TULSA, Okla., April 28 (UPI) — An Oklahoma court has shocked local prosecutors by ruling that, according to state law, oral sex with an unconscious victim is not rape.
The state’s criminal appeals court made the unanimous ruling late last month, setting off fierce opinions about how many of the country’s laws have troublingly antiquated ideas about rape.
The ruling stems from a 2014 case of a 17-year-old boy allegedly assaulting a 16-year-old girl after offering to drive the girl — who witnesses said was drunk and unconscious — to her grandmother’s house.
The girl was still unconscious after being dropped off and was taken to a hospital where doctors found the boy’s DNA around the girl’s mouth and on the back of her legs. The girl said she had no memory of leaving the park and Tulsa County prosecutors charged the boy with forcible oral sodomy.

Source: Oklahoma court: Forced oral sex is not rape – UPI.com

Disgusting, right? We should gather pitchforks and torches, mosey over the OK Supreme Court and make our displeasure known.

Except that the ruling is right and the reason is clearly explained:

Simply stated, as disgusting as the incident was, it is not codified as a crime within the narrow specifications that the Oklahoma Legislature chose to define Forcible Sodomy.

Separation of Powers. A court does not create laws, it rules and decides cases according to the law. The Legislatures makes the laws and the Executive enforces them.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court and Judge Pickerill did what they were supposed to do.

Lawyers feel free to chime in.

Hat tip to Mark L.A. and Ken O.

So the owner of Nova Armory decided to launch a massive lawsuit against people who were actively opposing the opening of the store. The suit includes delegates that were pretty much using their powers as elected officials to “advise” (In a very Sopranos way) other store owners and the owner of the mall their dislike for a gun store to be opened in their area. Other took to the social media to also show their disapproval and apparently some took it the extra mile and now are being sued too. One of them is Ryan Albert who the Washington Post gave a full Opinion column to express his displeasure under the title “I was sued because I don’t want military-grade weapons in my town“.

I grew up shooting shotguns and rifles with my grandfather in rural Georgia. He would take this city boy out to the farm that has been in my family for more than 150 years. He would teach me how to safely load, discharge and clean the weapons. 

The SJW version of “I have a Black friend.”

I understand why people want firearms and I believe there are reasons to own hunting rifles, shotguns and, with proper training, handguns for self-defense.

No, you don’t.

I do not believe, however, that there is any legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to own military-grade weapons or use suppressors (better known as silencers by many among us). Yet these are somehow legal to be bought and to own.

But you have no problems with hunting rifles and shotguns which have been designed and used for warfare but they are now “acceptable” to make a point against Ugly Black Rifles. It only takes a second and a political need to change hunting rifles and shotguns to Sniper Rifles and Riot Guns. It is all in the re-branding, ask the Brady Campaign. 

It is because of these beliefs that I posted on Facebook my opposition to Broadstone Security’s Nova Armory opening in Arlington County. The owner opened an online store that sells variants of AK-47s, AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and silencers.

I admit I don’t know what you posted, but must not have been very nice if you are being sued.

Those weapons belong in the hands of our trained law enforcement and military personnel. 

“trained law enforcement and military personnel” You see why I oppose legislation mandating firearms instruction?  Why would I lower my standards to LEO and Military? Do you really want to shoot like an NYPD officer under Spray and Pray and Hit Everybody but The Bad Guy training?

An AR-15 makes a lousy self-defense weapon unless you are worried about guerillas invading your home from a distant ridge.

Yup, tell that to the looters in South Florida after a hurricane…wait, we don’t have looters. They don’t like being shot from afar.

Because I expressed these beliefs in two Facebook posts, I have been named as a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit that seems designed to intimidate me and 63 of my neighbors and state legislators into silence.

The store is already open, you spoke your piece. Somehow I don’t thing silencing applies. 

In most states, a blatantly abusive lawsuit would be illegal. The irony is not lost that I can be sued for exercising my First Amendment rights while the owner of a gun store cannot be sued for negligence even if he knowingly sells a weapon to a mentally unstable customer who will later use it to murder innocents.

