Wednesday, January 22, 2003 My quesion is: And this is a surprise? Hasn't chopping off the head always been the best way to defeat a beast? Don't snipers always aim for the most senior officer? Although currently out of favor in much of the civilized world as unethcial, assassination has always had a role in conflict. I don't think the kiling of U.S. diplomats will have much impact on people on the homefront -- far less than a big attack. And besides, the U.S. is a bit like Hydra: chop off one head, and another two pop up. I don’t encourage people to have abortions and think it is a sad commentary on our society that it is the most common surgical procedure performed in this country, with more than 1.2 million abortions per year. But what I don’t get about this entire debate is how the Republicans and the Democrats are on the opposite sides of what I would expect. For example: These days, abortion rights are a polarizing issue. No republican running in an urban setting can afford to be anti-abortion. The opposite is true for Republicans. I think that this is an example of the party shaping the candidates more than the candidates shaping the party. And you have to ask if any issue is that important. Now granted, conservatives count the religious right among their strongest supports, so this is a case where the Republican ties to this important constituency have overwhelmed their normal position. Just as I let a single issue – the second amendment – mostly determine who I vote for, Mrs. Dave, a born-again Christian, votes on the abortion issue. (Thankfully, the two positions usually align so we can have peace at home during elections.) It would not surprise me if these are two issues are the strongest polarizing factors that make up more voters’ minds than any other issue. Just remember: The right to keep and bear arms is right there in the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t say anything about the right to an abortion.
#
( 10:56 PM )
CNN Predicts Al Qaeda to Target Diplomats and Political Figures
#
( 10:44 PM )
30 Years Later
Lot’s of news coverage about Roe vs. Wade and its 30-year anniversary. Here are my thoughts
Based on this, you would think Democrats would want to regulate abortion and Republicans would let the market decide. But that’s the opposite of their position. Republicans generally want to regulate and restrict abortions while Democrats generally want the women to make a choice whether or not to have an abortion
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
( 11:18 PM )
War Moves Closer as More Troops Move to Middle East
Rumsfeld will be doubling the number of U.S. carriers within striking distance of Iraq. I wouldn't want to face the wrath of four U.S. carrier groups and 100,000 ground troops. Not to mention 24,000 British soldiers and their 17-ship fleet, which includes another carrier. Hey Saddam, worried yet?
Expect increased protests and international diplomatic uproar between now and January 27. We're tightening the screws and the rest of the world will whine and whimper for a few more days.
Captain Dave predicts war by March 1, giving the world a month to convince Saddam to step down before he gets stepped on. #
( 11:10 PM )
Prepare Now for Future Terrorist Attacks
"Supposing they were able to kill instead of 3,000 people, 30,000 people. Does anyone doubt that they would do it?"
That's what British Prime Minister Tony Blair told senior parliamentarians earlier today, addressing the very real possibility that terrorists would obtain weapons of mass destruction. He also said that it is only a manner of time before the next terrorist attack. This confirms what the FBI and Homeland Defense people hear have been saying -- that a "spectacular" attack is in the works. Blair thinks it could be in Britain, and is arresting militant Islamic suspects in a sweep that follows the killing of a policeman and the discovery Ricin, a poison with potential terrorist uses. In the U.S., domestic attacks remain a threat and the possibility of bombings at overseas embassies, tourist hotels or nightclubs, as in Bali, remain likely.
We need to remind people that while 9/11 is not so fresh in our memories, it could happen again tomorrow. Britain is vulnerable, but so are we. So is Germany. So are most Western European states, especially now that the European Union allows movement between countries without passport control. Terrorists could strike at thousands of weak points, too many to monitor. Last time it was airplanes, next time it could be trucks, or trains, or boats or even barges laden with chemicals or oil. It could be schools or churches. It could be the Washington Monument, the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge. Law enforcement can't be everywhere. But civilians are. We need to be the eyes and ears on the lookout for suspicious behavior and report it to the authorities.
But we also need to be prepared. A major terrorist attack could civilians and citizens in several ways.
First, if you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, you could be right in the middle of the next attack. You could be a hostage like the Russians at the ballet. You could be a passenger on a hijacked jetliner. You could be exposed to a chemical agent when they blow up a rail car or crash a truck carrying a volatile poisonous chemical. You could be in the mall they attack with anthrax or small pox. You could be in the building they decide to target.
You can never be completely safe from a random attack (and let's face it, the proverbial bus could hit you tomorrow), but you can improve your odds by limiting your exposure in target-rich environments. If you go to DC or New York, be aware of your surroundings and limit your time in major landmarks. If you can't avoid this because of where you work or live, keep a bug-out bag handy and perhaps a gas mask or other protective gear in your desk. Even a bottle of water and some surgical masks in your backpack or briefcase could help. While Captain Dave sells gas masks to people from Arizona to South Dakota, many buyers are in the New York metropolitan region. You might want to follow their lead.
