U.S. Civil War
Pvt. Charles A. Taggart
Little is known about this Recipient, if anyone has information I would appreciate it.
U.S. Civil War
Pvt. Charles A. Taggart
Little is known about this Recipient, if anyone has information I would appreciate it.
Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, and Laura Bush, all former first ladies. Hillary is running for her turn in office, which will make Bill, the First Man?
While politically I do not agree with Mrs. Clinton on many issues, this isn’t the reason I don’t want to see her allowed to run. Let us talk for a minute on the matter of precedent, while Hillary is running for herself, and there are those that suggest she was really running things during the Bill Clinton years, this doesn’t have to be the case.
What is there to stop Michelle Obama from running on the campaign of “I will do whatever Barack Tells me to?”
Allowing the spouse of a former president to run, while still living with, or romantically involved with the former president could be a very nice way around that whole 10 year limit on the presidency. The formula is there, simply take one popular president, add one popular first lady, have the president finish his 2 terms, have his wife run for her two with the former president listed as the VP on the ticket, and voila you have a 20 year president. And after that, why not have his children run, as by now they will most likely be old enough to do so, again on the ticket of ‘my dad is really in charge, but the law says he can’t run’.
Am I for prohibiting Hillary from running all together? No! Emphatically no!, I want her to run, I just want her to divorce Bill first. Ensure somehow that legally Bill will not be allowed to attend to any office in the Executive Branch, and boycott him from even being on the grounds. He served his time, we do not want, nor do we need, 8 more years of Bill running the show.
This should go for any First Spouse, male or female, if you want your own political career, fine, but you must divorce your spouse and maintain a healthy distance and distanced communication from them. Otherwise what is to keep an under-educated electorate from allowing families to rule as though we were a monarchy? (I am looking at you Bush family.)
It is far past time we put in new legal protections, another Amendment to the Constitution, that will Limit the terms of Congress, and prohibit family members from occupying the same office consecutively, or while the last occupant of that public office still draws breath. While we lack this protection, we can see quite clearly that we are headed to a Hereditary Oligarchy, it is bad enough we have slipped into an oligarchy at all, we need to reverse direction and put on the breaks, before it gets much worse.
Recently, HuffPo, WaPo, et. al. Presented this report (which I link here for you to download) The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC
Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical
Evaluation of Law and Policy to ‘prove’ more guns == more crime, I will include selected quotes from it as I go on to debunk it here.
Statistics or Non-Stats?
From the Abstract of the report:
Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be
for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence
level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase
in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault,
which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the
year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of
admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with
large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.
So this is accurate to a .10 confidence level? Well let us see what the definition of a Confidence Level is. From here: A confidence level is defined as this :
A confidence level refers to the percentage of all possible samples that can be expected to include the true population parameter. For example, suppose all possible samples were selected from the same population, and a confidence interval were computed for each sample. A 95% confidence level implies that 95% of the confidence intervals would include the true population parameter.
Now either they don’t understand the terms in common usage among statisticians, or they are telling us something very important here. They are saying there is only a 10% chance that their report is accurate. If the true confidence level is .10, as defined above in common usage it means that the true parameter used is only 10% likely to fall into their numbers.
I will of course leave it open to the idea that they simply misused the term confidence level, or mean something different from the common usage.
Models or Reality?
Again from the abstract.
In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period
provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the
period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the
preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends)
yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime — suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at
the .05 significance level.
Since 1993, the year of peak murder in the US, murder has dropped significantly across the nation. In addition RTC is now in more states.
1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee, and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah,* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana,* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; New Mexico, Minnesota,* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas and Nebraska; 2010: Iowa,* and 2011: Wisconsin.
Since 1995 is the earliest Year that the current UCR has, I will have to count Crime numbers from now
(using 2011, though I will include 2012 numbers I ended up using 2013 numbers ) until back to the Year before RTC laws were passed in each state.
