Posts Tagged ‘San Diego’

If one person had shot back at the shooter, would they be in trouble?

July 21, 2012
CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) members swi...

CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) members swing down Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, toward 69th St. ferry on trek to Washington / World Telegram & Sun photo by O. Fernandez. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There go the control freaks again, who don’t live in a dangerous neighborhood and don’t care about people who live in them that want to defend themselves.

The NYT got a movie critic to jump on this story and give gun control freaks something to chew on before their brains got in gear:

“In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.”–Egbert, movie critic, clueless gun ban advocate

Hey Egbert! What a line. Here’s a fact, not a theory: The only guy allowed guns in the theater that day was the killer. The bad guy. Cinemark prohibits guns inside, one commenter said he was turned away one day for carrying.

Hey Egbert! Not a theory: Aurora bans concealed carry, Cinemark bans guns, and as a result

You just shot yourself in the foot, you could say. We should want somebody to shoot back.

Oh and to prove to us that he’s right, he shot himself in the foot again, and showed that only nice big rich white liberals that have enough money to live in the safest neighborhoods really don’t care about the people who cannot afford to move there but still need to defend themselves:

I was sitting in a Chicago bar one night with my friend McHugh when a guy from down the street came in and let us see that he was packing heat.

“Why do you need to carry a gun?” McHugh asked him.

“I live in a dangerous neighborhood.”

“It would be safer if you moved.”

Oh, but don’t call him racist, no matter that CORE yells at people like that to let them have the means to defend themselves AND to leave the bad guys guessing about who might shoot back. (That’s CORE for Congress of Racial Equality, a civil rights group that was at the thick of the movement in the 1960’s).

Like they say in amicus briefs like in this lawsuit against Sand Diego’s harsh disarming law:

It costs twice as much to live in a safe neighborhood here in Miami-Dade than in Liberty City or Overtown, the highest crime areas in South Florida. Some people there cannot afford to move out. But wise-ass rich white guy Egbert, wants to take guns from blacks too.

Let’s see what he says to Condi Rice, who might not even be here if her Dad had not used his big gun to chase away some evil white guys when she was a little girl, eh? How about “Just move” to him, eh? The gun didn’t help, you say?

The Congress of Racial Equality filed an amicus in a lawsuit challenging unconstitutional abridgement on CCS policies in San Diego:

Blacks need to defend themselves too. “In theory”.

Not one person shot back, and that’s why so many got shot, same as in the movie theater at Fort Hood full of disarmed soldiers.

A team of four or five Palestinians once went into a shopping center in Israel, started shooting everybody in sight, until a Granny pulled out hers and shot back, wounding a couple of them. It stopped them cold. The wounded bad guy said in the ambulance they didn’t expect anybody to shoot back. It was just a few days after Israel legalized concealed carry.

If anybody should “worry” about concealed carry, it’s Israel, don’t you think?

And then there’s the time my wife was on the bus tour through Central America with her now ex-husband. There was a road block by a gang that had guys hidden in the bush, and they were stopping everybody and keeping the loot. It could have been former Contras, or former Sandinistas, the peace had been signed months before.

True story. They threw their passports outside, because diplomatic passports are kidnapper bait. But there was a guy in a Pepsi delivery truck nearby, and they heard the guy say, “Well, not for nothing a brought this!” And he pulled out his (great big) gun and started shooting at the guys taking the loot from the front.

At that a lady in a car nearby got hers out and started shooting and pretty soon they were shooting back at the guys in the bushes too. The bus waited for my now wife to get the passports and they took off on down the road but it was a full-blast shoot-out by then.

Egbert doesn’t know from logic. “in theory” people should be able to defend themselves. Maybe “in theory” Egbert should be able to defend himself, or what do you think?

The circle of madness. Egbert closes it with his own madness. “Them that love death”.


Love and Health: Romantic Love vs. Unselfish Love

February 4, 2012
I once was lost but now I'm found...

I once was lost but now I'm found... (Photo credit: ~intoxicating flutter~)

The Society for Personality and Social Psychology has made it official, Romantic love has a lot to do with one’s health, for better and for worse, and as I knew, mostly for the better!

The Many Unexpected Sides of Love:

San Diego, January 28, 2012 – Love can bring out both the best and the worst in people. Which way it turns depends on the best way to protect the relationship, say researchers studying the evolution of romantic love.

“Love is not merely sexual desire nor a unique emotion but rather a motivational drive-like state,” says Arthur Aron of State University of New York at Stony Brook, whose research involves the use of fMRI brain scans in understanding love. New research, being presented today at a conference of personality and social psychologists in San Diego, CA, is shedding light into the role romantic love plays in the formation, development, and maintenance of close relationships.

Of course the “positive side” of love in this article does the usual homage to the old pagan idea of human descent from animals, “from an evolutionary perspective”. Whenever they stick that in somewhere, just remember, they’re simply talking about something as a survival advantage, or some usually positive effect for the individual.

But here again, the researchers make a mistake common to everyone, that is, they include feelings of jealousy with those of love. They used the word “love” without clarifying that they were not talking about charitable love at all, that is, the sacrificial love that manifests in works of sacrifice and charity.

The green monster of jealousy that sometimes, in some people, results in the worst kind of NOT-love, is one of the reasons that it is best to subjugate the romantic kind of love under the pure kind of love, the sacrificial love, the giving kind, the sharing kind of love, God’s kind of love.

That’s something else that was missing in the discussion there. When the negative aspects of romantic love (“emotional attachment”) are accentuated, I’d bet that the benefits of romantic love are reduced or lost altogether.

Love is a big word, of course, and there is a relationship between feelings of attachment to a person and the possessive emotions that come with it for almost all people in various degrees.

But there are different “kinds” of love, or phenomena for which we use the word. Romantic love is one.

But the most important kind of love there is, is the sacrificial kind, the “altruistic” kind, the kind that motivated Jesus to lay down his life for us and go through his moments of agony for us, and to share resurrection with us.

This is the kind that motivated Patrick the Englishman to return to the land of his slavers and share the love of Christ with them and make that his life’s work.

Real love is the kind that motivated the Irish monks and the English monks to preserve old classics for future generations’ benefit, and to share their knowledge with the continent at Charlemagne’s’ invitation. It’s what motivated them to travel to East Europe and to Russia to share the message of love and eternal life.

Unselfish love is what motivated the earliest Christians to go where unwanted babies were thrown away by their mothers when Rome was still under the sway of its pagan religions and pagan gods, and to gladly take them in when new mothers learned that they could leave these babies at the doorstep of a Christian family instead of sacrifice them.

This kind of love is what is meant by LOVE they neighbor as thyself, a mandate that is self-enforcing in the hearts and minds and actions of those who actually believe in Love thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy mind, because if you actually love God in this way, the love for your neighbor will flow naturally and the world will see it.

That kind of love, the love of Christ, is what drove “Mother Theresa” to bring in the dying homeless off the streets and gutters in India, and care for them and comfort them in their last few days in the flesh.

Real love, God’s kind of love, cares for the poor and the infirm and the captives.

How about let’s have a Declaration of Love, and spread the word till we get a Revolution of Love?

A Love Revolution!