Archive for November 2008

Anti-Gun Policies at Work

November 23, 2008

You may have already heard that two people were shot at the Southcenter Mall in Tukwila, Washington, last night (Source). One was killed and the other was seriously wounded. When I first read about the shooting last night, I decided to do some research. It didn’t take long to discover the ironic fact that the Southcenter Mall is an establishment that prohibits firearms (Source).

Now let’s take a time out for a moment to review Washington laws in regards to carrying a gun. The law states that in order to carry a concealed handgun outside of one’s home or fixed place of business, the person must have a concealed carry permit (Source). Because the law is worded in a way that only regulates the carrying of a concealed weapon, any citizen who can legally own a handgun can also legally carry it openly on his/her person without a permit.

Many states also regulate where a weapon can be carried, regardless of whether or not a person has a permit to carry. For instance, in Mississippi it is illegal to carry a firearm into any premises with signs at the entrances that state that firearms are prohibited in the building (Source). It’s a bit different in Washington, where a business can prohibit weapons on the premises, but the prohibition is apparently not enforceable by law (though carrying a weapon into such a place can be considered trespassing). This is illustrated in a story posted by a user on, who was issued a trespass notice at the Southcenter Mall in Tukwila last year and was banned from the mall for a year for carrying a gun on the premises (Source). It seems that in this case, signs were not posted at all entrances, so the trespass notice may have not been enforceable anyway.

So back to last night’s shooting…as I’ve covered, the mall prohibits guns on its premises. What exactly does it think it’s accomplishing by doing so? All this ensures is that innocent rule-abiding citizens will not carry their guns into the mall. If a criminal wants to go into the mall and shoot someone, these signs aren’t going to stop them. Last night’s shooting is evidence enough of this. Such ignorant and dangerous anti-gun policies only serve to benefit criminals and strip protection away from the innocent.

It’s not like this is new either. I’m sure most people remember the Westroads Mall shooting in Omaha, Nebraska, in December of last year. This mall also prohibited firearms on its premises, a status that is enforceable by Nebraska state law (Source). That didn’t keep the kid from carrying an AK-47 into the mall and murdering eight people and wounding others. Or how about the Trolley Square Mall shooting that occurred in Salt Lake City, Utah, in February of last year? This was another establishment that prohibited firearms on its premises, but that didn’t stop the shooter from carrying in a shotgun, handgun, and a backpack full of ammunition and murdering five people and wounding others. Luckily, in that case, an off-duty police officer was in the mall at that time violating the mall’s anti-gun policy (which was not enforceable by state law) and engaged the shooter, effectively ending his killing spree by distracting him until other officers arrived and killed him.

I’ve heard some argue before, “well what are the chances that a person with a gun is actually going to be right there near the shooter when something like that happens anyway?” I have two responses:

1) It doesn’t matter what the chances are. What matters is that there is a chance.

2) The person doesn’t have to be right there next to him. Take the story of the off-duty officer at the Trolley Square Mall for example:

Yet even then, the officer “was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed.”


Sadly, these are not the only examples. I can’t even keep track of the number of school shootings I’ve seen in my time. I say this as if I am an old man, but that’s not the case. Did the anti-gun policies of most schools keep these tragedies from occurring? No. And how many of these could have been prevented or ended earlier by students or teachers permitted to carry guns had the laws been different? We’ll never know. What we do know is this: these anti-gun rules and laws have proven far too many times to be ineffective, and the chance, no matter how small, that shootings could be prevented or ended by law-abiding civilians with guns is a lot better than no chance at all.


Free Dr. Pepper for Everyone!

November 22, 2008

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics, but it’s so awesome that I had to let everyone know. Dr. Pepper had said earlier this year that if “Chinese Democracy,” the new album by Guns N’ Roses, actually released this year, they would give a free Dr. Pepper to everyone in the country. They didn’t believe it would happen because recording for the album began in 1994. But it’s releasing Sunday, and Dr. Pepper if fulfilling its promise.

“We never thought this day would come,” Tony Jacobs, Dr Pepper’s vice president of marketing, said in a statement. “But now that it’s here, all we can say is: The Dr Pepper’s on us.”

Beginning Sunday at 12:01 a.m., coupons for a free 20-ounce soda will be available for 24 hours on Dr Pepper’s Web site. They’ll be honored until Feb. 28.

( Source )

Heck yeah! So don’t forget to get your coupon for a free Dr. Pepper. And all you liberals out there…be sure to complain about evil big business all the way to the store.

Next on True Crime: The Bush White House!!!

November 18, 2008

Yep, you guessed it. The title is full of sarcasm. How did you know?

So I was in a book store earlier today and ended up staring in awe at the “True Crime” section. Well…it wasn’t really awe. Nothing I saw there surprised me. It was just completely ridiculous. There on the top shelf of the section all facing outward were the following four books: The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Ron Suskind, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception by Scott McClellan, The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008 by Bob Woodward, and Your Government Failed You by Richard A. Clarke.  As you’ll see from the descriptions of the books in the links (or just from the titles), these are all anti-Bush books…in the “True Crime” section of the book store…not in “Politics,” “Social Studies,” or other categories in which political books are usually found…but “True Crime,” a section usually reserved for books about, you know, actual crimes.