State Total : Murder Number (Rate) ; Violent Crime Number (rate)
Starting with Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina
1995 (FBI UCR)
State total : Murder 276 (7.2) ; Violent crime 14,079 (364.7)
State total: Murder 167 (3.8) ; Violent crime 8,737 (198.8)
1995 (FBI UCR)
State Total : Murder 740 (17.0) ; Violent crime 43,741 (1007.4)
State Total : Murder 498 (10.8) ; Violent crime 23,609 (510.4)
1995 (FBI UCR)
State Total : Murder 292 (7.9) ; Violent crime 36,067 (981.9)
State Total : Murder 297 (6.2) ; Violent Crime 23,625 (494.8)
2000 (FBI UCR)
State Total : Murder 669 (6.7); Violent crime 55,159 (555.0)
State Total : Murder 631 (6.4); Violent crime 42,536 (429.8)
2002 (FBI UCR)
State Total: Murder 179 (4.0); Violent Crime 15,882 (352.4)
State Total: Murder 178 (3.4)*; Violent Crime 15,342 (291.2)
2002 (FBI UCR)
State Total: Murder 152 (8.2); Violent Crime 13,719 (739.5)
State Total: Murder 125 (6.0); Violent Crime 16,496 (591.2)
2002 (FBI UCR)
State Total: Murder 112 (2.2); Violent Crime 13,428 (267.5)
State Total: Murder 114 (2.1)*; Violent Crime 12,100 (223.2)
2002 (FBI UCR)
State Total: Murder 331 (5.8); Violent Crime 30,557(538.7)
State Total: Murder 371 (6.1); Violent Crime 25,509 (422)
State Total: Murder 522 (4.6) ; Violent Crime 38,103 (333.2)
State Total: Murder 455 (3.9) ; Violent Crime 31,904 (275.7)
State Total: Murder 102 (3.7) ; Violent Crime 10,634 (387.4)
State Total: Murder 112 (3.9)* ; Violent Crime 9,478 (327.5)
State Total: Murder 44 (2.5) ; Violent Crime 5,048 (287.0)
State Total: Murder 57(3.1) ; Violent Crime 4,712 (252.2)
State Total: Murder 34 (1.1) ; Violent Crime 8,397 (279.2)
State Total: Murder 43 (1.4) ; Violent Crime 8,062 (260.9)
State Total: Murder 155 (2.7) ; Violent Crime 14,142 (248.7)
State Total: Murder 162 (2.8) ; Violent Crime 15,570 (271.1)
Of the 13 states that have added RTC laws since 1995, the earliest point for which data is accessible online via FBI UCR, 5 states have an increase in murders, and only one has an increase in total violent crime. Of these 5 states none has a murder rate that has increased by more than .5 per 100,000 people. Of the remaining 8 states, the average decrease in murder rate was 1.9 per 100,000. The overall average for the 13 states sampled was a drop in the murder rate of 1 per 100,000.
Violent crime overall, except in one state, Wisconsin, has gone down across the board.
These are statewide numbers, and the opposition used county numbers. Will there be a significant difference if we use the county numbers? No, as even if one county increased, the rest of the state would have decreased to compensate.
So why did they use county numbers? My answer is that they didn’t check each and every county, there are 3000+ counties in the US, by taking a ‘representative’ sample of counties they could create a model to do the work for them. This is what they did in fact, despite my opinion that 3000 counties isn’t a significant hurdle to doing accurate research.
Let us Introduce ourselves to reality.
John Lott and David Mustard initiated the “More Guns, Less Crime” discussion with their widely cited 1997 paper arguing that the adoption of RTC laws has played a major role in reducing violent crime. However, as Ayres and Donohue (2003a) note, Lott and Mustard’s period of analysis ended just before the extraordinary crime drop of the 1990s. They concluded that extending Lott and Mustard’s dataset beyond 1992 undermined the “More Guns, Less Crime” (MGLC) hypothesis.
The problem here, is that prior to 1989 few states had any RTC laws at all. As I showed above 13 states didn’t do RTC until after the period discussed here. 42 States are currently RTC states, with only 8 states not being such. Crime is down, and yes the big crime drop started occurring in the 1990’s as suggested above, but as mentioned before in 1986 there were few states that had RTC. In fact the big crime drop in the 90’s comes at the same time as RTC was being picked up by new states, with only 16 being such in 1993 and a large group joining in 1994. It was here that crime started dropping, unlike what is implied by the above paragraph the drop was anything but extraordinary. Dropping only a few percent per year each year, but dropping steadily, 4.1% drop in 1995 as compared to 1994, a drop of 7% from 1996 to 1995, another 4% per year in 1997 over 1996. (FBI UCR)The ‘extraordinary’ drops coinciding with increased access to firearms each year. Not claiming causation here, but it certainly doesn’t show what the authors of this report indicate.
The author goes on to present some pretty graphs on page 10-14, Charts comparing murder, rape, etc. rates vs. year spread out among ‘early, middle, late, and non RTC’ states. While interesting, they don’t show causation, it is possible that the crime rates in these states are the reasons they adopted RTC when they did. More to the point, this treats states such as CT, where I live, as not an RTC state, as it is technically a ‘may-issue’ state. CT, like some other ‘may-issue’ states are essentially ‘shall-issue’ in practice.
