Sometimes Change Doesn't Do You Good

For all my conflictedness, I am pretty open to change.  I, in fact embrace some change with a zest that is both shocking to the imagination and the pocketbook.  As I mentioned in a recent post, I have a tendency to shop on days that I am stuck at home and decided our house needed yet one more ultra thin TV.  I totally embrace the idea, that with modern technology you can carry your TV from room to room (if you ever were so inclined) thanks to wireless cable boxes.




So I got rid of the last of these:

And got another one of these:

One could say that there was a day that most homes had one TV with just a few channels and we got by.
True, but then technology came along and taunted us with cable hookups in every room and 500 channels available.  Of course, 500 channels didn't give us nearly enough to choose from so we had to add  "ON DEMAND".  Doesn't that sound like you have POWER.  I demand you to bring me a movie that I feel like watching..RIGHT NOW!!!

Soooo.....back to my original thought. Change can be embraced...yes, I love my techy phone, I like texting you whenever I have something to say and I luuuuvvvvvv the Internet. Oh yeah! OXOXOXOXO

But every once in a while a change comes my way that just pisses me off.  A change that (in my humble opinion) is not a well thought out change.

Thought Number One:  Not All Changes are for the Good


Last week a new ordinance came to our area that I think is a huge misstep.  But, frankly, I don't think the local ordinance-makers particularly care what I think. Do they care that while giving rights to some they are making others feel vulnerable?

As most of you know...I live in Olathe, KS.  That is a suburb of Kansas City, KS. and the next door neighbor to Overland Park, Kansas.  My home is located  fairly close to the Overland Park city border. You might even say it is within shooting distance. Why does any of this matter, you ask?

Here is a little excerpt from an article from the Kansas City Star.


The Overland Park City Council on Monday approved an ordinance allowing legal gun owners to openly carry their weapons in public — provided the gun is in a holster with the safety engaged and in their immediate control at all times.

The new law follows a Kansas attorney general opinion that cities may not completely prohibit open carry of a loaded firearm while on public property. 

The new law allows open carry in places such as sidewalks, parks and buildings that don’t have signs prohibiting firearms.
Councilman Paul Lyons was the only one to vote against open carry.

“Overland Park is one of the safest cities in the nation, so there is no reason for someone to be openly carrying around a gun for protection,” Lyons said. “The only reason someone would want to show off a gun is to intimidate people, and that’s not the image we want our city to project.”



Now you might ask me why I am being Ms. Crabby Pants about this.  I am the same person that said,  that while I don't presently own a gun, I am not against Castle Laws.  I am not against gun ownership.   I am for gun rights within the realm of being used by a trained individual that follows all the guidelines. 

This is the part I am not OK with.  I am not OK with being in the line at the Walmart with any yahoo that wants to carry his Glock around. I am going to feel insecure.  How do I know you aren't a time-bomb just waiting to get in a "pissing match "because the checkout chick is rude to you.

Yes, I am still wearing my Crabby Pants!

Thought Number Two:  Don't Be Making Changes Unless You Think About It and Work Out the Possible Repercussions.

It isn't just about the fact "anyone can carry their gun and thereby scaring the shit out of me" that has my Ms. Crabby Pants persona coming forward.   Over and over again we  hear about changes that have sparked controversy or problems. Is there a week that goes by that something isn't being apologized for or recalled. Drugs that are supposed to help but end up hurting. Products were were told would improve our lives but give us problems.

Just this week the Apple people are telling us that  the  new mapping system on the IPhone 5 doesn't work and perhaps you should go back to using Google Maps.  OOPSIE, who was the Apple genius that didn't discover that until after a few million people stood in line "upgrading".

So just a heads up from Ms. Crabby Pants...I am totally game to buy all manner of  neat innovative stuff and I will even follow the new rules that come down the pike every other day but let's not be making changes just for the sake of making changes.  Either make it better or smarter or leave it the hell alone.




