Or just in need of further education?
Sarah Shahi plays Sameen Shaw in the CBS drama “Person of Interest” and has also appeared in shows like “Fairly Legal” and “The L Word.” The 34 year old Texan native is descended from Persian royalty, an ex-Dallas cheerleader and a pretty good shot, too. The married mom of a three year old son spoke to FOX411 about the show, being a cheerleader and gun ownership. (…)
(…)If you own a gun you need to educate yourself. It can’t fall into the wrong hands. There should be mental checks. More background checks go into adopting a dog then someone walking into a store and being able to buy a gun. I think that’s not right. (Fox 411)
Obviously, she needs to be educated at the very least. I love the show Person of Interest. And her’s is an interesting character. But comments as above show a lack of knowledge of the issues. Of course, they don’t interview and quote unknown, anonymous, disabled, old man bloggers. Just beautiful people.
AND, she already HAS her gun!
h/t Maddened Fowl
Officer involved shooting near Phoenix gun shop
PHOENIX – A robbery at a gun shop in Phoenix led to an officer involved shooting early Monday.
Officers and a SWAT team were searching for one suspect in the area of 19th Avenue and Camelback Road shortly after 6 a.m. while two others had been detained.
One suspect may have been shot in the hand. No officers were hurt.
Traffic was stopped between Camelback and Missouri roads on 19th Avenue for a couple of hours but have since been re-opened.
As of 7 a.m. police had conducted the residential search and all side streets were re-opened.
The residential area search on 19th Ave. (OIS) is complete, side streets are open. Clearing the gun store and adjacent buildings now.
— Phoenix Police (@phoenixpolice) March 3, 2014
The light rail was also affected, with passengers being asked to get off and a bus will take them to the next station.
By 8 a.m. it was back to running on normal schedule.
Jim Cross, Reporter
Well, THIS got my blood pumping this morning! This was the gun store where I used to hang out (and allegedly ‘worked’ part-time) a few years back! And I saw the headline and the location and freaked out!
Of course, reporters are not lawyers. Or cops, or even have a clue about most things, apparently (excluding Biff, of course!).
You see, it was an attempted BURGLARY of a closed store, NOT a robbery! No store personnel were present. It was dark out, before breakfast Monday morning! The store opens @ 10:00 A.M. I’m guessing crack reporter Mr. Cross doesn’t understand that robbery and burglary are NOT synonymous!
Mostly Cajun, All American and Opinionated reminded us of this, with this almanac entry:
1941 – Charles Lindbergh testifies before the U.S. Congress and recommends that the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Adolf Hitler. Just because you’re famous for being good at one thing doesn’t mean you’re smart about everything…
Are you listening Bill Maher, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Steven Spielberg, Morgan Freeman, George Clooney, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey et al.
YES, they have a right to an opinion!
Even if it’s wrong, or misinformed.
And, don’t get me wrong. Just because I like someone’s film or stage performance (or think they’re hot or cool) doesn’t mean I think their opinion about politics or restriction of MY RIGHTS holds water!
Here’s a TV show I never watch, and have no interest in. I’ve seen snippets, and except for the family’s touching religiosity (like dining together and saying grace) I find it inane. It’s reportedly the most watched show on television!
Based on Mr. Robertson’s pronouncements, this is an area where he and I disagree.
I’ve never been to a Chik-fil-A. There isn’t one nearby. I understand the food is exceptional (for fast food), the places are spotless, and, because of the company’s president’s predilections, it is closed on Sunday. They are rumored to have terrific biscuits.
The media was all over the Chik-fil-A story last Summer, and is now having a feeding frenzy over the Duck Dynasty story. How dare people hold opinions different from those promoted by the mainstream media?
This doesn’t mean I agree with the President of Chik-fil-A or Phil Robertson. But, I can make my own decisions with regard to my interaction with them! (or not).
AND, they have a right to express their opinions!!
If you disagree with the president of Chik-fil-A, so be it. If you choose not to patronize them, don’t. If Phil Robertson upsets you, don’t watch the show. Or watch it and yell at the TV – I don’t care!
Just don’t tell me what is politically-correct to buy or watch. I make my own decisions, thank you.
(from The San Antonio Express News, courtesy of Live from the Alamo)
We have advocated in the past for universal background checks and an assault weapon ban. Incompatible with the Second Amendment? Not if the concept of “guns in the wrong hands” has any meaning.
I had a thought upon reading this. What if we promoted universal background checks for anyone who wished to establish religion and freely exercise it, or speak freely, or publish, or peaceably assemble or petition the government for redress of grievances? And ban certain kinds of rapid dissemination of published material. Incompatible with the First Amendment?
After all, isn’t there a concept of “words in the wrong hands”?
