Dang

The crazy is breaking out all over, and I don't have a thing to say. Ok, maybe just a little something.

David Letterman, you're old news. I never "got" you in the first place, and now you've had to turn to shock humor (I use that term loosely) to get your name out there. You screwed up, now go away.

Crazy white supremacist dude, you're nuttier than squirrel shit, but at least you hated everybody equally. Thanks for getting the lefties concerned about the Jews again, because when a muslim does it, it's OK, but when a "right winger" does it, it's bad. Maybe they'll see that disconnect and take steps to reconcile that little issue.

. Continue Reading

Dear Gay People

I'm writing this mostly because of Tennessee's new attempt at creating yet another class of aggrieved/protected/special people. I'm against it, of course.

I don't think gay people need any more protection than what their favorite sidearm gives them. I don't think more "anti discrimination" laws will do any good, whether it applies to marriage, the workplace, or anywhere else.

Gay people can be subject to discrimination, of course they can. So can anybody else. A lot of it hinges on choices they make.

Here's the deal: if you act outside the norm, you are no longer "normal". It's not who you find sexually attractive, I truly believe you have no choice over that. I didn't, so why should you?

You do, however, have choices in your actions. If you do things most people don't, then you may very well be singled out for it and talked about/condemned/ostracised, depending on what you chose to do, and the relative up-tightedness of those around you. Holding hands with your lover might not provoke any reactions from onlookers, making out passionately at a baseball game might.

I don't care what you do with your sex partner. It's a private matter and I don't want to hear about it. That goes for non-gay people as well. Don't want to hear about it.

Do what you want in private, but there's nothing wrong with acting like a mature adult in public.

. Continue Reading

Thoughts

In this post over at Instapundit, he shows pictures of people in attendance who are other than white. One comment he got was:

‘You found photos of 6 black people at tea parties! Thats proof that there isn’t any racism going on at the protests. Take that Dems! Keep up the good work.”

I do see the point - one could easily see that post as a case of "some of my best friends are ______ ". It's also easy to throw that accusation whenever the issue is brought up.

The fact remains most attendees were white. That's undeniable. But one thing I want to point out is the few non-white people in attendance, be them black, islander, Asian Indian, Arab, etc., came, attended, and went without a single incident.

Would that have happened if the tea parties were a racist event?

Just askin'.

.

Continue Reading

The US, Mexico, and Guns - Updated by Fox News

There's a lot of stuff flying around these here Internets about the whole guns in Mexico thing.

I hear 90% of the traceable guns found in Mexico were from the US. (I, for one, would like to see a real number there instead of a nebulous percentage)

I hear there's no way to trace most of the guns found in Mexico because the Mexican government isn't releasing the serial numbers.

I think, ultimately, a large part of these guns had their origin in the US.

Not from straw buyers at gun shows, hell no. That's just silly. Drug cartels don't have the time to mess with that. They also do have the money to circumvent any set of laws and procedures in place to prevent large shipments of arms from reaching Mexico.

Those machine guns, grenades, explosives, rockets, etc., probably did, at some point, come through the US on their way to Mexico. It's just common sense. We ship and receive more stuff on a daily basis than some countries do in a year.

Then, of course, is the fact that the US has supplied virtually all of the anti-communist forces in Central and South America for decades. Those weapons came from the US as well. Years ago.

We gun-fanatics gun rights people need to better define this argument. Letting the legacy media define the issue never helps anyone get closer to the truth. We need to pin them down on the issue, force them to explain things in a clearer manner in order to ascertain where these weapons are coming from.

Responding to someone saying the guns are coming from the US by saying "No they're not!" isn't going to work. It would be better, in my opinion, to elaborate on how these guns may be getting into Mexico - not by straw buyers in Phoenix, but by the large-scale shipments they are undoubtedly getting from wherever these shipments originate.

For the record, I was somewhat surprised at Michael Yon's posts on this matter, considering his military background, but what really shocked me was this:

The idea that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" should be saved for someone who will buy it.

Coming from a former SF guy, that really shocked me.

Being a Combat Engineer in a past life, I've spent some time with SF types, and the one thing I've noticed about SF guys was how they were based in the real world. I had one tell me he never used terms like "give 110%" because 100% was all we have and most people who use those terms have never even given 90.

