The Terrorists Have Won In The NFL

Before I begin and someone decides to tell me that private organizations can decide their own policies let me point out that taxpayers paid for most (if not all) of the stadiums used in the National Football League.

The terrorists have won. It is that simple. You can no longer take a diaper bag into an NFL stadium. Nor can you take camera bags, purses larger than a clutch bag, fanny packs or any other kind of bag except for a clear 12″ x 6″ plastic bag (with or without a team logo) or a zip lock bag no larger than the above limit (a 1 gallon bag). And you can only carry one of those.

No backpacks, no briefcases (who takes one of those), no anything except the plastic bag OR a bag with medically necessary equipment.

Hell, you can’t even carry a seat cushion.

By the way, the teams will be more than happy to sell you a plastic bag (with logo) to carry your stuff.

This is partly in response to the Boston Marathon Bombing which involved a pressure cooker inside a backpack. None of these rules would have stopped it because people could have easily used explosives another way.

But, this will make us feel better.

Look, I get it. The world is dangerous but will this stop some deranged terrorist wannabe from causing chaos and killing people? No because there are plenty of ways to sneak explosives into the stadium. A determined terrorist could fly a plane load of explosives in or use a radio controlled device. I imagine they could get a small drone if they wanted to.

The world is a dangerous place. How many sports events have been blown up in the US compared to the number that has taken place? One marathon. Hundreds of baseball games take place each week and people carry bags in. For years since 9/11 people have taken bags into the NFL stadiums and nothing bad has happened.

Should these bags be subject to inspection? Absolutely but banning them, while it might make it a little safer, is an overreaction and really only makes it easier for the teams to get people in. They won’t have to spend time screening bags.

If they allowed most types of bags and screened them as they had in the past then those folks could go through tighter security and everyone else the standard screening.

But the NFL has imposed tough restrictions in the name of security in order to spend less time screening bags.

And of course to make money selling plastic team logo bags which the Baltimore Ravens have for $9.95 to $19.95. Interestingly, the Ravens also sell several types of team logo seat cushions.

I would expect that the team should no longer sell any item at the stadium that you could not bring in (excluding things like food and alcohol). That would include those seat cushions and the nice backpacks and other (banned) bags they sell.

I rarely go to a game and when I do I don’t carry much. But I also know that at some point we have to realize that there are risks in life. We also have to realize that this policy will do little to stop a determined person.

It will however, inconvenience a lot of people.

We are at the point where the terrorists have won, at least in the NFL.

Unless you stay home and watch the game on TV.

That is better anyway. No lines at the bathroom.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

It Is Not About Safety, It Is About Control

The federal government and a number of states with liberals in charge are working very hard to infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yesterday Senator Feinstein introduced a bill that would ban 150 firearms because they look scary and would limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold to 10. That ten round limit is, in effect, a ban of certain types of firearms because the smallest magazine for them holds more then 10.

Joe Biden, the drunkard VP, is in charge of the gun ban effort and he has come out to make it very clear that this is not about gun control, it is about safety.

He also made it clear that the proposals of the Obama regime will not end gun crime but could make a difference.

The vice president fielded questions online in a Google+ Hangout, saying the proposals that he and President Barack Obama have laid out won’t end gun crime, but they still could make a difference. WSJ

It has long been recognized that these kinds of laws will not work and Biden is basically acknowledging that fact. So if what they are doing won’t end gun violence and at best, COULD, still make a difference then how is it about safety? If it does not make it better (which it won’t) then it can’t be about safety because no one will be safer. If it is therefore not about safety it must be about gun control.

Gun control is not about guns but about control so the overarching theme is that the Obama regime wants more control over people.

Basically what Biden is telling us is they want to infringe upon our rights for the possibility of safety (though he admits we won’t be safer). Should we as a people give up our rights for safety?

Ben Franklin, a man much wiser than any in politics now, said it very well:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The right to keep and bear arms is an essential liberty and it is a liberty the Obama regime (and minions across the nation) is trying to take from us for a promise of safety (safety that COULD happen). If we give up our liberty for this alleged safety we will deserve neither.

And we will get neither. We will no longer have the right and we will not be safe from the most dangerous threat to our existence.

The government.

What are your thoughts on the proposed gun ban?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

Obamascare, The New Path To Bad Medicine

Anyone who thinks the Food and Drug Administration is in business to protect people is living in a fantasy world. The FDA approves drugs and says whether they can be used and by whom and then when there is a problem the FDA has no responsibility. It points fingers to the drug manufacturer. Of course those who made the drug are culpable but so are those who approved the drug.

The FDA is so concerned about the health of people that it is considering removing the need for a prescription for certain drugs like those to treat high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

This means that patients would not need to see a doctor in order to get those medications. While that might be reasonable for some medications (like 800 mg Ibuprofen) it is not wise for others like blood pressure medication.

These conditions require monitoring by a doctor. The medications often require blood tests and other testing to ensure the medication is therapeutic and not causing damage. It is also important that people do not take the drugs to treat perceived rather than actual maladies.

What if the high blood pressure is caused by another condition?

The FDA is doing this for what reason?

It is considering making some medications over the counter (OTC) to reduce the cost of Medicare which is even more burdened by Obamacare.

The cost and not the health of the patient is the overriding factor in this decision. If people get injured or die as a result of this decision then it is a small price to pay to keep costs under control (which might not be under control for those not on Medicare as insurance companies decide not to pay for OTC medication).

Sounds like a back door death panel to me.

While I think the FDA does stupid things and makes some drugs prescription when they do not need to be I also think the random removal of drugs in order to save money is criminal.

Then again, Obamacare is a criminal law.

If we are going to have an FDA then it needs to make sound decisions that protect the public.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline