Geocaching here today: N 30° 05.705 W 094° 58.557
My Bride and I walked up to the heavily overgrown area only to
encounter deep growling in the bushes in front of us. We backed out
very quickly and two scraggly abandoned dogs limped out. Seeing they
were starving, we emptied out everything edible for them, plus water.
We called every possible animal control agency, but seeing it is out in
Liberty County, no one will take responsibility for the poor animals, so
I called the Cache Owner, MarineBuck. He assured me he would rescue
the dogs if there is any possible way. My Bride cried most of the way
home over these poor animals. People need to realize turning a
domesticated animal loose in the country dooms them to starvation. This
was off of 1960 on FM615 between Dayton and Huffman.
Update: This
is terrible. She has a gash so deep that I can see her skull. The other
one wouldn't come anywhere near me. I've been here an hour...but she
wouldn't have let me grab her. I left them a temporary shelter, a huge
bowl of food and water. Can someone check on them tomorrow for me? I'll
be at church and won't be able to. Tracey Mullins
Update: A man has rescued these dogs and taken them in for treatment!!!
. I am posting a letter to the Baytown Sun published 4-15-14 for your consideration. It poses 15 questions about gun ownership and whether a person should defend themselves. In the following blog post, I will answer the majority of the questions.
A case study in guns & self defense
Posted: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:00 am
Having written recently about the awesome
responsibilities associated with using a gun in self defense, I note the
trial of Olympian Oscar Pistorius as a case study in the associated
issues. Any handgun owner who proposes to use it to kill another person
when they deem it necessary should be watching this tragedy closely.
Numerous
details surround any use of deadly force in self defense or to prevent a
crime. One very important such detail most certainly is the probability
of this type tragedy occurring from gun usage the probability that gun
usage will actually prevent a tragedy.
How many times did this man prevent a tragedy using a gun and how many times did he create one instead?
Those who encourage more and more private gun
ownership as a deterrent to criminally induced mayhem might consider
another question right along with the one raised above. As guns
proliferate for the purpose of self defense, what is the almost certain
result in terms of accidental and later regretted maimings and
killings?
What do I do if I wake up in the middle of the
night with a loaded gun nearby, hearing an unfamiliar or unanticipated
noise? Is that a legitimate reason to shoot somebody?
If I want to be sure that I don’t make a
mistake in shooting, how do I do that? Turn on the lights and get a good
look? Do I call out for someone to identify themselves?
Do I even wait to wake up good, so I can think straight?
So many real life questions which maybe I haven’t considered in the rush to arm myself.
Any scenario in which one might propose to use a gun to deter crime has the same issues.
Serious considerations attach to the use of
deadly force by private citizens no matter what the situation. If I
observe a crime, even a violent one, out in public, do I really want to
blaze away with my gun, perhaps escalating the violence or hurting a
bystander? If someone else with a gun sees me firing a gun, what
prevents them from seeing me as a threat and joining in, with me as the
target? These questions are the essential ones.
There is no need to even worry about the actual facts surrounding the Pistorius trial.
The issues are all there regardless of whether
the defendant is a murderer or the victim of overzealous defense. The
young woman remains dead, and he remains scarred for life, even if
actually a murderer.
Even if murder was committed, the claim of fear
and the right to self defense, may well absolve Mr. Pistorius of legal
responsibility, much as happened in the recent prominent case in
Florida.
There are no witnesses to dispute that claim,
so absent some concrete evidence to the contrary, what is a jury to do?
Was the defendant rightfully afraid for his life?
Was he legally justified in trying to protect himself with deadly force?
Did he exercise the good judgment of the average individual?
Does the average individual even act rationally when they are mortally afraid, justifiably or not?
Every last one of these questions and many more are essential to any real discussion of guns.
As gun owners, we might do well to consider and
answer them for ourselves right now instead of later, in the middle of a
dark fear filled night.
When a young man or woman raises their hand and are sworn into the US Military, they effectively and voluntarily surrender their Constitutional rights. They now belong to the US government, which has its own military constitution. This is known as the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I was sworn into the United States Air Force November 23, 1970 and verbatim, my oath was this: "I, Gilbert S. Marshall Jr., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
As an 18 year old native son, I took this very seriously and still do to this day. As an 18 year old, even in my naivete state of immaturity and experience, I knew I was suspending my personal views to enforce the will and policies of the US Government, whether I agreed with the policies or not. Our military depends on this subservience. I want to say this again. Our Country’s stability and military depends on this subservience.
Now mind you, I was 18 years old when I raised my right hand and I understood my obligation with uncharacteristic clarity, for a teenager anyway. I was enlisting as an Airman Basic, not accepting a commission as college graduate into the ranks of leadership, which by definition is an officer and a gentleman (woman).
Officers have a different version when sworn in and held to higher standards. This is the oath our shooter took: "I, Malik Nadal Hasan (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Major Malik Nadal Hasan has not only committed premeditated murder on his own soldiers, but voluntarily performed the most heinous form of treason known in the military. He has violated his oath of office with extreme prejudice. In civilian terms this is akin to a mother or father killing their own children – or (in a bizarre coincidence) a doctor killing his patients. The death toll now stands at 13 dead and 30 wounded and this at the bloody hand of a man who had never been in combat and was an expert at helping those suffering from the ghosts of war.
His vicious and deliberate act of violence was of the most cowardly sort also, as soldiers are unarmed on Post, unless they are military police. He was like a man with a club in pen full of baby seals.
As a Vietnam Veteran, I personally would like to strangle this fellow with my bare hands.
Take note that I have not mentioned his religion, but if I were the Commander in Chief, I would order a mass security clearance reevaluation of every person in our military this day, which has the word(s) Muslim/Islam on their dog tags.
We as a country, especially in our military, cannot give every Muslim serving in the military the simple benefit of the doubt, when we have officers killing their own men as acts of faith. What chance of survival did Major Hasan think he would have at Fort Hood? I’ll answer that one – none. He saw himself as a suicide bomber or an IED. He was going for the 70 virgins…, but he survived.
Nope, we need to pull in every soldier, Marine, airman, sailor, etc (especially those serving in our Embassy’s) who has the word(s) Muslim/Islam on their dog tags and under the UCMJ, make them re-swear allegiance and fidelity to this country or resign their commission or general discharge their butts out of the service.