And this is why you got sued. Nice of you to provide evidence for the plaintiff. 

My constitutionally established right to freedom of speech and right to assemble have been directly attacked. I must decide whether to surrender and be silent or endanger my welfare and that of my family.

Again, you spoke your piece. The issue is if your piece can be considered libel which the plaintiff seems to believe and for the court to decide. 

And that is before we consider that my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are threatened every day by the presence of military-grade weapons in the hands of untrained or, in a worst-case scenario, violent people.

You really have to tone down the shrill. You have to stop vilifying gun owners.

It saddens me that we live in the only industrialized country with gun-death rates equal to or greater than those of many developing countries.

Yep, we are the same as Mexico or Venezuela or Honduras. You are officially into full-blown hysterics.

It saddens me that somewhere along the way, we forgot that all of our rights matter, not just those of people who want to make money by selling military-grade weapons.

I guess nobody informed Ryan about that document called The Constitution.

And it saddens me that we are being silenced into not expressing our beliefs and opposition for fear of being financially attacked, vilified and threatened by a minority of armed and aggressive neighbors.

Cognitive dissonance anyone? 

Washington (Talk Media News) – The Brady Campaign and Ogilvy & Mather are launching “Zero Minutes of fame” a Google Chrome plugin that removes killers’ names and images from major news sites and Google search results.
Mass shootings in the U.S. — like Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Lafayette and Charleston often receive extensive media coverage, but this coverage only encourages similar crimes, according to the Brady Campaign.
The plugin filters search results to focus on the victims of these mass killings , instead of the perpetrators. “Instead of rewarding killers and inspiring copycats, we should be lifting up the stories and the lives of victims, heroes, and survivors,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. “The fact is, notoriety serves as a reward for these killers and as a call-to-action for others who would seek to do similar harm in the name of infamy.”
More than 30 percent of mass shootings and as many as 22 percent of all school shootings are inspired by previous violent incidents with guns, according to the campaign

Source: Brady Campaign: Plugin will remove gunmens’ information from search results – Talk Media News

First: I believe that not using the names of the ***holes mass murderers is counterproductive. It is human nature for good people to find somebody to blame for an atrocity. Going with a bland denomination like “the shooter” does not satisfy the curiosity and the Opposition uses this to steer sentiment against the NRA and gun owners when they blame us for those events because we do not roll over and allow “common sense laws” to be adopted.

With that out-of-the-way, the concept of a censoring plugin to clean current news and history is scary.  I am not an expert on plugins and assorted browser stuff, but I figure there has to be some sort of central repository where key names and search strings are located, analyzed and the “proper” result returned to the person doing the inquiry. Who controls that and what keeps them from adding more than just mass killers to the block? What keeps them from redirect them to chosen sites where Gun Control solutions are offered? What if names of people or organizations in the fight for the Second Amendment are added to that list and the results end up taking the user to the Southern Poverty Law Center “hate list”? The chances for abuse are endless.

I installed the plugin and checked it out. I selected Seung-Hui Cho to use as search item and tested some sites. It is a mix of good news/bad news.

Good news: You still have to download and install it. It works with Google as promised, but I don’t think quite what they wanted.

Funny, it works in Wikipedia better than Google but to my knowledge Wikipedia is not a news site. Are they in on the deal or is this collateral Damage?

While it did not block the images in Google, it did so for Wikipedia but did not block the name in the box.

It does not work for MSNBC of Fox News.  Other search engines (Yahoo and Bing) are not affected. I also checked the search of several blogs and it did not work as well.

The bad news: They can improve it and Google being Google, they can install it without you knowing it.  My gut tells me people will not like the idea and the plugin will be only used by the hardcore Gun Control advocates. Still, the fact that  Brady wants to go a little China Censorship and Google which is blocked in China wants to play along makes me a bit nervous.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
C.S. Lewis

In doing some research for another post, I came across an article so mind blowingly stupid, I just couldn’t let it go.