Second, you should be concerned about the impact further attacks could have on your ability to move around the country. When flights were grounded after 9/11, rental cars were impossible to find as people hopped in their rental vehicles and drove home, in some cases going from the West Coast to the East Coast, driving in shifts with fellow workers. One resourceful fellow rented a Ryder truck and drove from New Jersey to Ohio when he found that there were no rental cars available. Probably felt it was the best $900 he ever spent. But what would happen if the attack had been biological in nature and the government prohibited travel to keep the illness from spreading? What would you do if they closed the roads as well as the sky and you were stranded in a foreign city? How would your family manage without you?
Third, you will face some tough questions if there was a significant attack. Let's say, for example, that you're at home or at work and have to evacuate because of a dirty bomb or a more significant nuclear device has been set off upwind. Do you know where you would go? Do you know what you would bring with you? How quickly could you get ready? What routes would you take? If you decided to shelter in place, what could you do to protect yourself?
And what about communications? In the event of an attack that disables or overwhelms communication, do you and your spouse have a way to get in touch? Do you know where to meet? Who picks up the kids? Do you have someone out of town you can call and leave a message with? How long do you wait before you leave without your significant other?
All of these are questions you should sit down and answer today, while you still can. Make a plan and then live the plan when the balloon goes up.
Fourth, if the country shuts down for days or weeks, how long would you be able to last before you ran out of something important? Let's say there was a significant biological weapon attack. You survive, but the government has quarantined everyone to their house. No one except emergency personnel are allowed to drive. How long could you manage before you ran out of something you really needed - like formula or diapers for your baby, prescriptions you or someone in your household needs to survive, etc. How long will your food last? If you shop for dinner every night on the way home or go out to eat and only have a bottle of sparkling water and a bag of cat food at home (as a former colleague told me she did), you might want to stock some staples, just in case. You should be able to be self sufficient for at least a month.
You get the general idea. Prepare. Plan. Pre-position. Know what you will do when it hits the fan so that you do not sit there in stunned indecision. Even if you don't buy a single can of beans, having considered the possibility of a terrorist attack and planned what you will do will make you safer.
More on this on another day. #
( 5:49 PM )
Human Shields Should Get What They Ask For
If you are stupid enough to willingly put yourself in the path of a missile, bullet or bomb, then you deserve to get shot or blown into bits too small to send home. I know what Darwin would say about the human shields rushing to help protect Baghdad: the gene pool is better off without them.
Early in the Civil War, the townsfolk gathered to watch the two mighty armies meet on the field of glory. They quickly found that the sight of two armies killing and maiming each other was gory, not full of glory, and lost their picnic lunches. It sounds like some folks have refused to learn from history and are doomed to repeat it. I am sure the liberal media will deplore the attacks that eventuallykill these idiots without ever questioning what the hell they were doing there in the first place.
In my opinion, it is one thing to die for your country; it is completely another to die for a foreign dictator of that tortures, maims and kills his populace while flaunting international law. #
Monday, January 20, 2003
( 10:06 PM )
WSJ Hits Homerun with Opinion Pages
Today's Wall Street Journal opinion page is well worth reading. Bush's tax plan is covered, as is the hijacking of the courts by liberal judges, and more. OK, the online version actually requires a payment, but you can try a couple weeks for free. One of the country's best newspapers, in my opinion, it's worth it to subscribe electronically or in hard copy. #
( 9:59 PM )
The Al Queda Navy
We've got the largest navy in the world, but can terrorist in inflatable boats bring it down? Newsweek reported on the Al Qaeda navy this week, and their kamikaze-like plans to attack U.S. shipping. Is it possible that in our concentration on shooting down jets and incoming surface-to-surface missiles we are vulnerable to two guys in a rubber raft? I'm thinking that despite all the high tech stuff, they probably have some 20mm cannons that can traverse pretty low. What they need is gunners at the ready or Marines standing watch when the pull into port or head through a straight. Any Navy guys who can coment on this, please e-mail me.
But the real threat is not to our Navy ships, but to cruise ships, oil tankers and other transports. Could you imagine what a successful attack on the "Love Boat" would do to the cruise industry and the tourism industry in the Caribbean? Hey, that's worse than a virus!
Like the police, the Coast Guard can't be everywhere. The cruise ships and merchant vessels need to take their security in hand and start staffing up to meet the next attack. In certain waters, pirates are not a thing of the past, and terroists can appear anywhere. We need to take our security a bit more seriously at sea, in the air and on land. As the Israeli's have demonstrated, one way to do that is to arm the populace.
( 9:36 PM )
Bush Plays Iraq Game to Win
I think you got to give George Bush credit for how well he is playing the Iraq game so far. OK, when you think that the entire world appears to be lined up against the invasion of Iraq, and even Britain is slowing down a bit, it may be hard to see the logic to this statement, but follow me:
Scenario 1: In the past few days, Turkey, Russia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries have sent or are planning to send diplomatic missions to Iraq warning him that George Bush isn't blinking. Saddam sees the coverage on CNN just like the rest of us; he knows tens of thousands of Marines are going to be on the ground there in less than a month. He knows that U.S. and British tanks, artillery, planes and helicopters are closing in on his country. So his friends in the region are asking him to step aside, to live his life out in exile, spending his ill gotten loot.
If he bails, we have instant regime change, and Bush wins.
Scenario 2: Some of these countries are encouraging Saddam's top officials to throw him out in the mother of all coups. This may not happen until the U.S. actually starts attacking, but if it does, we again have a regime change and Bush wins. We probably get the new regime to turn over some of the weapons as a gesture of good will. We look good, they look good and Iraq gets U.S. aid to rebuild.
Scenario 3: Saddam keeps stalling for time, making a concession here, giving a bit more information there. Saying he will cooperate to forestall an attack, hoping to stay in power and that world opinion will prevent the U.S. from attacking. Although this may be the most likely scenario, Saddam is betting on the UN to refuse to approve an attack. But that's a desperate move, and one that shows his lack of understanding of his role in the world and of the position that the U.S. has. Bush and Blair already forced the UN's hand once, and are willing and able to do it again. At the most, there will be a few abstentions, but I doubt anyone would want to get on Bush's bad side. Most countries depend too much on financial and military aid form the U.S. Offend Bush too deeply, and you're cut off, as Germany learned during their recent elections.
Plus, I believe that most of our reluctant allies are secretly hoping the UN will approve the war. Then they can tell their populace that they had to cooperate with the U.S. because the UN approved of it. It provides them cover to go along with America and stay on our good side.
So in Scenario 3, the UN takes its time and eventually agrees that Iraq is in material breech and the war proceeds. This time, the tanks don't stop short and Saddam is deposed. Bush wins again, and with full support of the world body.
Scenario 4: Bush gets tired of waiting on a bunch of international bureaucrats and uses the next minor violation uncovered by the inspections as an excuse to start the war. During the course of the invasion, one of two things happens: Saddam uses weapons against the U.S., proving our point, or we find his hidden stash of chemical, biological and maybe even nuclear weapons. We call in international inspectors, they confirm it and Bush can say he was right. He wins big, kicking some butt and proving that his allegations were correct all along.
Sure, there are other scenarios, including scnearis that mix the above, but generally speaking the only way Bush can lose is if we attack Iraq and don't find any weapons of mass destruction. So while it appears that the international community is agains us, I think Bush has 51 percent of the vote and is playing this one pretty well.
#
Sunday, January 19, 2003
( 5:24 PM )
Captain Dave Exercises His Rights
You can't help noticing when you pick up most newspapers or watch most TV shows, that the mainstream media are in the hands of large corporations and they act as a check and balance on our government only when the government does something against the interest of the corporation or when the misdeed is so great, you can't help noticing. It doesn't take much viewing to realize that the traditional media no longer represent the people, they represent the liberal left. But the power of the Internet gives each of us the ability to share our thoughts, our concerns and our outrage with an audience that has the potential to reach millions. And when I blog, or post in a forum, I am exercising my first amendment rights.
Every day, most Americans exercise this right. And while we may have to worry about being politically correct with certain audiences, to make sure that we do not offend or harass anyone at work, we generally can say whatever we darn well please. In short, political speech is still allowed, and we can freely criticize our government and elected officials, something people in many other countries - like North Korea and Iraq - cannot.
But not as many Americans exercise their second amendment rights. And that's a shame, because if we do not exercise our rights regularly, they will grow weak and atrophy.
Today, I exercised the right. I attended a local gun show and purchased not just a firearm, but what I am choosing to call my homeland defense rifle.
Yes, I have more firearms than I need, but nowhere near as many as I want. I may never fire my new battle rifle in anger, but at the very least, it will bring me hours of pleasure on the range. Like the spare tire I hope to never use, a rifle in your gun safe gives you an added degree of safety. I know how to change the tire, and I know how to shoot the rifle. In a few weeks it will be sighted in at different ranges, cleaned and stored securely for that day.
Do I expect to use my homeland defense rifle in defense of my country? No. Would I use it in defense of my country if called upon to do so? Yes. Would I use it to defend my home and my family? Absolutely.
As the dealer was calling my information in to the Instant check process, another visitor to the show started looking at the gun I had just agreed to buy. He looked disappointed when I told him that I was in the midst of buying that one. But the dealer had two more in boxes behind the table. He went away happy, too. Both of us had a few things in common: We had come to the show knowing what we wanted; We had visited all the dealers and settled on this one; we were serious, competent gunmen. I may never see this guy again, or I may run into him on the range somewhere. Either way, it was good to know that our collective Freedom was strengthened a bit today.
