunately, no-one was hurt. The picture in the article doesn’t include any wires or such, so I’m going to guess that this was more of the “Hey, guys, look what I found hiking!” vein than the “Let’s blow up the capitalist scum!” vein. Of course, it could also be PSH over someone leaving that souvenir inert shell out where ninnies could see it, but that’s not covered in the article. Remember kids, if you didn’t drop it, you probably shouldn’t be picking it up.
- From the “Correct Approach” Department – Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has put out his views on six ways that the Constitution should be changed. Altering the Constitution’s protection of gun rights makes up two of those changes. While I don’t agree with the gentleman, at least he’s trying to do this the right way. If you want to restrict something that the Constitution protects, you have to change the Constitution, not pass unconstitutional laws.
- From the “Not Justified” Department – A man in Minnesota is on trial after being accused of murdering two people who broke into his house. Normally, I’d be trumpeting how unjust it is for someone to be prosecuted for defending home and hearth, but it seems that there is a slight wrinkle in this one. You see, evidence indicates that the gentleman in question waited for the two goblins to break into his house, and when they came into the basement, he shot them. The most damning thing is his assertion that the last shots were done specifically to finish the suspects off. This is why the first rule of talking to the police after an incident is to not do it until you have a chat with an attorney. The district attorney is making a stink about the fact that he fired more than one shot at each of the intruders, but that shouldn’t matter. If someone comes into your home as a thief in the night and catches you by surprise, causing you to feel your life or the lives of your loved ones are in danger, it wouldn’t matter to me if you fired off one shot from your great-granddaddy’s Kentucky rifle or an entire belt of ammunition from a belt-fed gun. If you’re going to shoot, you shoot until the threat ends. However, laying in wait for someone and then shooting them again with the specific, stated intent to kill them, apparently after the threat is over, is beyond the pale.
- From the “Truth Hurts” Department – 9/11 apologists are decrying a decision by the group that runs the 9/11 memorial museum to show a film which discusses the religious bent of the 9/11 hijackers and al Qaeda. Apparently they’re worried that the average visitor to the museum won’t be able to get their head around the Venn diagram that shows that, while not all Muslims are supporters or members of al Qaeda, all known supporters and members of al Qaeda are indeed Muslims. How horrible that the facts of the matter are openly discussed, rather than the normal conversation of how the hijackers and their leadership materialized out of thin air and how the massacre of innocent people happened because of something we all did to the oppressed people of the world.
- From the “Mama Bear” Department – A woman in Texas earned my respect recently when she fought off a dog that was attacking her child, including biting off the dog’s ear and shoving her own fist in its mouth to keep it from biting the child. The family had been taking care of the dog, and it unexpectedly attacked the child. The child has injuries to her head and face, and the mother sustained injuries to her arms. Just goes to show that the most dangerous place in the world is between a protective mother and her child.
- From the “Welcome Home” Department – The remains of a U.S. soldier, who died on Saipan during World War II, have been returned to his family and buried in Paducah, Kentucky. PFC William T. Carneal died during a Japanese counter-attack during the retaking of Saipan, and his remains, along with the remains of four other American servicemen, were found by a Japanese organization that is searching for the bodies of Japanese soldiers. I find it poignant that people from Japan traveled to Kentucky to take part in commemorating his life. Welcome home, soldier. You’ve been sorely missed.
News Roundup
Posted by daddybear71 on April 28, 2014
https://daddybearsden.com/2014/04/28/news-roundup-217/
Previous Post
Movie Quotes – Day 118
Movie Quotes – Day 118
Next Post
More NRAAM 2014 Pictures
More NRAAM 2014 Pictures
9 Comments
DaddyBear
DaddyBear’s Den 
Lazy Bike Commuter
/ April 28, 2014I think I’ve just found a plot hole.
What did cause the 9/11 attacks? There wasn’t any YouTube back then!
LikeLike
Corey
/ April 28, 2014I live across the river from Paducah his remains were escorted by the local police and fire departments as well as a group of motorcyclist (can’t remember the group name) And they had all the school kids out lining the road and waving flags.
LikeLike
daddybear71
/ April 28, 2014Outstanding.
LikeLike
oldnfo
/ April 28, 2014Corey- Patriot Riders… Thanks DB!
LikeLike
mrgarabaldi
/ April 28, 2014Hey DB;
Several comments on your news musings,,
I have severe reservations on a constitutional convention…The feds ignore the constitution now…they will ignore the new stuff..unless it is packed full of stuff that THEY like. I keep hearing stuff that if a convention is forced, I can see the collectivist pack it full of all the socialistic happy stuff because they will seize the process. Perhaps I am in error, but I regretfully doubt it.
As far as the guy in Minnesnowda, I tell everybody, with any major dealings with the gov’t, make sure you have a good lawyer. the money spent will save you years inside the joint with a criminal record.
You Do know that Islam is the religion of Peace…and if you say differently….we will stone you.
Kudos on the report of the returning Marine, I am a member of the PGR and we do stuff like that all the time. I am honored to do so,
I enjoyed your posting on the NRAAM, and the pics. The one next year is on Nashville and I will be there for that one. Planned this year, but had to have a procedure performed instead.
LikeLike
daddybear71
/ April 28, 2014Not sure if Stevens is calling for a convention, but my point is that if the anti-rights crowd wants to change the Constitution, then they need to amend it in the way that’s been done almost 30 times already.
LikeLike
3boxesofbs
/ April 29, 2014However, laying in wait for someone and then shooting them again with the specific, stated intent to kill them, apparently after the threat is over, is beyond the pale.
Shooting again after the threat was over made it deliberate murder. I was okay with every action up until that point.
I do think we, as gun owners, need to be very careful about how we express our views. Particularly However, laying in wait for someone in reality is there much difference between staying in one’s bedroom, ready to use lethal force when the intruders enter and waiting in one’s basement for the intruders?
I don’t think so. Condemning someone for a finishing shot after the threat is over; absolutely beyond the pale. But ‘laying in wait’ for someone could be applied to anyone who retreated to a safe area, hoping the criminals don’t come there but ready if they did.
Just my 2 cents
LikeLike
daddybear71
/ April 29, 2014I would be hard pressed to find someone guilty if they had either stayed in their bedroom and armed themselves or gone there after seeing someone invade their home. This guy set up an ambush at the bottom of his basement stairs because he’d been broken into before. It’s a shade of gray, I know, but that does make a difference to me.
Again, his mouth is going to get him convicted.
LikeLike
3boxesofbs
/ April 29, 2014This guy set up an ambush at the bottom of his basement stairs because he’d been broken into before.
I’m with you on the shades of gray but I’m interested in two aspects. First and foremost; could what we, as gun owners, say be used against someone else later. It could be claimed that the homeowner ‘set up an ambush’ in his/her own bedroom instead of trying to scare off the criminals.
I think we need to be very careful about our word choices here.
Second, I want to explore the morality of someone who ‘set up an ambush’. How exactly should a person approach a situation like this.
65-year-old man accused of murdering two teens
Should (s)he approach the criminals not knowing exactly where they are in the home? Possibly be surprised or not in a covered position when he does meet them?
Or does it make more sense to allow the criminals to approach, especially in a spot that has only one entrance. If I was the defense attorney, I would strongly argue that the home owner gave the criminals the chance to steal something and leave but their actions showed they had possible other motives.
I absolutely agree with you about him running his mouth. Pointing out the stupidity of his actions (last shots) and words is very appropriate.
I’m just not sure I am ready to condemn him for maintaining an advantage in that situation.
LikeLike