Can We Rely Upon Yahoo for REAL, ACCURATE News? Headlines Seem Misleading……

If you know me, I have ranted about Yahoo “news” headlines and how they are quite frequently misleading.  Here’s an example.  The Yahoo headline stated that the first Republican legislator has now voiced support for assault weapons ban.  Click on the link, and here’s what you find out:  This guy did not win his election in November and is out come voting time.  So he won’t even count.  It appears that Yahoo is pushing a anti-gun agenda and does not care if its headlines are misleading or not.  Hence, BEWARE.


Newtown Tragedy and the Second Amendment

There is nothing that can be written or expressed to fully set forth the pain, suffering and misery experienced by this poor town and, more particularly, the parents of those innocent deceased children.  I don’t know any of those people.  I have never been to Connecticut.  However, it is almost too painful for me to even look at the faces of those murdered children on the television.

As a father of three children, I am not sure how I could bear the loss of a son or daughter.  I have always said that if I lost every single possession I owned – my house, truck, clothes, tools – everything – but still had my healthy family, I would be just fine.  But I do know this:  I would never be fine if I lost a child and those parents will never be the same again.  My grandparents were never the same after the loss of my uncle Mike when he was just 14 years old.  I was only a baby when the tragedy happened.  He was killed on a motorcycle in Red Bank, Tennessee in 1969 I believe.  Yet his memory lingered on and brought sadness to the family.  Terrible, enduring, ever-present sadness.

The Sandy Hook murders happened and there is nothing that we can do to reverse the past.  What should we do for the future?  How should we protect our precious children?  The debate rages today in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.  Proposals include banning firearms, arming teachers, increased scrutiny upon citizens that suffer from mental illness.

On Wednesday, President Obama apparently stated: “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.”

Perhaps the President is right about what the majority believes.  However, we must not forget that even if a majority of people feel a certain way, we cannot trample upon the rights of the minority to achieve a certain result.  Our Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, were promulgated not for the majority, but for the minority.  And our founding fathers were not dummies.  So they amended the Constitution to include the following statement:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The term “militia” is commonly known today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens. Thus, armed ordinary citizens are “. . . necessary to the security of a free State.”

Apparently the Obama administration would erode the meaning of the Second Amendment so that the only arms that citizens could possess would be for hunting and recreational use.  But how can citizens provide for the security of a free State with hunting and recreational arms?  They cannot.  So, in my opinion, the proposals set forth by the administration are an infringement upon the rights of our citizens – even if they are a minority as the President alleges.

While I am deeply troubled by the events at Sandy Hook, I cannot ignore history and the thoughtful words that our founding fathers placed into the very foundation of our country.


West Virginia Mountaineer Uses a Gun to Hunt………

Surprise.  A stink arose about the WVU Mountaineer mascot guy because he shot a bear while hunting and he used his Mountaineer musket to do so.  Here’s a link to an article about the matter: But aren’t mascots supposed to represent a concept or persona?  According to the WVU website, the Mountaineer mascot first appeared at WVU sporting events during the 1934-35 school year with Lawson Hill taking on the role.  Ya gotta love a name like Lawson.  Anyway, if you know even the bare minimum about the history of mountain men, you would know that they were generally solitary trappers and hunters.  They lived off the land.  They shot animals for food and goods – like the buckskin clothing and moccasins that they wore.  So what’s the big deal with the current mascot, Jonathon Kimble, actually using his musket hunt?  The big deal is this:  the idea of using firearms to kill animals does not sit well with some rather vocal folks in our modern civilized society.  Why do we need to hunt?  After all, we can just go down to the grocery store and buy our food.  It’s savage.  It’s barbaric.  It’s cruel to the animal.  But there is a compelling cultural and legal argument that shoots all of this down.  Here it is:


Don’t watch the video.  Don’t hunt.  And for the luvagod, don’t eat meat.  Finally,  check this out:

What’s Up With This Blog?

Here’s the deal. Most bloggers have some sort of agenda and a consistent theme to his/her blog. For example, my friend Mike Mollenhour’s blog at is generally related to Second Amendment issues. However, my blog is just going to be about things that I like and don’t like. Or if I want to rant about something. I’m a lawyer, but my interests are rather broad. So, I’ll have some legal stuff here but, for the most part, I suspect that the blog will be unfocused. My first entry will be about the West Virginia Mountaineer mascot guy that actually used his university issued musket to, heaven forbid, hunt.

Tags: , ,


Welcome to our Blog! More coming soon!