At any rate, this topic is shaping up to be the tip of the spear for the gun control movement. It's time for us to get focused on how we can present our side of the story to the general public.

UPDATE - Fox News' William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott (heh, Maxim) set the story straight:

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

[snip]

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. By all accounts, it's probably around 17 percent.

You don't say!

.

Continue Reading

An Observation

In the various places on the Intertubes where a user name is required, (the comment section of the Commercial Appeal, for example) you can count on anyone with a username containing the word "brains" or "smart" to have none and be anything but.

. Continue Reading

Now I Agree With Bill Schneider

On this one bit, he's right:

I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments. So, they mock us, calling us Elmer Fudds.

Emphasis mine.

Of course, that's the only part of his diatribe against gun owners I agree with. Ride Fast does an excellent job taking apart the rest of it.

But.

I've always had a nagging little pain concerning the term "Fudd". I don't know where it came from, probably from one of those big gun boards I can't get on because I can't get my name approved (I haven't tried all that hard, really). While Ride Fast says it's used in a joking manner, I don't see it that way. It's a slur, like any other. Elmer Fudd is arguably the dumbest cartoon character ever conceived. Grouping a whole section of gun owners that way is stereotyping, plain and simple.

I understand where the sentiment comes from - the perception that hunters sold gunnies down the river over the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures. However accurate the perception is, it's done now. Grow the hell up.

If we're really concerned with the rights of all gun owners, if we're really concerned with "eating our own", then that term needs to go away. It's not helping, and it's giving our opponents a wedge issue to use against us.

. Continue Reading

Good Editorial

Brian Deck of Springfield, Missouri, writes:

The citizen with a concealed carry permit (CCW permit) issued by the state of Missouri and carrying a handgun in a city park is not a threat to anyone.

...

Why?

Because in order to get a CCW permit, a person must go through eight hours of training (going rate for this training is $100), demonstrate his ability to safely handle a handgun, apply to the sheriff of his county of residence for a permit (another $100), be fingerprinted, pass a background check to verify no criminal background, and then have the CCW information put on their driver's license (another $12).

Of course, speaking common sense to the masses yeilds the following comment (emphasis mine):

brio99 wrote:

I don't want you CCW folks protecting me or my family. You all think your [sic] gonna save someone. You all think your [sic] secure with that concealed gun on your hip. Your[sic] basically afraid. You live with fear all the time and carrying your gun with you proves it. I'am [sic] trying to remember the last time I saw a drug deal go down in a park . Last time I saw bad guys with guns in one of our parks? Could it be your [sic] just afraid of someone different than you so you label them as someone to fear? Gee , golly I better have my gun on me, cause those folks look bad. Let me repeat , I don't need you local CCW's protecting me. Chanes [sic] are if I saw you pull out your gun, well I would take it from you before you knew what happened. Live outside the fear box, you'll enjoy life more!

If I were inclined to register at that website (I'm not), I would respond as follows:

Well, brio99, it sure doesn't look like you need a gun at all, seeing as you have lightning-fast reflexes and all. That's a good thing for you, because as a "CCW" I have neither the obligation nor the desire to play cop. I carry to protect me & mine, not to go around acting like I'm Joe Friday.

If I were to see you in trouble and your catlike reflexes failed you, would I intervene? Possibly. Aw, heck, probably. But, don't count on me. I might not like the odds and simply call 911 instead of helping.

There are more, of course, but this guy had the "best" comment so far.

. Continue Reading

An Excellent Article

I was pointed to this via email, go read it. You'll be glad you did:

INTELLECTUALS LIE, THE POWERLESS DIE

If the pen truly were mightier than the sword, the defense industry would be making ink, paper and keyboards, rather than smart bombs and body armor. A pen wielded by a talented writer may wound a target's ego, but a sword will cut off the writer's head.

Pacifists mean well. But they're a dictator's best friends. The man who won't fight for justice abets the terrorist, the tyrant and the concentration-camp guard.

All decent men want peace. But wise men know that not all men are decent.

Damn skippy.

. Continue Reading

QOTD

This comes from Squeeks, talking on her show last night:

England kinda sucks.

Thier politicians do, as do those who put them in power.

. Continue Reading

Men as Dummies

From Dr. Helen, we get this:

Advertisers: Men Are Not Idiots - Bashing Fathers and Husbands Isn't the Right Way for Marketers to Sell Products

The evidence is clear: "Man as idiot" isn't going over very well these days.