As the Bill of Rights demonstrates, our forefathers put a great deal of stock in freedom of speech and the press as well as the freedom to own a military style rifle. Those guys ought to have known - they had just fought a war in which both helped them thrown of the yoke of England, which was believed to have the best army of its time. Don't let these rights atrophy. Exercise them!
A guy who knows quite a bit about exercising his rights, as well as shooting, is Fred of Fred's M14 stocks. I give this guy a lot of credit for influencing me and many others. He may be the Paul Revere of our era. If you like what you've read here, visit his web site. Click on his links for rifleman, columns and articles. If you decided to buy something, he would probably appreciate the business (his columns are worth every penny, as are his rifleman packages.) But I think he would find it even more important if you went out to the next gun show in your area and bought a battle rifle and several thousands rounds of ammo and then learned how to be a rifleman.
#
( 9:30 AM )
War Protesters Bark Up Wrong Tree
In 1979 or 1980, I marched in a rally in Washington, D.C. to protest registration for the draft. Yeah, we weren't even protesting the draft, just registration. But it was fun hanging out with my friends from high school, and I was really there to impress a girl I liked, so how bad could it be? We tried to fit in with the unkempt crowd of experienced protestors and hoped we looked cool. But in reality, after the first few minutes it was boring. My one enduring memory is that I was impressed by how many different devices our fellow marchers had in which to smoke pot and their cavalier attitude about something that, in my experience, was generally not done openly in public areas. I think if they had called it a smoke in, 95 percent of the participants would have been the same people wearing the same grungy clothes. It wouldn't surprise me if 23 years later, many of these same professional protestors are back.
Well, despite the protest, I registered, and we still have registration for 18-year-olds, so clearly, our protest did no good. And why should congress and the president listen to 100,000 protestors from a demographic that rarely votes? I guess everyone has to be young and dumb once, and this was about the same time I registered as a Democrat, back before I knew any better! (But then they say that if you aren't a liberal when you are young you have no heart, and if you don't become a conservative when you get older, you have no brain.)
But my point is that this protest did not do a bit of good, and neither will yesterday's anti-war protests. In short, these people would probably do a lot more good spending their time and money for a worthy cause, like donating time or energy at a shelter for battered women or becoming a foster parent (uh oh, I think my old liberal side must be showing!). Or how about teaching a Boy Scout safe gun handling and marksmanship?
The way to prevent war is not to protest in the U.S., but continue to put international pressure on Saddam to come clean and turn in his weapons of mass destruction. This is a despot who makes his political enemies disappear -- including Shiite Muslim leaders in Southern Iraq. This is a man who will rip the eyeball from a child of a political prisoner to make him talk. He has used chemical weapons on his own countrymen. He will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons on you or I, if he had the chance.
I think it is interesting to note that no one protested the war on Al Queda. Suppose Saddam had attacked New York City or Washington first, using a band of trained operatives. Would it be OK to attack Iraq then? Must U.S. citizens or soldiers die first -- as they did in Pearl Harbor and on 9/11 -- before war is justified? NO! If we know he has illegal weapons and the will to use them, if we know he has lied to the world, if we know he is a threat to not only our national security, but to his neighbors and that of almost any developed country with whom we are allied, why shouldn't we strike first? Don't we as a country have the right to defend ourselves against a country that has the ability and opportunity to harm us and has expressed an intent to do so?
These peaceniks want to stop prevent a war, but their pansy attitude will only encourage the world to see the U.S. as uncommitted and weak, thereby increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack and a war in Iraq. #
( 8:54 AM )
Gun Control Causes Australian Crime Wave
The following is an e-mail from an Australian police officer:
Hi Yanks,I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.
The UK experienced a similar surge in violent crime -- especially the robbery of occupied homes -- as a result of their misguided efforts to remove guns from the hands of private citizens. Compare this to what has happended in states that approve concealed carry laws -- crime drops because criminals fear citizens with guns more than they fear the police or our justice system.
Gun control laws like those of the UK, Canada and Australia are causing violent crime to rise, not protecting the citizenry. Whether you own a gun or not, the very existence of the right to own a gun protects you by acting as a criminal deterrent. Write your senator and representative and ask them to vote against gun control and to support concealed carry reciprocity.
#
( 7:37 AM )
AR-15 Magazine FAQ Updated
In these post-Clinton cime bill years, gun owners are paying through the nose for high capaity magazines. This is especially true for AR-15/M16 magazines. The AR-15 Magazine FAQ is a terriffic resource for anyone who is looking to buy these mags, and this version is just updated. Check it out so you don't become a felon by mistakenly buying a pst-crime bill mag.
#
|