… analysis of the county data set from 1977-1997 using the Lott-Mustard specification (revised to measure state-specific effects) indicated that RTC laws across all states raised total crime costs by as much as $524 million.
Increasing the costs of crime, includes things like increased policing, prosecution, and medical costs resulting from DGU, as well as investigation costs when a DGU occurs, in addition I don’t see any mention of inflation adjusting the pricing here.
Crime is a complex issue, and gun control is as well. It is true that crime dropped in the mid to late 1990’s, was the fact that more states became RTC a part of this? Crack didn’t just disappear in the mid-90’s and in fact is just as readily out there, the idea that somehow the crack wars simply ended, seems off the mark. Likely what happened is an increase in police presence, a general improvement in the economy thanks to the dot-com bubble, and RTC all played a part in reducing crime. Using the approved time period from the study, we would find that of the 13 states that became RTC states, most saw crime drop, and the crime drop was significant even compared to the crime increase of the few that saw an increase. In addition the usage of RTC as a metric is confusing, considering that three states, CT, DE, RI have some level of ‘shall issue’ even if the state is ‘may issue’ on the books. Also, long term impact is easily as important. The point being that the data, simply doesn’t support more guns == more crime, and it honestly only gives little, insignificant support to more guns == less crime.
As I always like to say, 2A isn’t about any of this anyway, this would be covered by 10A which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since this was a right reserved by the people, it is still a right reserved by the people.
If today I were to be charged with a crime, my defense would be simple: “The courts have no authority to charge me with any crime, as they are no longer legitimate instruments of the people.”
Sounds like an anarchist, or ‘sovereign citizen’?
Except for this, the courts last year held that the state can take your assets, before convicting you of a crime. (Kaley v. United States, 2013) Civil forfeiture has become a cash cow for certain cities and states. In many places, they seize your assets, and never even charge you with a crime.
The Executive Branch, decides which laws it is going to enforce, and when and how. And the supreme court has stated that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to you at all.
Text for those of you unfamiliar with it:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How, exactly, is it reasonable to rob citizens of assets, citizens that have committed no crime, nor are even being charged with one?
How can any reasonable person say that courts that allow this to happen have any legitimacy at all?
The answer is you, can’t. If the courts lack legitimacy on this scale, the idea that anyone is living without contempt for those sitting on the bench becomes a joke. You have, in certain parts of the country, a better chance of getting a fair deal from the criminals in your neighborhood, than from your own ‘justice’ system.
You should be angry about this, and frankly if you are not angry, you’re an idiot. The government is flat out telling you that they do not have to obey their end of the social contract, and that they may change the rules as they go.
I won’t get into how over 5 years ago I knew people had been exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq. I didn’t post it here, so there is no proof.
What I want to discuss is why I think Bush might have taken the heat for lying about chemical weapons not being there, when he knew damn well they were.
Let’s go back to 2003 and the invasion of Iraq the US Military hired 3rd party logistics services and mercenary security services throughout the area. This is the critical point. The US invaded Iraq under intelligence suggesting that there were modern and new chemical and biological warheads and an advanced nuclear project underway. During the invasion the military encountered not [just?] new chemical weapons, but old and decaying warheads.
Older unstable warheads are harder to move, they are much more dangerous than something made last week. This is particularly true if they have been neglected, as appears to be the case in Iraq.
So you send in the military, without military logistics, under the guise of finding new chemical weapons. You instead encounter stockpiles of older, and possibly some newer weapons. The older ones are highly unstable as you determine by attempting to transport them. What do you do?
Well, there are insurgent threats in the area, and publicly admitting that you found WMDs becomes a problem. You don’t have the trained manpower to move them, you would have to trust local security or logistics, or worse yet the mercenaries you hired. Admitting that WMDs were found creates a target of opportunity for Insurgent forces, who may not know of their existence. Attempting to move a significant faction of trained, and trusted, logistics into the nation becomes both a PR nightmare, as the war has been trashed by the MSM, and a security threat, keep in mind all the bad guys have to do is watch the news, and when they see previously unused military assets being deployed, they will understand something is up.
Why not destroy them? I don’t know, but my guess is that doing so would have presented a clear threat to the civilians in the area.