How far do you think we’d get? Questioning the inviolability of The First Amendment? We’d be tarred and feathered and pilloried and spat upon and run out of town on a rail. Then hanged, drawn and quartered and the pieces arrested!
Of course there are “common sense” controls on The First Amendment! Laws against libel/slander, inciting riots, yelling fire in a crowded theatre. And there already are “common sense” controls on The Second Amendment. Laws against armed robbery, armed rape, armed mayhem, armed murder.
Mr, President, Mr. Blumberg, and Mr. King – leave me and my rights alone! If I do something wrong, arrest me.
David Codrea poses the question…
THIS because Christian chaplains have been threatened with penalties if they perform their functions under military color-of-authority. Because of the government ‘shutdown’, e.g. 15% of the federal government.
Of course, word has come out that agents of the government are to make the shutdown ‘as painful as possible’ for the regular folk. Because someone didn’t get his way.
Because someone in charge is a petulant child.
Mr. Codrea and I want to know.
AND, he states further: What do you think the jihadists will want to do if the answer is “Yes”?
Inquiring minds want to know…
I’m not a fan (nor a regular reader) of the Huffington Post, any more than I am of ‘public’ television or NPR.(No, that’s not true – I dislike HuffPO more, for their outright bombast) At least NPR tries to have the ‘cosmetic appearance’ of centricity.
Give Me Liberty linked to a HuffPo stat-fest, showing how drug overdoses and traffic accidents accounted for more deaths statistically than firearms!
Now most readers of this blog (all two of you) knew this, but my point is this comes from the Huffington Post!
Does this mean they’re preparing an opinion piece about severely restricting drug access and use or driving?
I kinda doubt it.
But, it IS good to see.
…and vice versa. (!)
Why aren’t we seeing this trumpeted in the MSM? Inquiring minds want to know.
||By Ali Al Sharnoby (Bio and Archives) Monday, August 19, 2013
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
I generally do not approve of simplistic thinking. Of course, some things are black and white, e.g. good versus evil, but the question is in the nuance: What IS Good and what IS Evil?
Ay, there’s the rub.
I personally believe that not all Muslims are evil, or hold to Islamofascist views, any more than all Christians believe in stoning adulterers, gays and witches. Muslims are not all Osama and Christians are not all The Church Lady. How’s THAT for simplistic?
But, you’d never seen that in our media. In a weird twist, Islamofascists (the Fort Hood mass murderer, for example) is portrayed as workplace violence, and Christians are portrayed as violent, small-minded, bigoted, all hateful of those not members of their specific brand of religion. Religion pretty much takes it on the chin, except Islam. That’s off the table.
I think the one example I’ve seen on mainstream commercial television NOT doing this is Blue Bloods (not a news or opinion show), which shows an Irish Catholic family celebrating regular Sunday dinners after church. No making fun of Catholics or other Christians, and even bringing in other religious cultures. The family business happens to be policing. And Tom Selleck is always good.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t question or even occasionally lampoon. But let’s be even-handed and factual in so doing.
And news should be just that – facts regarding that which is new.
Sundance reports in The Last Refuge that CNN is the official paid party arm of the Administration’s disinformation!
As it says in the article, authored by it’s own reporters:
~This is not a matter of opinion, the CNN stories are documented, attributed and cited. They are factual. Everything is verifiable within the embedded links and citations.~
~The central issue is Media Controlled by The Obama Administration, and more specifically CNN – as a VERIFIED tool for propaganda and disinformation.~
They are being paid by the government to report what they want us to see and redact those things they’d rather we not see. (As some suspected all along).
Quelle surprise? Only in that’s is so direct.
Please go and read the whole article. Then take a moment to vomit and compose yourself. I hear people gripe about Fox News editorial content all the time – which of course isn’t news – but CNN is held up as the gold standard (at least in the minds of those who dislike Fox!)
Pravda on the Chattahoochee - THIS is CNN
OpenMarket.org advises us of yet another behind the scenes move by the current administration to control more stuff.
This time it’s blogging…
by HANS BADER
Can websites be forced to change to accommodate the disabled — by using “simpler language” to appeal to the “intellectually disabled,” or by making them accessible to the blind and deaf at considerable expense?
The key passage:
But now, the Obama administration appears to be planning to use the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to force many web sites to either accommodate the disabled, or shut down. Given the enormous cost of complying, many small web sites might well just go dark and shut down. The administration wants to treat web sites as “places of public accommodation“ subject to the ADA, even though they are not physical places. Courts used to reject this argument when it was made just by disabled plaintiffs, but now that the Justice Department is making it, too, some judges are beginning to buy it, opening the door to trial lawyers surfing the web and sending out extortionate demand letters to every small business whose web site is not accessible to the blind (or perhaps too hard to understand for the mentally-challenged).
Can you say government wholesale censorship? Sure you can. And I can, too, but perhaps not for long.