Come Join Top Sites Tuesday and be #1 on BlogDumps!
The purpose of this Meme is to encourage
Networking between bloggers and to have fun while doing it!
Make sure to visit all the other participants and leave comments

It's a Figure of Speech

While reading the Sunday edition of the Kansas City Star, I noticed an article about an unfortunate accident involving a person accidentally shooting himself. 





If you are unable to read the text:  Basically it is about a man taking a class to get a concealed gun permit.  He inadvertently tried to unholster his weapon with his left hand (being right handed) and shot himself.  He died from the injury.

Note:  I removed the actual names of the people from the articles in a modest attempt to protect their identity. I, personally, feel bad for the guy to have this act of stupidity be part of his eulogy.  I tend to worry that I will do something really stupid that is going to result in a really bad obit.

Anyway, back to the point of today's post....

The reason this story stood out to me was that directly opposite it on the next page (pretty much even with it horizontally) was another article.

Note:   If you are unable to read this one, let me give you a synopsis.  This person is writing to the editorial page that encourages people to get concealed weapons in an effort to insure their safety.  His thought is that you can't rely 

on the police or security to act quickly
 enough to help.

At this point the title: Guns Ensure Safety doesn't seem right.

Today's post isn't about taking a stand on concealed weapons.   I have already established in past posts that I don't have a gun and probably shouldn't be allowed to have one as clutzy as I am.  Besides, my house is armed with dust and cat hair. With any luck at all my intruders will have asthma or at the very least allergies.  Even if they don't have a severe asthma attack, (but let's hope they do) perhaps the fit of sneezing will give me ample warning to get out of the house.

Today's post is, "has there ever been a better example of irony?"

I would suspect that when the writer of the "editorial" letter, saw it's placement in the paper, he was less than pleased. I would guess he wasn't debating whether it fits the definition of irony as much as it certainly fits the definition of unfortunate. (at least as far as him making a case for concealed weapons ensuring personal safety)


For me I was left wondering if this really is an example of irony?

Or is it a paradox???

Or is it an antithesis???

Or is it satire???


The actual definition and proper use for irony seems to have everyone confused. In fact, one of the web sites that has examples of  an ironic phrase used this one:

Irony is the fact that most people don't understand the definition of irony. 


One more figure of speech for today. Here is a hyperbole for you.

This momma kitty is working her kitty butt off.






The Good for the day.....Spring is getting nearer. 


The Bad for the Day....The sad things that are happening in the world.

The Weird for the day...This weird for the day has absolutely nothing to do with today's topic. But I can't believe I am just now hearing about the Chris Farley look alike baby??  I try to keep informed on important current events.

Castle Doctrine Laws: Make My Day

Last  week in Kansas City, MO, a homeowner was awakened during the middle of the night with someone dragging a go cart out of his back yard.  In his "less then alert" state of mind, he grabbed his shotgun and fired into the dark. Well, I probably don't have to tell you where this is headed.  The robber was shot and killed.  The homeowner called 911 and reported the incident and when the police arrived he was promptly arrested.  Lately, I have been noticing a rash of these arrests where a homeowner is being charged with shooting an intruder.  The difference with this one is the burglar was out in the yard.


There is no debate that the robber was robbing him.  In fact, this homeowner had been robbed 3 times in the recent  weeks.  The initial newspaper article said that the prosecutor was going to indict with Murder in the 2nd degree.  I was surprised by that.  I would have guessed that would only warrant an involuntary manslaughter count. Shows what I know??? Clearly the guy would have not been thinking clearly under these circumstances.  Probably shouldn't pick up a gun when you are half asleep, just a thought.


I suspect that in any state in the union, under these circumstances the  shooter would be  in a big heap of trouble.  The intruder was not in the house, was not armed and didn't threaten the homeowner.  He was just stealing stuff.


All of this got me thinking, of course....ya knew it would.


What are the laws in my current state??  Why I felt the need to know is any one's guess. As I don't own a gun and wouldn't know how to use it.  Just more trivial junk I need to stow in the nether regions of my brain.