Defenders of the advertising status quo generally put forth the following arguments: Males are "privileged" and "it's men's turn," so it's OK to portray them this way, and that men simply don't care how they're portrayed. Both of these arguments are highly questionable.

Not if you've bought in to the idea that white men are the root of all evil. I know they didn't mention race (cowards), but the majority of dumb men on TV are of the melanin-deprived sort.

Of course, the authors were of the melanin-deprived sort, and therefore not allowed to bring up such a thing. The double standars is still there, but at least it's getting some attention. Continue Reading

Marriage and School Shootings

Marriage, what's it for? That's been an issue for debate, especially recently. I'm not gonna get deep into that, but just let me say the reason for marriage isn't about making babies, getting a tax break or getting BAQ and Sep Rats and moving off post (military reference there).

Primarily, it's for raising a family. Like I said here, it has a lot to do with the roles filled by the husband and wife. But that's only part of it.

There's also the process of conflict resolution. In todays one-parent household, there's no model for conflict resolution. If there was even a marriage in the first place, the result of conflict resulted in a permanent condition. The family was broken. I remember when I was a kid, my parents spoke in hushed voices when talking about a kid from a "broken home". Today? Not so much.

But, I digress.

So, here we are, as kids, watching any difference of opinion end up with a permanent solution. Usually, it's the man who takes action, as men are prone to do. They say "screw it" and leave, never to come back.

So, taking that behavior and moving it into a classroom, how can a young man permanently resolve a conflict there? They can't walk out, and they can't force the other party/parties to leave either. But, that's the only way they've seen conflict resolved. One party must leave.

That's where pop culture references to violence come in. Yes, they play a part, no they are not the cause. Just like the mainstream media, they can't tell what to think, but they can tell you what to think about. So, these kids think about the Matrix shoot-em-up, Grand Theft Auto, or whatever else is out there now.

They steal or buy a few guns and go fix their problem. Permanently.

This isn't a gun issue, it's a family issue. It's the fault of no-fault divorce and the acceptance of adultery into the norm. This isn't something that will be fixed by more laws and metal detectors. It can only be fixed by parents, both parents, sorting things out like grown people are supposed to do. That's an example for your kids to emulate.

Focus on family, not firearms. Continue Reading

Headline From Eastern Arizona Courier

Arm educators now to protect students

It’s time to arm teachers and administrators with something more substantial to stand behind than an overturned desk and a line of uniforms who appear after the crime is committed and it is too late for the victims.

This from the paper's managing editor Aimee Staten.

My kinda girl. Continue Reading

A Poll

Over at the Arbiter Online, there's a good opinion piece on campus carry.

There's also a poll. Go check it out.

The good guys are in the lead. Continue Reading

Revisiting Toy Guns

Ahab has a post up on toy guns and police reactions. It's a good piece with sound advice:

So here’s my advice to the Special Air Softers out there. If you’re playing airsoft, and you hear someone say “drop the gun”, do not whip around with your blaster in hand to see who said. DROP. THE. GUN. Immediately.

Damn skippy. It got me poking around on the internet. Lo and behold, not only are there toy guns that look real, there's all kinds of real guns made to look like toys. Color schemes like Digital Clown, Candy Apple Zebra, and this one that didn't have a theme other than "Belgian".

This is nine kinds of stupid. I did address it back on The Gun Blogs last December, but I'm saying it again: Real guns should not look like toys.

It's going to get cops killed, it's going to get (more) kids killed, and it's going to get laws passed in response. All because someone thought it would be cool to apply a Kalishnakitty theme to a rifle.

It's hard to claim to be a responsible adult when your gun is a "Digital Clown".

Digital Clown: The theme, or the person buying it? Continue Reading

NIU

I haven't heard anything more than what was on last night. What's to know? some whack job killed some people.

Now, scores of grieving family and friends wrestle with their emotions and try to figure out what happened, and more importantly, why.

There is no why. Not one that will bring peace of mind. It simply is, and the question now - what do we do to fix it?

Arm everybody? No. That won't work. Face it, most folks don't want to be armed. For whatever reason, they don't think carrying a firearm is necessary. Some folks have no business carrying a gun. Even if they meet the legal requirements, they simply don't have the strength of character necessary to have one.

