The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.

South Dakota governor signs bill allowing armed teachers in the classroom, http://fxn.ws/ZxAxM5 – Sent via the FOX News Android App.

Advertisements

Creating pensions that offer generous retirement benefits wins votes in the present by promising spending in the future. Promises cost nothing in the short run — and elections are held in the short run, long before the pensions are due.

Guns and Pensions – Thomas Sowell http://m.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/02/19/guns-and-pensions-n1513748?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

A couple of weeks later, around the same time of night, two young men knocked on my door, and it was the same story: Their car wouldn’t start, and they wanted to come in and use my phone. When I told them to leave they started getting aggressive and argumentative. When I realized they were going to come in anyway, I showed them my handgun and sent them on their way. A very short time later, these same kids cut the throats of two Dartmouth professors who had allowed them into their home. These kids decided they wanted to go to Australia, and they were going to kill and rob anyone they could get their hands on to get there. When they were caught and debriefed by the cops, it turned out someone else in town had run them off with a weapon as well.

Just sharing.

So, this story isn’t a big deal, but it should make you think a little bit. Why won’t Gregory be prosecuted? He evidently broke the (local) law! If we value the law and the ordering effect that it has on our lives, then shouldn’t he at least be prosecuted even if there is no serious consequence? Of course, if there is no serious consequence, then how important is this law? Or think about it this way: what if it wasn’t someone famous and “respected” like David Gregory? Wouldn’t they be prosecuted without prejudice? Doesn’t his possession of an illegal magazine of ammunition prove how easy it would be for someone to procure such an item? Especially someone who is not particularly motivated to abide by laws to begin with? But back to my first point…if there is a law worth having – for whatever reason, be it deterrence, behavior control, safety, etc. – shouldn’t that law also be worth prosecuting? I’m not particularly interested in talking about gun issues here. I’m talking about living by, and respecting the rule of law. Without intending to exaggerate, if we are already violating “minor” laws here and there, then aren’t we already (ignorantly, perhaps) in danger of flaunting the rule of law and saying, by our actions, that we don’t care for the rule of law? What is the difference between breaking a minor law versus a major law? If you’ve broken the law, you’ve broken the law! Sure, the consequences ought to measure the difference between the minor and the major, but the basic principle is not affected: you broke the law! We don’t really like to think about that. Instead we focus our energies on how other people break more serious laws than we do – the robbers, thieves, murderers, the corrupt, the rich tax cheat, etc. Then we compare ourselves to those folks and give ourselves a pass on the judgment of the law. What a mistake that is! It will likely only lead to an increased desensitization toward the law. There is a better Way, but you can’t legislate it. It is Grace, and it is up to each individual to choose for themselves. It can’t be decided for them. But for how we live together and encourage peace, I believe the law has a role and is vitally inportant. For my two cents, a lot could be done if we looked at reducing our laws and regulations to make living in compliance and respect a more attractive possibility. No charges for NBC host for on-air ammunition clip, http://fxn.ws/11nJFrh – Sent via the FOX News Android App.

Can you imagine if this add were run in Vermont?  The horror!  The horror!

Travel icon Arthur Frommer says he won’t be spending his tourism dollars at the Grand Canyon, or anywhere else in Arizona, because the state’s laws allow people he described as “thugs” and “extremists” to openly carry firearms.

via Travel Icon Says He’ll Avoid Arizona Because of Gun Laws – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News – FOXNews.com.

Umm…okay.  I’ll stop buying his travel guides.

Seriously, if he thinks it’s wise to threaten not to visit Arizona (for any reason) as a “travel icon”, then he must be getting bad council from his business advisers.  For example, you want to plan a trip to Arizona.  You’d like to look at a travel guide to see where to go and what to do while you are there.  Frommer has just admitted that he won’t visit there.  So any information that’s contained in his travel guide won’t have been authenticated by him personally (I realize that he probably doesn’t verify every jot and tittle in his books, but you get the idea).  Perhaps you’ll choose a different book for your trip to Arizona.

Worse, it could begin to cast doubts about the legitimacy of the rest of his work.  Once those doubts creep in they will be difficult to eliminate.  And with doubt will come lack of confidence in his product and ultimately fewer sales.  He seems to be committing a slow business suicide.

And lastly, doesn’t Frommer have travel guides to other countries?  For example China.  Or how about almost the entire continent of South America.  You might argue that only the government officials carry guns in these countries but you would be naive to assert that claim.  What is remarkable about Arizona (or anywhere else in this nation) is that the protesters with guns didn’t use them.  In any of these other countries a protester with a gun is likely going to pull the trigger to make his argument.

His threat about not visiting Arizona is just plain hypocritical (with maybe a hint of political opportunism thrown in for good measure).