 I looked up the laws in Kansas concerning the Castle Doctrine Laws.  Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or an other's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. 


 At the present time there are 31 states that have some version of the Castle Doctrine Laws. In recent years, a number of states have adopted or considered bills referred to as “castle doctrine” bills. These bills expand the circumstances where a person can use self-defense without retreating and contain other provisions, such as immunity for someone who legally uses force in self-defense.


Each state's laws vary in wording and intent. Turns out this is the tricky part.  Just in case you are planning on shooting an intruder anytime soon.  You better read your law clearly.

 Some states have added provisions such as the  "No Retreat Laws" which add the clause that you don't have to attempt to remove yourself from a threatening situation. Another version is some states is "Make My Day Laws".  (I am serious here).  These laws are based on the attitude that Dirty Harry had in the Clint Eastwood movies.  (in this version someone for sure is going to get hurt) and my personal favorite is the "No need to retreat anywhere" law.  This is the Texas version that says they don't expect you to retreat at all.  (it's nearly daring you to blow someone to bits) Here are a couple of web sites that break down the laws by states and do a pretty good job of clarifying the extent of the Castle Laws in that state.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm


http://redensign.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/castle-law-stand-your-ground-2/


Now some of you are jumping to the conclusion that I would want to shoot an intruder.  Not so fast on your jumping there folks.  First of all, I have already noted that hubby and I don't own a gun.  Hubby was in a branch of the military,  so I guess he could figure it out but we are pacifists (whooses if you will) so you can jump to the conclusion we will just be scared S***LESS  if we wake up to a robber.


With that being said, for you guys and gals that have legal weapons and someone is breaking in your place, I guess given the right circumstances I am ok with you shooting them. (not that you need my permission, so shoot away) 


 I hesitate to endorse shooting someone that is burglarizing your place but basically these dumb asses need to not be in your house messing with you and your things. Further more if they do break in, they need to take on the risk that they might get shot.  I don't want to hear them whining about their injuries (if they survive).  I especially don't want to hear about them suing you, which seems to happen from time to time.  If I am on your jury, I might be the tie breaker in your favor. (Well unless, you were doing something outrageous and mean spirited to your burglar. Let's assume he was asking for trouble.)


I liked the Texas attitude as far as home invasions go.  Back on the blog post where I  was talking about good neighbors, I failed to mention that my immediate next door neighbor in Texas was a Texas Ranger.  Roland  was a really good neighbor.  Neat guy. 


Shortly after we moved in and got to know each other a bit, he came over.  He asked me if I had a gun in the house and of course, I said no.  He said " I know your hubby travels a lot.  If he is out of town and you have any trouble you just call."  He proceeded to tell me about the "no need to retreat law".  Roland said he would be glad to shoot someone for me if they broke into my house.  How sweet is that???  Now there is a neighbor that has your back.


Anyway...Back to the fact that I now reside in Kansas.  Turns out Kansas does  have a version of a Castle Doctrine Law but it was updated in 2010 by a Castle Doctrine Bill.  I have read it and reread it and just don't get it. Doesn't it sound (see link below) like if you threaten your intruder, you had better carry through or you are breaking the law.  If you don't warn him you better not hurt him.  I am totally confused.  If you kill him, how is he going to tell anyone "Hey he didn't warn me."



https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1lW6hcx9GsZsUVI6US0pekrvTKHW4IEG_TMkzJ5cgYUU/edit?hl=en#



I can't help but think of the little old lady that was trying to get out of Cairo, that said she had an arsenal comprised of hot water, rolling pin, knife and a pan.  Perhaps that is the safest approach if you don't want to get charged with shooting someone.


The good for the day....Our homes are "Our Castles"


The bad for the day....There are idiots out there that have no respect for your castle. 




The WEIRD for the day ....speaking of gun rights (and wrongs) I always find Tom Lehrer's takes on subjects pretty funny.