What it comes down to is this: There was no way for the government to admit to finding chemical weapons without risking insurgent action on them. Given the age, and likely instability, of the warheads an attack on the locations where the weapons were stored likely would have been devastating, not just to our military whose MOPP equipment, or whatever the modern equivalent is, would have protected most of them, but to the civilians without access to even rudimentary protective gear. This is also the likely reason they were not destroyed on site. In the US we have, or had, one specialty facility for handling the destruction of chemical weapons. Without the ability to safely move what we found, we could really only let them sit there. If we admitted they were there, insurgents who likely didn’t know about them, or at least about their locations, would have started to search for them.
What does it mean that ISIS has some of them now? Nothing, if the reports that they are older warheads is true it is unlikely that even ISIS can move them safely enough to use them. This still leaves a large number around Baghdad, which is likely bad for the civilian population if ISIS gets close enough to damage them.
Am I an expert on this? No. My estimations are based on my hobby studies of military history, and some long term critical thinking. I took a look at the situation in nation during the Bush years, and came to the only rational explanation I could. Is it right? Only GWB and BHO know. Perhaps there is another reason that Bush took the heat for lying, when the weapons he claimed were there in the first place, actually were there. But I can’t figure it out if there is, this particular meeting of facts: Limited soldiers, no logistics, mercenary and local security, insurgent threats, meet up to give the answer I just posited.
Just a quickie today, because it seems strange to me:
This is a bit of a touchy topic for me to bring up on my profile and seeing as this is a rather large community of generally cool people thought I could ask you guys for a cheer-up…
Today for the first time in my 21 years of life and 7 years of wearing a scarf, I experienced discrimination for it, now don’t get me wrong, I can understand it at airport security, they once suspected I had something hidden under it so they checked a few years back, I’m not an unreasonable person, some things I understand there are ways to be decent about it. But today I found myself walking home with tears in my eyes. Today I experienced hate from one of my teachers and I’ve heard about such things in France and I always thought it would be sad to live in a place where the government controls what you wear. And I must say its not a nice feeling, even though she wasnt completely 100% rude I guess, she could’ve been less loud and didn’t have to make comments in front of my classmates and compare how its possible to not wear one…
Yes this person is Muslim. But I want to point out what a great socialist utopia France is. So next time someone compares us to Europe, and tells us we need to do it like they do, point this out.
1: Cops make a pittance. They don’t do this for the money.
The median wage for police officers is $52,104 Source.
The median wage for the nation is $50,054 Source.
The median wage for an E-6 in the military is $31,342.
You don’t get to cry pittance when your job is less stressful than a soldier, and you make 25% more, or when you make more than the median wage of the entire nation. No you aren’t being payed a pittance, you’re being paid quite well on average.
That said, I do agree, mostly they aren’t in it for the money.
2: The standard to make criminal charges stick is incredibly high. Knowing someone is guilty and proving it are very different things.
And yet, we have a huge population of people in prison for simply wanting to enjoy themselves. Blind loyalty to what the politicians say is ‘The Law’ is why millions died in Germany between 1933 and 1946.
3: Bad cops do exist. The “power” aspect is attractive to a certain group of people. The good cops try their hardest to weed them out, but they don’t always succeed.
Every single bad cop destroys your entire department. Failing to rid the system of the bad apples removes the credibility of the entire system. Saying you ‘try’ to weed them out is insufficient.
4. Cops actually hate giving traffic tickets. In larger jurisdictions, traffic is something that you send rookies or the guys in the doghouse to do. In others, it is a duty imposed from above. It is like scrubbing your toilet. You don’t do it because you want to do it. You do it because it has to be done.
So profiling blacks and kids because they have cars you think are too nice, has to be done? No, traffic stops are not something that ‘has to be done’ it’s extortion pure and simple. Many departments, if not all, get to keep a portion of the funds raised. This is criminal banditry. If I, or anyone who is not a cop, stopped random people for speeding and made them pay us, we’d go to jail.
5. It isn’t fair that everyone likes firefighters more. Cops actually risk their lives more often (and probably save more kittens).
Flat out wrong. This idea that a cop ‘risks his life with every traffic stop’ is patently demonstrably false. There are approximately 780,000 police in the US, source. There were 126 deaths in the line of duty in 2012, source. List of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US here, notice that police isn’t on this list. Number 16 is police, and yes it’s higher than firefighter, of course if you include falls, heart attacks, and vehicle accidents (not pursuit related) your that high on the list, remove those and you drop a bit.
6. Most convictions stem from confessions. They will do everything in their power to convince you that you should confess. Cops will (and are allowed/encouraged by prosecutors to) lie. That is one of the rules of the game.
