Rumors tip-toe behind your back.
But, when their time is right, they rush
to attack your face.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Thursday, January 2, 2020
White Settlement Aside, Letting Everyone be the Sheriff isn't Wise
One thought would be to have more deputies. A lot of more deputies.
We look at the White Settlement, Texas, shooting, at how the church had a number of people carrying guns, and how they shot the shooter down.
It becomes fresh argument for giving everyone a gun. But, should it be? Those who had the guns -- those who shot the shooter down -- were designated by the church.
There are two ways of going about law enforcement:
One, let the vigilantes do it. Allow everyone to bring their guns onto your private property, and to use them at their own discretion. More or less, let everyone who wants to appoint themselves as sheriff, appoint themselves as sheriff.
Two, deputize enough people. Instead of letting everyone declare themselves the sheriff, pick your officers. Run background checks on them. Train them on when and when not to use their guns -- and how to use them. And, then deputize them.
In the wild west, when law enforcement was running right, when the sheriff could see he had a bigger problem than he himself could handle, he went out and deputized however many he needed to cover the situation. When law enforcement wasn't running right, you had vigilante justice, everyone -- authorized or not -- on the loose, performing their own form of justice.
Being a sheriff isn't something you should be able to declare yourself. Should we really allow everyone to do that? What took place in White Settlement, the same, it remains to this day unwise.
We look at the White Settlement, Texas, shooting, at how the church had a number of people carrying guns, and how they shot the shooter down.
It becomes fresh argument for giving everyone a gun. But, should it be? Those who had the guns -- those who shot the shooter down -- were designated by the church.
There are two ways of going about law enforcement:
One, let the vigilantes do it. Allow everyone to bring their guns onto your private property, and to use them at their own discretion. More or less, let everyone who wants to appoint themselves as sheriff, appoint themselves as sheriff.
Two, deputize enough people. Instead of letting everyone declare themselves the sheriff, pick your officers. Run background checks on them. Train them on when and when not to use their guns -- and how to use them. And, then deputize them.
In the wild west, when law enforcement was running right, when the sheriff could see he had a bigger problem than he himself could handle, he went out and deputized however many he needed to cover the situation. When law enforcement wasn't running right, you had vigilante justice, everyone -- authorized or not -- on the loose, performing their own form of justice.
Being a sheriff isn't something you should be able to declare yourself. Should we really allow everyone to do that? What took place in White Settlement, the same, it remains to this day unwise.
Guns for All? Churches Remain with the Right to Say 'No'
With the shooting at the church in White Settlement, Texas, I can see the benefit of guns in the church. It is hard to deny the benefit served by allowing those parishioners to bring their guns. It clearly saved the day (save for the three lives that were lost).
Lest you think mine is a change of my opinion from what I have had in the past, I don't think so. I have argued for allowing private security. Though unpaid, those who brought their guns were specified by the church management. It wasn't open season. Not everyone in the congregation was free to bring their guns. Those who did, were cleared to do so, thus allowing a degree of discretion. If all could bring their guns, the danger of their being used, and the reality that those guns might end up being used -- same as the assailant in this case ended up using his -- would remain.
The proliferation of guns does not lead to a reduction in their use. When you deploy them, it should be with discretion. You want guns to defend, but that is as far as you go.
Churches have the right to say what can and cannot be done on their property. Yes, the Second Amendment does say we shall not infringe of the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not extend to bringing them onto private property if the private property owner doesn't want them there. Property rights are also part of the Constitution. If the property owner can say who can and cannot come on his property, he can say whether he will allow them to bring guns.
(Note: One sentence, "Property rights are also part of the Constitution," added Jan. 2.)
Lest you think mine is a change of my opinion from what I have had in the past, I don't think so. I have argued for allowing private security. Though unpaid, those who brought their guns were specified by the church management. It wasn't open season. Not everyone in the congregation was free to bring their guns. Those who did, were cleared to do so, thus allowing a degree of discretion. If all could bring their guns, the danger of their being used, and the reality that those guns might end up being used -- same as the assailant in this case ended up using his -- would remain.
The proliferation of guns does not lead to a reduction in their use. When you deploy them, it should be with discretion. You want guns to defend, but that is as far as you go.
Churches have the right to say what can and cannot be done on their property. Yes, the Second Amendment does say we shall not infringe of the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not extend to bringing them onto private property if the private property owner doesn't want them there. Property rights are also part of the Constitution. If the property owner can say who can and cannot come on his property, he can say whether he will allow them to bring guns.
(Note: One sentence, "Property rights are also part of the Constitution," added Jan. 2.)
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
In the Gallagher Affair, President Trump Erodes Our Values as a Nation
My thought? President Trump's restoring Edward Gallagher to his rank and his status in the Navy Seals is a reflection of how the president is corrupting America. The values you espouse as president, become the values your faithful followers endorse.
If you say the killing was justified, they follow your lead, and also see the killing as justified.
Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher: He was accused of just pulling out a knife and stabbing an ISIS prisoner. No reason. He just pulled out a knife, walked up, and stabbed the prisoner.
The incident was back in the news this past week, fellow Navy Seals calling him "toxic," and "evil."
Gallagher was found not guilty by a military tribunal in July. Yes, I would wonder if that is a miscarriage of justice. But, he was in the process of being kicked out of the Seals, and his title yanked as the military jury did convict him of posing with the body of the ISIS soldier.
President Trump restored his rank, membership and privileges in the Seals.
The issue brings up the thought of whether we should even allow that there should be such a thing as war crimes. The prisoner was an ISIS soldier. Now, how bad is ISIS? Can there be anything wrong with killing an ISIS prisoner? This is war: You kill the enemy.
No thought there for the sanctity of life. No thought there, that when the soldier has been captured, he no longer is a danger to you. Kill him: He inherently doesn't have the right to live.
And, President Trump? Support our officers. Support the military. Stand behind them. Have their back. Salute them.
Wrong remains wrong, regardless how the world spins it, and you don't salute what Gallagher did. Killing remains a violation of the Ten Commandments. Christianity remains Christianity, and what Gallagher did cannot be justified.
To have a president teaching us otherwise is not good. It erodes our values as a nation.
If you say the killing was justified, they follow your lead, and also see the killing as justified.
Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher: He was accused of just pulling out a knife and stabbing an ISIS prisoner. No reason. He just pulled out a knife, walked up, and stabbed the prisoner.
The incident was back in the news this past week, fellow Navy Seals calling him "toxic," and "evil."
Gallagher was found not guilty by a military tribunal in July. Yes, I would wonder if that is a miscarriage of justice. But, he was in the process of being kicked out of the Seals, and his title yanked as the military jury did convict him of posing with the body of the ISIS soldier.
President Trump restored his rank, membership and privileges in the Seals.
The issue brings up the thought of whether we should even allow that there should be such a thing as war crimes. The prisoner was an ISIS soldier. Now, how bad is ISIS? Can there be anything wrong with killing an ISIS prisoner? This is war: You kill the enemy.
No thought there for the sanctity of life. No thought there, that when the soldier has been captured, he no longer is a danger to you. Kill him: He inherently doesn't have the right to live.
And, President Trump? Support our officers. Support the military. Stand behind them. Have their back. Salute them.
Wrong remains wrong, regardless how the world spins it, and you don't salute what Gallagher did. Killing remains a violation of the Ten Commandments. Christianity remains Christianity, and what Gallagher did cannot be justified.
To have a president teaching us otherwise is not good. It erodes our values as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)