Site Sponsors:
You Might Be an Entrepreneur If...  
We were happy to give our permission to use a quote from a recent thread on Linked:

The final presentation was epic - we thought you might enjoy it.

Here is the presentation.

[ view entry ] ( 902 views )   |  permalink  |  related link
Minuteman: Defending Self = Protecting Others? 
You might have noticed that - by definition - a terrorist is often outnumbered?

Indeed, when EVERY SECOND can save the life of someone you love, the problem surely is not that a bad guy has a weapon, but that ordinary citizens ... do not?

A well-armed citizenry firing back (1) draws an assailants fire away from unarmed citizens, giving defenceless people (2) more time to escape the line-of fire. Having more than one citizen firing-back can also (3) encourage a sick mind to retreat, (4) stop firing & find shelter (saving even more lives!), if not to (5) surrender. Ultimately, much like Imperial Japan deciding not to invade after Pearl Harbor, simply knowing that firing into a crowd is likely to get the crowd to fire back will eventually (6) deter terrorist attacks all-to-gether?

Such life-saving advantages are the stark realities of having a well-armed citizenry: The best way to stop a bad-guy with a gun is to have a good guy - and the more, the better - with the same advantage. --Why will the media not say so? Why do they want to continue to disarm U.S?

Oh sure - Lawyers & laymen might like to haggle over ricochet & random-rounds falling into a crowded population... yet which has the greater probability of causing a fatality: Someone firing directly at others, or someone firing randomly into-the-sky?

One should marvel over how - in recent memory - our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves - if respected - would have saved the lives of many others, as well?

I also wonder if - until we are able to erase the knowledge of guns and gun-making from all human minds, as well as human histories - should we be picking them up ... or passing them out?

What do you think?

The visionaries who founded our great nation thought that - when every second counts - when lives of friends and family are at risk - that America could use lots of good-guys on-the-scene. -Ordinary citizens willing to stop what they are doing so as to protect their community - or save a life - in LESS THAN a minute?

American's Forefathers knew that - while a few will ever cower for hours amongst those ever-increasing number of corpses waiting for someone else to save them - that there would be many more who would feel the need to defend. --Instant heroes amongst the offended number who would be willing to risk their own lives so as to prevent more of their fellow Americans from falling. --Ordinary people who, if their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to defend themselves might simply be respected, would be ready, willing, and able able to return any assailant's murderous attack on-the-spot ... as well as en masse.

Yet prevention is surely worth avoiding any unpleasant pound of 'cure.' -Sadly, even without any proactive measures however, it seems that even otherwise reasonable people can - and always have - gone life-taking crazy?

Sadly, if it be the case that there will ever be attackers amongst us - whenever a single sick, or politic-crazed person begins to destroy the lives of our fellow Americans - then having a few extra kilos of an all-saving 'cure' in-hand at ground-zero is certainly not such a bad idea? (Certainly Americans once understood how to cope with spontaneous acts of aggression, revolution, and war?)

No unarmed civilian ever plans to be in the line of fire after all. -The next life on-the-line to be-saved might just be the life of someone we love.

So the RIGHT TO DEFEND EACH OTHER - much like the right to defend ourselves - is about saving lives. Moreover, when every second counts, there is simply no legal precedent to be concerned with... not when we the people make the laws?

Personally, I think that there are few new problems. Rather, I am beginning to believe that there are far more long-forgotten solutions?

Related: Sharp Objects

[ view entry ] ( 6978 views )   |  permalink  |  related link
LinkedIn Asks: Why Don't You Delegate? 
"Delegation is about trust. -It is also about care & competence.

Delegation also often pre-supposes that we want whomever we delegate TO, to be able to grow so as to to fill bigger shoes some day?

So if one is like the rest of us, then we genuinely * WANT TO * delegate ... allot! -Yet when we trust others to do the things that we could otherwise do ourselves, an extra overhead often accompanies most types of inter-office delegation. -New efforts that often include skills that require an ability to (1) follow up, (2) managing cyclic results, (3) communicate & update objectives, and (4) more! --Chores which are often only worth our extra effort if / when we want those whom we trust, to become better?

Little wonder most feel that it is simply easier to 'do things for oneself', then to 'delegate'?

Of course, over time one will notice that while some folks are able to properly manage the trust required for task delegation, others, cannot. --Indeed, the difference between being a ''leader'' and merely being ''in-charge'' precisely hinges upon the ability to grow others... -Our personal ability to manage many trust-relationships. --An ability to intuitively assign proper tasks... as well as proper rewards!

Ever work with young kids? -If so, then we all know the way ;-)"

[ view entry ] ( 3390 views )   |  permalink  |  related link

<<First <Back | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | Next> Last>>