Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (688495)	12/16/2012 10:42:54 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1576152

Waffle House Robber Killed By Concealed Carry Permit Holder I hate to see a kid throw his life away, literally, for whatever could be stolen from a Waffle House, but when you start pointing guns at people and robbing them, you forfeit your right to take in oxygen. This is especially true if there is someone with a gun pointed at you: Spartanburg County sheriff’s deputies responded to the Waffle House at 2230 Chesnee Highway just before 1:15 a.m. Saturday. Two masked men had entered the restaurant with the intention of robbing it, and at least one of them was armed, authorities said. A customer, who is a concealed weapons permit holder, thwarted the robbery by pulling his gun and attempting to hold the men until deputies arrived. When one of the men pointed his gun at the customer, the patron fired, killing the teenager. The teenager, later identified as Dante Lamont Williams, of 827 S. Edisto River Drive, Roebuck, was pronounced dead at the scene, according to a written statement from Coroner Rusty Clevenger. Williams had been shot in the head and chest. Sheriff Chuck Wright said he does not plan to charge the customer, who he says is “very upset” about the shooting. As most anyone would be. I’m sure the customer didn’t go to the Waffle House to kill a kid. But when given the choice of allowing others to be hurt or preventing it, he stepped up. And to shut up any liberals who want to talk about a Wild West shootout scenario, read this: During a news conference Saturday night, Wright said even after the masked men entered the restaurant, the concealed weapons holder waited until the robbers began ordering customers to the floor and employees into the back – while waving a gun – to act. After pulling his .45-caliber Glock, the customer ordered the men to stay put until deputies arrived. Only after Williams pointed his Hi-Point 9mm at the man, did the customer fire, Wright said. “The way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is you point a gun at him,” the sheriff said. Exactly. The person who violated people rights in this situation wasn’t a law abiding citizen who jumped through unnecessary hoops to exercise their right to bear arms. It was the criminal who probably got his gun outside the parameters of the law. Concealed carry permit holders are law abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect themselves and others when necessary. This is a great example.

To: puborectalis who wrote (688495)	12/16/2012 10:44:20 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576152

Citizen With Concealed Carry Permit May Have Saved Lives During Oregon Mall Shooting December 16, 2012 By Lonely Conservative The shooting last week at the mall in Clackamas, Oregon has been overshadowed by the tragedy that unfolded Friday morning at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. In Oregon two innocent human beings lost their lives, but perhaps the carnage would have been worse if not for Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit and was in the mall when the gunman opened fire. Meli pulled his weapon, but did not shoot the gunman because there were bystanders who could have been injured. The gunman saw Meli, an armed citizen, and rather than shoot more innocents he pointed his weapon at himself. “He was working on his rifle,” said Meli. ”He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.” The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter. “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said. Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision. “I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.” We don’t know how many lives Meli may have saved by pulling his weapon and making the shooter aware that he wasn’t the only person in the mall with a gun. But something tells me the left won’t be giving Meli any medals. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them demand he be prosecuted. But it’s quite possible that Meli saved lives that day. We need more law abiding, level headed citizens like Meli walking among us, not fewer of them. Via Instapundit, and more thoughts on this from the Bulletproof Patriot and The Truth About Guns. [iframe frameborder="0" hspace="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" tabindex="0" vspace="0" width="100%" id="I0_1355672753115" name="I0_1355672753115" src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Flonelyconservative.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Flonelyconservative.com%2F2012%2F12%2Fcitizen-with-concealed-carry-permit-may-have-save-lives-during-oregon-mall-shooting%2F&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en.4hKv6LuceeI.O%2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DgQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTPEw_pjdkAFX7UtsDVhcZt6KyV2og#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1355672753115&parent=http%3A%2F%2Flonelyconservative.com" allowtransparency="true" title="+1" style="position: static; top: 0px; width: 106px; margin: 0px; border-style: none; left: 0px; visibility: visible; height: 24px;"][/iframe]

To: puborectalis who wrote (688495)	12/16/2012 11:32:59 AM
From: Bonefish	Respond to of 1576152

You got a minority Doctor a few decades ago, it was no worry. Now it is. Even in Medical School, Affirmative Action Rules By Chris Mondie When it comes to becoming a physician, the academic rigors, years of schooling, and personal sacrifice common to the effort are well-known. This process is a sort of rite of passage, an intellectual marathon that only the best and brightest can complete. As such, medical schools should select candidates best-suited to excel throughout school and cultivate the skills that will allow them to practice in the best health care system in the world. The process by which these candidates are selected, however, may come as a shock. In examining documents made public by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), it becomes apparent that race plays a disturbingly large role in the medical student application process. The documents provide data about the applicant pool from years 2009-2011 -- namely, the number of applicants within a given GPA and MCAT score range, and how many of those applicants gained acceptance to a school. These data, it turns out, are organized by race. A quick scan of the documents reveals that white students applying to medical school with a GPA in the 3.40-3.59 range and with an MCAT score in the 21-23 range (a below-average score on a test with a maximal score of 45) had an 11.5% acceptance rate (total of 1,500 applicants meeting these criteria). Meanwhile, a review of minority students (black, Latino, and Native American) with the same GPA and MCAT range had a 42.6% acceptance rate (total of 745 applicants meeting these criteria). Thus, as a minority student with a GPA and MCAT in the aforementioned ranges, you are more than 30% more likely to gain acceptance to a medical school. An equally unsettling statistic is that another AAMC study uncovered that accepted students with an MCAT of 27 or lower had an overall attrition rate of 2.5% in the first two years of medical school. This is more than double the 1.1% attrition rate for those who scored a 28 or above. Despite these statistics, 42.6% of minority applicants with a score of 21-23 (and a marginal GPA) were accepted. Delving in a bit farther, an additional document put forth by the AAMC outlines a reasonably large study performed for three matriculating medical school classes. The study followed each class for ten years (as some students took longer than the allotted four years to complete their degree). The data show that of the students in the 1995 matriculating class, attrition rates were as follows: 0.7% for whites, 3.4% for Latinos, 6.7% for blacks/African-Americans, 0.9% for Asians, and 4.3% for Native Americans. Upon surveying those who did drop out, the study states that the majority of black/African-American, Native American, and Latino students cited "academic reasons," while the majority of the white and Asian students cited "non-academic reasons." The data here conclusively point to the fact that academically weak students who are accepted tend to drop out of medical school at a higher rate -- a conclusion that certainly isn't earth-shattering. These specific data have nothing to do with linking race to attrition rates. The data appear merely to be be skewed because a larger percentage of poorly qualified applicants are accepted from minority groups. These numbers are not only disturbing, but downright disheartening. As a previous medical school applicant myself, I feel cheated when I think that my work and grades were looked at less favorably than those of other students with similar grades -- and that in some instances those with lower grades could have been chosen over me -- based on race. How can we afford to select future physicians by a process that, to an extent, elects to overlook academic performance? Is this what affirmative action has become? Once a tool that sought to eliminate race from the employment process in an effort to promote equality, affirmative action has taken on a life of its own. It is now a dominant force that has countered racism with more racism. Affirmative action sends the message to others that they aren't good enough to attain their goals on their own. It says that individuals need some sort of a handicap to get to where they want to be. This is not the spirit of America; these are the same injustices that we so diligently fought against in the past. How can we afford to overlook them now? Page Printed from: americanthinker.com

To: puborectalis who wrote (688495)	12/16/2012 1:44:01 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576152

Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners? Lee Fang on December 14, 2012 - 7:40 PM ET Over the last four years, Congress and the Obama administration have only enacted laws that have deregulated gun use in America. It’s no secret why. As pundits love to note, the gun lobby is incredibly influential. But as we consider the potential for reform in the wake of the tragedy today, one of the first questions we should ask this time is: who does the gun lobby really represent? The National Rifle Association portrays itself as an organization that represents “4 million members” who simply love the Second Amendment. The truth is much more murky. In reality, the NRA is composed of half a dozen legal entities; some designed to run undisclosed attack ads in political campaigns, others to lobby and collect tens of millions in undisclosed, tax-deductible sums. This power has only been enhanced in the era of Citizens United, with large GOP donors in the last election reportedly funneling money to the NRA simply to use the group as a brand to pummel Democrats with nasty ads. (As The Huffington Post’s Peter Stone reported, even the Koch network now provides an undisclosed amount to the NRA.) Despite the grassroots façade, there is much evidence to suggest that corporations that profit from unregulated gun use are propping up the NRA’s activities, much like how the tobacco lobby secretly funded “ Smokers Rights’” fronts and libertarian anti-tax groups, or how polluters currently finance much of the climate change skepticism movement. In a “ special thanks” to their donors, the National Rifle Association Foundation lists Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the company that makes the assault rifle reportedly found with the shooter responsible for the mass murder today in Newtown, Connecticut. How much Bushmaster Firearms Inc. (a firm now known as Windham) contributes is left unsaid. The Violence Policy Center has estimated that since 2005, gun manufacturers have contributed up to $38.9 million to the NRA. Those numbers, however, are based on publicly listed “sponsorship” levels on NRA fundraising pamphlets. The real figures could be much bigger. Like Crossroads GPS or Americans for Prosperity, or the Sierra Club for that matter, the NRA does not disclose any donor information even though it spends millions on federal elections. And like other industry fronts, the NRA is quick to conceal its pro–gun industry policy positions as ideological commitments. Take, for example, “The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.” It’s a pro–gun rights legal fund “involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.” And who helps pick which impact-litigation cases the NRA will become involved with? Folks like James W. Porter II, a board member of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, who doubles as an attorney whose private firm specializes in “areas of products liability defense of firearms manufacturers.” His last client, according to a search of the federal court docket, was Smith & Wesson Corporation. Is the NRA working for casual gun-owners, many of whom, according to polling, support tougher restrictions on gun ownership— or is the NRA serving the gunmaker lobby— which is purely interested in policies that will promote greater gun sales and more profits? Any gun control policy debate should begin with this question.