Bad Sex Drives Woman To Shoot Boyfriend

Sadie Bell

Talk about being sexually frustrated! 58-year-old Sadie Bell admitted to shooting her boyfriend after a round of horrible sex. Why? Because she believed that this sudden unexpected run of bad sex meant that he was cheating on her. My immediate reaction, sadly, was to laugh. First, this guy has been cheating on his wife with Bell for 15 years. What would make her think that he wouldn’t turn around and do the same thing when he was bored? Anyways, I guess common sense escapes her often.

He was hospitalized for 5 months and she was convicted of assault with intent to do bodily harm and felony gun charge. She was also sentenced to 4 years in prison.

Most convicts would (should) have to wait out their prison sentence, but Bell got lucky with a granted appeal bond of only $10,000. You can imagine why Oakland County prosecutors are outraged.

Prosecutors say Bell makes snap decisions and reacts with violence. They say she shot her husband years ago, but never went to court for it.

As crazy and comical as this story seems, there is a bigger picture here. Why are people getting ‘get out of jail free’ cards? Why are convicts not being expected to stick out their punishment? Why are we offering bail (especially that low) to someone who has a violent history? This chick should be back behind bars, and in my opinion, for much longer than 4 years.

Gay Rights VS Gun Rights: Which is more dangerous to society?

I feel like from the title alone I am going to get a mass of angry emails. But regardless of how many people decide to yell at me for this post, it still makes me wonder.

Reading this article before continuing may offer a better understanding of why I posted this and how I am making this connection:


Total death by firearm (homicide, accidental, suicidal, and self-defense) each year is estimated at around 11,000 people, according to the CDC.

Also according to the CDC, there were almost 50,000 NEW cases of HIV/AIDS in the year 2011 alone and over 1.3 million people today who are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS (not including those who do not know they have it). The number of deaths associated with HIV/AIDS is estimated at 8,369 per year. To add to that, nearly 7,000 homosexual men die each year from HIV/AIDS. Then considering an additional 40,000-50,000 NEW cases each year, this only adds to the amount of homosexual men and women who will eventually die due to this disease. Aside from this, homosexuals and liberals are still putting ALL of their focus into allowing same-sex marriage because gay men and women should be allowed to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT to love and marry anyone they want. Although, I don’t know where this ‘right’ came from. This is a right that they believe they have developed over the years, not necessarily a right that has been written down for government not to intervene.

Yes, the number of deaths by HIV/AIDS is still less than death by firearms. However, if you take out deaths from handguns, the death from rifles and shotguns combined is lower than the deaths from HIV/AIDS each year. Anyways, so let’s look at something else now- Suicide and self-harm are another factor. The Stonewall 2012 Survey discovered that 3% of gay men and 5% of bisexual men had attempted to take their own life, compared to only 0.4% of men in general. The rate for suicide is MUCH higher in homosexual men. When looking at self-inflicted harm, here are similar findings. 7% of gay and bisexual men had deliberately harmed themselves compared to only 3% of men in general, and in the 16- to 24-year-old age group, 15% of gay and bisexual men had harmed themselves compared to 7% of men in general.

Next we have murder, domestic violence, and hate crime.

In 2010, 6,628 hate crime incidents, involving 7,699 offenses
and 8,208 victims, were reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation by local law enforcement agencies.

Hate Crime

So in 2010, there were a total of 8,208 victims of hate-inspired crime, 19.3% of which were geared towards sexual orientation. That means that in 2010, about 1,560 homosexuals were victims of hate crime. This number increased to 2,016 incidents reported and 25 homicides in 2012.


Now all of that aside, what is everyone doing in order to confront this issue and end violence against homosexuals? They are attacking the culture. They are attacking the “old-fashioned” view that being homosexual is wrong/dirty/sacrilegious. In general, America has an extremely violent culture which in turn leads individuals to resort to violence. We have homosexual awareness rallies, we have government funded screenings to help educate and prevent HIV/AIDS, and we have people encouraging them to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. Which, I’m sorry if this offends anyone but last time I checked ‘gay rights’ was not protected by the Constitution. At most, one could argue that the Constitution protects one’s privacy and even that’s a stretch. All in all, people are fighting for gay rights because people believe that we should have the right to make our own decisions. With guns, instead of attacking the culture, they are attacking the weapon and the people who own them. Tell me, if being homosexual is life-threatening and dangerous ALSO due to the increased risk of disease, suicide, depression/mental instability, and hate crime then why is owning a gun not approached in the same way?

This doesn’t make any sense to me. How can you expect us to support your choices and what you choose to do with your life, but want to restrict us from making choices of our own? We shouldn’t be attacking law-abiding gun owners. We should be attacking the culture that is encouraging people to act violently. We should be attacking the criminals who are hurting people. You’re attacking them for hurting homosexuals, why aren’t you attacking them for using a gun? Do you want to know why I have a gun? Because I KNOW this country is violent and I want to protect myself from it. I know we have criminals on the street with what seems to be the result of little consequences and being let out of jail early on ‘good behavior’. Would I need a gun if there was no murderers, rapists, or other horrible people out there? No. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t have ever thought about getting one.

Whether or not I agree or disagree, support or don’t support homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not my point here. My point is that you are asking us to support your decision and your right when it kills a large number of people each year as well. My second point is that I don’t want to hear that you are in favor of gun-control because of the amount of gun-related deaths each year. If you are truly concerned about death, you wouldn’t support homosexuals yet you do anyway.



NY Student Suspended for Wearing Pro-Second Amendment T-Shirt

High school student Shane Kinney was placed in on-campus suspension in New York for wearing an NRA Pro-Second Amendment t-shirt. School officials claimed that the shirt was disruptive, inappropriate, and in violation of the GICSD Code of Conduct. After the school administrator acknowledged the shirt, she immediately demanded he turn the shirt inside out or place duct tape over the NRA logo. When the student refused, he was then sent to the principal’s office where his parents were contacted.


Now, I am interested to learn the school’s logic behind punishing Shane for wearing a t-shirt supporting the NRA and the 2nd amendment. Students are given a right to free speech, are they not? I understand that schools implement certain limitations in terms of clothing if they believe the clothing contains vulgarities, promoting drug-usage, gang relation, or other forms of dangerous conduct, or if they have evidence showing that the shirt will likely cause a disruption. In some cases, public and private schools may go as far as to ban logos of any sort. However, at this high school, none of the following apply. There is nothing vulgar about the NRA or the second amendment. His shirt was not promoting gun violence, suicide, homicide, drug usage, gang relation, or dangerous conduct of any kind. He was wearing a t-shirt in support of an organization that he is involved in. So what? Even with all of the above out of the way, the school still claimed that the shirt was disruptive. How so? Because it has a rifle on it? It’s not like he was standing on the cafeteria tables preaching to the student body about shooting people. Come on now! If anything, another student can openly disagree with his organization of choice which can lead to a debate. Big deal. Shouldn’t we be encouraging students to have an opinion and to stand up for what they believe in? 

The parents were up in arms over this because no where in the handbook did it say that their kid could not wear a t-shirt from an organization. The closest offense they could find was the schools ban to encourage illegal or violent activities. Last time I checked, the NRA is neither violent nor illegal. Taking away a student’s right to the first amendment? Now that I call illegal.