Monthly Archives: April 2013

Weapon of Mass Destruction!?


Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

I’m HIGHLY UNCOMFORTABLE with this. I’m NOT COMFORTABLE AT ALL with it, and here’s why:

The term “weapon of mass destruction” has typically been reserved for:
“Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties.” 

This traditional definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction sets them apart from what is known as Conventional Weapons. “The terms conventional weapons generally refer to weapons that are in relatively wide use that are not weapons of mass destruction (e.g. nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons). Conventional weapons include small arms and light weapons, sea and land mines, as well as (non-nuclear) bombs, shells, rockets, missiles and cluster munitions.”

Many may remember George W.’s justification for invading Iraq was because of evidence that they had “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” (“Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies”.)

Here’s the VERY UNCOMFORTABLE part…

If the term Weapon of Mass Destruction is being expanded to include a conventional bomb that killed only 3 people, then YOUR SHOTGUN, YOUR BASEBALL BAT, YOUR POCKET KNIFE — whatever your self-defense weapon of choice — can ALL be defined as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And as we saw in the Iraq War, the entire fury of the U.S. Military AND the UN can fall upon you for exercising your right to employ their use!

© 2013, Dr. Phil Bryant

Dr. Bryant is an Assistant Professor of Management at Columbus State University and co-author of Managing Employee Turnover.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Phil's Philosophy

“Where to begin…


“Where to begin?
First, you don’t make policy with your emotions, and yes, that IS what B.O. and his disciples are trying to manipulate when they bring victims up to the podium as backdrops for political speeches that are meant to tell us (looking for all the world like a disappointed school principal disciplining children) what we SHOULD BE thinking.

Bottom line tho is that many of us already know what to think. We are grown ups who don’t need to be told that these bills would NOT HAVE STOPPED any of the crimes y’all are using as examples. It would only make it harder for law abiding people to defend AGAINST the law breakers, and criminalize them if they insisted on maintaining their 2nd Amendment-protected natural right to self defense.

As for background checks, I know it SOUNDS reasonable. And it would be if managed by people who would not abuse that power to deny gun owners their natural rights. I have already discussed before how that background check power is already being used to take guns from people who are not violent but who suffer from PTSD, or had the cops called to their house by their neighbors or spouse after a shouting match, or who sought help for depression once, etc.

Lastly, we oppose any paper trail because a corrupt and totalitarian govt can use that to round up guns from good people who are Constitutionally empowered to own guns for the primary purpose of checking the power OF GOVERNMENT if govt becomes an enemy to Freedom … and history shows that it is likely to come to that. Not talking about coups here. talking about DEFENDING in ones own home when anyone intrudes there. Any administration that doesn’t acknowledge that is dangerous.”

A good friend of mine — an anonymous special forces elite soldier, husband-father, philosopher-writer, gun owner — offers these few paragraphs in defense of resolutely defending the 2nd amendment as well as why so many reasonable people oppose what appear to be “reasonable” expansion of background checks for gun purchases.

As always, your comments and dialogue are appreciated.

Leave a comment

April 19, 2013 · 10:41 am

Inertia Kept Me — Author’s Reflection


“What if?”

These two little words – what if – are heard in the heads of some as a tantalizing spirit; to some others, as a haunting ghost.

The adventurous, the youthful spirits, the go-getters… Whatever you want to call them, these are the ones who follow the Spirit of What-If Future. According to Nike, they Just Do It. According to Dead Poets Society, they Seize the Day. “What if” to them represents  Opportunity, Possibility, Adventure!

But to some, “What-If” represents regrets and lost opportunity. They intended to write that book, but time got away from them. They wanted to play college ball, but fears overtook them. They planned to some day get back to a healthy weight and lifestyle, but inertia kept them from doing it.

Ask yourself, “What is Life’s inertia keeping me from accomplishing?” “What stands before me now as Opportunity that may someday stand before me as Regret?”

When I wrote “Inertia Kept Me”, I had in mind the words from the song, “Standing Outside the Fire” — “Life is not tried, its just merely survived if you’re standing outside the fire.”

“What if” – Tantalizing Spirit or Haunting Ghost?
The choice is yours!

Inertia Kept Me

Be gone — You Ghost of What-If Past!
Alas. Your haunt forever lasts.

You enticed and tempted along the way.
Whispering. Pleading, “Seize the day.”
A siren’s song, you wooed and charmed.
Imploring, “What could be the harm?”

Although attracted by your bait,
Distracted by debts that wouldn’t wait.
Inertia kept me walking on.
Forward. Progress. Must press on.

Ever asking, “What might have been,”
Had I heeded you back then?”
You might continue by my side,
Had I let you be my guide,

Back when your name was yet another,
The Spirit of What-If Future.

© 2013, Dr. Phil Bryant

Dr. Bryant is an Assistant Professor of Management at Columbus State University and co-author of Managing Employee Turnover.

Leave a comment

Filed under Phil's Philosophy