And this is the problem. Not only is this ‘one of the rules of the game’ as you say, it is the big problem with police-non police interactions.
This is followed by a series of potentially good points, ones that I am unwilling to debate, until we get to:
19. We don’t do this job for the power or prestige you might think it brings. We do it because we are tired of seeing good people suffer, and we want to help and protect them from the wolves.
You can’t, if that is your reason, your in the wrong field. You’re essentially public janitors, you show up after the wolf has eaten the sheep to clean up the mess, and maybe look for the wolf.
20. You might be tougher than me, but I will win in the long run. Believe it.
You’re loosing it all right now, mostly due to the number of bad cop incidents. Combine this with a lack of prosecution of police, the perceived ‘protected elite status’ they enjoy, and you’re loosing. You have no idea what you’re talking about. After things like Beavercreek, OH, you’re losing.
Being a cop right now, is probably the worst time in history to be one. With the rising anti-police sentiment, justified or not, your jobs are only going to get harder, and more dangerous. Keep pushing and you will take the number 1 spot on the list of deadliest jobs, but that’s not a goal I would aim for.
It finally happened. Someone followed Mike Malloy’s, the lunatic left wing media host, suggestion that when you see an open carrier, you should call 911, and scream active shooter.
A man, in Wal-Mart, in the toy aisle with his kids, holding a toy gun, was killed by police.
The DA in Beavercreek should immediately begin seeking evidence that the person who dialed 911, Ronald Ritchie, was an anti-gun person. If this evidence provides enough to seek conviction for the death of John Crawford III, Mike Malloy should also be charged. Charles Manson was put in prison for arranging the murder, by his followers, of several people. Mike Malloy, likewise, has arranged the murder of innocent people by way of his followers.
The anti-gun people in this nation should be treated as pariahs. They have shown they are willing to use the police to commit murder, simply over a difference of opinion. If you have anti-gun friends, shun them. Refuse to shop at any place that doesn’t allow you to carry your weapons. You can get everything you need from Amazon anyway. If someone on social media speaks ill of guns, call them out as murderers and rapists. These are the tactics the left uses against us all the time, it is more than time for us to be loud and start doing it back.
I understand that in general, we simply aren’t rabble-rousers, it is in our nature to be more guarded in general. But if you keep this up, we will loose by attrition. You need to call the DA for Beavercreek, Ohio and the police… Put pressure on this case the same way our anti-gun associates did after Sandy Hook.
Beavercreek Police Dept:
1388 Research Park Drive
Beavercreek, OH 45432
US District Attorney :
U.S. Attorney’s Office
303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43215
Main number: 614-469-5715
Our new posts will be coming out on Sundays. Sorry for the 1 Year off, but as a new father with a 21 month old daughter, life has been hectic to say the least. As such I am starting off this new, with gun control.
FOPA, do you know what it is?
“Firearm Owners Protection Act” Passed in 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan. This is the law that contained an amendment that banned the private ownership of “machine guns”.
So what did it protect?
From FOPA :
“Any person not prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport an unloaded, not readily accessible firearm in interstate commerce notwithstanding any provision of any legislation enacted, or any rule or regulation promulgated by an State or political subdivision thereof.”
It ‘protects’ you if you’re travelling through states with a firearm, as long as you have the firearm unloaded, and in a separate compartment of the vehicle.
There are a great many gun nuts out there, who praised the bill. The bill which has not stopped a man moving to Maine from being sentenced to 5 years in New Jersey, or a Woman who crossed state lines from facing 3 Years.
Your driver’s license is recognized in all 50 states as being legal. Your right to arms, not so much. In exchange for banning machine guns in 1986, we got this wreckage of a law.
Here are the two best parts. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that one of the reasons for private ownership of guns is that it is necessary for a ‘well regulated’ militia, well regulated in this context would mean well trained. The modern weapons of the militia were the only weapons banned under this law. Literally the only weapons that the congress actually can’t ban, were the ones that were banned.
And now for the kicker, this law was NEVER challenged in SCOTUS. In my research I have been unable to find even a single incidence of the law being challenged. Gun owners simply accepted the law, without so much as a single fight. Think about that for a while and then if you’re active enough, or pro-2A enough please follow this link.
Here is a link, http://www.change.org/suggested?petition_id=318872 I would like you all to review. It is time the Huges Amendment is either removed, or challenged in SCOTUS.
The site has been dark for months, and I apologize, I intend to get back to weekly posts in April. However I have been particularly busy with RL, and this makes me no money… so …
With that said, Starting in april I will be coming back online.