Neoliberalism Is Destroying Almost Everybody’s Lives—How Many People Even Know What It Is?

This is how far I got before my brain started to turn into soup and run out of my ears:

“Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.”

The article then goes on to say how this type of political/economic system makes us all miserable and lonely and is bad for the soul.

Personally, I love my job and am happy that I live in the US, with all of its freedoms, that has allowed me to do what I love.  But I realize my anecdotal evidence isn’t enough.

So allow me to counter this two-day old article with some other 48 hour old news.

Venezuela, which is the 10th largest oil producer in the world, is too broke to print money.  The rate of inflation is Venezuela is about to hit 1,000%.  It is now rationing electricity because it can’t produce enough subsidized power.  Now, of course, the capital of this planned economy is a utopia the murder capital of the world.

But maybe I’m thinking about this all wrong.  Perhaps a centralized, planned economy is a good thing.  I guess when the government can only afford to pay me to come to work for two days a week that means there is more time to be at home with my family.  Well… not at home really, but I can stand with my family in line for our food ration.  There is another good thing.  Massive food shortages means that I won’t have to suffer from the obesity epidemic that Western, capitalist nations do.  Even inflation won’t be a problem in the long run.  Sure, government controls may lead to toilet paper shortages, but after that I can wipe my ass with worthless $100 bills and feel like a Hip-Hop mogul.

I guess I’m starting to come around.

Photo Gallery shamelessly stolen from Active Self Protection.

[Best_Wordpress_Gallery id=”8″ gal_title=”Dalai Lama”]

…and bring home somebody else’s crud? Guess who went to the doc’s and brought something with him? I am “enjoying” it so hard, I am actually falling asleep at the keyboard. So, since brain is not capable of coherent and structured thought, here is a meme.

I’ve done a lot of research over gun free zones. In fact, that is how I came across this blog. Thinking I would find an anti-gun website, I clicked on it to see what their sources were. I then figured out that this is a great site, and kept up with the site while doing more research. So I just want to express my findings with the rest of you. By the way, I am a senior in college. Just so you know, not everyone in academics is anti-gun 🙂

Honestly, I have always been opposed to the idea of gun free zones. When I began my research for my composition class I thought, “Hey, what if I find condemning evidence against allowing guns in certain zones.” So I put off that “what-if” and decided to cross that bridge when I get there. However, I never even laid eyes on the “Bridge ices before road” sign.

Instead, most of the information I came across suggested that gun free zones, especially on college campuses, were unnecessary (not to mention the stripping rights of citizens). Utah has mandated that public colleges and universities allow concealed guns on campus. The University of Utah fought for two years against the bill and lost in 2006. Which means that Utah has had this bill for more than a decade. In K-12 schools, licensed faculty are allowed to carry concealed. In 2014, Ron Isaacson, assistant director of public safety at Dixie State College, cited an incident where a handgun fell out of a bag and onto a chair in a library. Another student sat on the gun, picked it up, and allegedly did not realize it was real. No one was hurt. There were “a few” reports of threats according to Isaacson as well. In the entire state, no discharges have occurred on higher education facilities.

What about K-12 you ask? Well, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, “The folks at Westbrook Elementary School in Taylorsville can thank their lucky stars” all because a teacher’s handgun went off in a restroom. The lady was in the restroom alone (and before school started), and the firearm negligently discharged, hitting her in one leg. Thankfully, as far as I know, the lady was not penalized. Perhaps while pulling her pants up or down, her holster was not good enough and an accident happened. That’s what we learn here. We did not decide that guns on campus is bad.

There have been no classroom shootouts over disputes. No drunk students have wandered onto campus to shoot anyone. When Isaacson’s best defense after a decade against preferring no guns on campus is a student who could not recognize a real gun and held it, it becomes quite clear that gun free universities are unnecessary. There are many other reasons why gun free zones should not exist, but I will save some of my other sources for the future.

Have a nice day, everyone.

Update: I just wanted to say thank you to the community here for the kind welcome!