Now toward the bottom of this section of shelving I did see a few political books that looked like they were out of place, and I circled around to the other side where the “Social Studies” category was and found all of the rest of the political books.  But these books weren’t misplaced.  They were on the top shelf and all facing outward.  They were, in fact, the featured books of the “True Crime” section.  Apparently the book store has gone from simply selling books to pushing a political agenda as well.  Like I said, though…I’m not surprised.

McCain Doesn’t Know How to Email, But Did That Matter?

November 17, 2008

Too bad I wasn’t aware of this sooner…remember that ad that Obama ran taking jabs at McCain for not knowing how to send an email ( Link )? Well what did that really matter? Does a president need to know how to email? According to a recent article, no. Neither President Clinton nor President Bush (W.) used email while in office, and it’s being suggested that maybe Obama shouldn’t either. Why is this?

The president’s e-mail can be subpoenaed by Congress and courts and may be subject to public records laws, so if a president doesn’t want his e-mail public, he shouldn’t e-mail, experts said. And there may be security issues about carrying around trackable cell phones.

( Source )

I guess it was irrelevant after all. But we already knew that much.

Al Gore to Be Obama’s “Climate Czar?” (Updated 11/13/08)

November 12, 2008

There is supposedly talk in the Obama transition team of creating an Energy Security Council, which would be responsible for overseeing the administration’s policies on energy and climate change. The person that would be in charge of that council is currently being referred to as a “climate czar” and Al Gore is being mentioned as a possibility for that position ( Source ). I think I might throw up. At least it might create an interesting power struggle to give us all a good laugh (if we were to ever find out about it). Everyone knows how arrogant Gore is. How many times has he referred to himself as the “former next President of the United States?” I can see him now in a meeting with Obama and his Cabinet constantly trying to hold the center of attention and run the show because he thinks that’s his sacred right.


( Image Source )

Update (11/13/08): Teh Resistance has provided an update:

Gore says “No.” Who could blame him. He’s won an Oscar and a Nobel prize while not having to take responsibility for anything. Why put himself in a position where he would have to put up or shut up?

( Source )

I performed a search and found confirmation from the Washington Times:

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job.

( Source )

Some great news in the world of politics for a change! There’s still a downside…Obama is considering creating an Energy Security Council that will no doubt treat the theory of global warming as fact.

I removed my McCain/Palin bumper sticker…

November 9, 2008

As you may have noticed, I haven’t posted a blog since election day. I didn’t think it was really necessary to let everyone know that Obama won. I’ve been thinking about the blog, and I’ve been trying to decide what I want to do from here. Do I want to continue blogging as I have been or will I even be able to stomach keeping up with politics with the Democrats in complete control for at least the next 2 years? The thing about the latter is that I don’t know if I can stomach not keeping up with politics and current events. Those are things that I’ve been very interested in and kept up with closely for the last 4 or 5 years, and I believe it is important to do so. Considering that, I suppose I will keep posting on my blog as usual whenever I see a story that inspires me to do so. But you may see some extended periods of silence from time to time as I take necessary steps back every now and then to avoid frustrating the hell out of myself.

Anyway, as the title says, I removed my McCain/Palin bumper sticker. One of my pet peeves has been seeing people driving around with Kerry/Edwards or Gore/Lieberman stickers years after their losses, and I’m not going to be one of those people. I accept our loss, and I’m going to move on.

As I continue posting here, I believe it is important to show respect for our future president. For the past eight years, I have been absolutely disgusted by the pure unfiltered hatred directed towards President Bush and the ugly names that people frequently call him. If you want to say these horrible things about him in private conversation, that’s fine. But doing so publicly for everyone in the world to hear is a disgrace to our country. This was not simply appalling because I’ve supported many of his actions, but because he is our president and is deserving of the proper respect. I’m not going to suddenly reverse positions now that we have a Democratic president who I took a firm stance against during the campaign. He has been elected now, and he is soon to take office as our president and will be the leader and the ultimate representative of our country.

Let it be clear that I expect to disagree with many of the decisions he makes, and I won’t hesitate to criticize him for those decisions, as I’ve criticized President Bush for some of his. However, the criticisms I make on my blog will be made respectfully.

In conclusion, continue to enjoy (or loathe) my blog. I’ll be sticking around…unless I end up in an internment camp for dissenters.

Oh, come on! It was a joke!

CBS Jumps the Gun, Calls Race for Obama…on Monday

November 4, 2008

It’s nothing new for networks to compete to be the first to call the election, but they usually do so with some kind of integrity…you know…waiting until after the votes have been cast and they actually have a good idea of who won. But not so with CBS. The New York Times published quotes from CBS senior vice president Paul Friedman on Monday, November 3rd, announcing the network’s plan to try to call the race as soon as 8:00 PM (I would assume eastern time).  Only twelve states’ polls will have closed before then, and they wouldn’t even have the full results from those. Not only that, but he decided to go ahead and call the election:

When asked how Katie Couric, who is leading CBS’s coverage, might present the network’s projection to viewers, Mr. Friedman said he could imagine her saying, for example, “Given what we know about the results, or the projected results in various states, it’s beginning to look like it will be very difficult for John McCain to put together enough votes to win this election.”

( Source )

Oh, ok…not “very difficult for blank,” but “very difficult for John McCain.”  CBS sounds a little cocky and a bit anxious, huh?  Nothing like some flagrant liberal bias to set the mood for their election coverage.