Ban guns? Yeah, that's been working out well lately. Virtually all of these shootings happened in "gun-free zones". According to the Brady Campaign, Illinois places 9th on their list of best state gun laws. If this doesn't prove once and for all that restrictive gun laws don't work, I don't know what will.

These are the two main courses of action many people call for, neither of which will work. So what to do?

First, we need to get our heads out of the sand and let the people who choose to legally carry a firearm do so. Anywhere and everywhere. Let grown-ups act like grown-ups. We are civilized people, let us enjoy the benefits of being civilized.

To those who don't want to carry firearms I say fine, don't. But be mature enough to understand those who do are as fine a people as you are. They love their families, and love their individual freedom. They won't shoot you if you take their parking spot or grab the last can of wasabi almonds off the store shelf. They know, as you do, it's not worth it. I for one, would hate to have to shoot someone for the simple fact that I don't want to lose my gun to an evidence locker. Not for some piece of crap hoodlum who thinks I might have money.

Will this solve the problem? No. Nothing will ever solve the problem. There has been, and always will be, evil in the world. What else can you call it? We see it every day; women killing their kids, mass shootings, just today a woman's body was found just outside Memphis with no hands, feet, or head. Tell me evil doesn't exist.

Like the saying goes, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke).

That's what's going on here. The good guys are doing nothing. They are hiding behind useless laws and the hope that someone else will save them. Someone else being the law, of course. Not Joe or Jane Average who happens to be carrying a gun. They don't have the training uniform. Never mind the fact that Joe or Jane has put more lead downrange in a weekend than some cops do in a year.

We've so castrated our society, we can't do the right thing for fear of getting arrested. Have a beef with a classmate? Don't duke it out in the schoolyard, you might get arrested. Your sister's boyfriend smacking her around? Don't go punch his lights out, you will get arrested. Neighbor's dog getting in your trash/garden/stuff? Don't put some rocksalt in his ass, you'll get sued by the owner and PETA.

We have to get back to the point in our society where men and women who take action for the betterment of those around them are rewarded, not condemned. Let grown-ups act like grown-ups without getting bent out of shape over some imaginary comfort zone. There is no comfort zone, there never has been. Evil is out there. It doesn't want you to think about it. If you think about it, you might be prepared.

That was quite a ramble, wasn't it?

Continue Reading

Global Warming

Serr8d posted this up over at Tennesseefree.com. I was planning on commenting, but it started taking on a life of its own, so now it's here.

I just have to say this: Global Warming - So What?

If the sea level rises and some rich people are out their beachfront property, so what?

If I can grow tomatoes in November, so what? Maybe next time, I can do avacados.

If fewer folks freeze to death because they can't pay to heat their homes? Not so what, that's a good thing.

Anyone who thinks it's only our fault has really, really overestimated our impact on the planet.

I call as my next witness, George Carlin (NSFW):



Regardless of why this bullshit is being foisted on the general population, I have say, I have adopted the Carlin view.

I don't agree with a lot of his views, but this one is dead on. Continue Reading

No Country for Old Men

Good movie, crappy ending. Crappy, as in "huh?". A big let-down.

Everbody dies and the Bad Guy gets away. Continue Reading

Guns in Cars at Work

The issue started (this time) over at Roberta's, and now has made its way over to FreedomSight.

The bottom line is, can an employer tell you not to keep a firearm in your car while at work? More to the point, can a law decide this either way?

Both viewpoints, while in opposition, are valid.

Roberta says there should be a law preventing an employer from barring firearms from their property:

I'm in favor of 'em, at least in most situations. "What," you gasp, "you favor empowering the State to push around businesses?"

Yep. 'Cos most businesses are already creatures of the State. They're corporations. Artificial persons. Entities that would neither have legal rights nor even exist were it not for the State and as such, they should be bound by the Bill of Rights, same as the State.

Jed says not so fast:

This is an incorrect position, because it would mean the infringement of the fundamental right of property, upon which even the right to self defense rests. I do not believe that we can argue that it advances the cause of liberty to tear down the rights of one person, or persons, in favor of the rights of another.

Like I said, both are good.

So, I know the second amendment applies to the .gov, not to individuals, but isn't it the job of the .gov to protect these rights when another entity tries to violate them?

I've changed the title of this post three times. I suck =P. Continue Reading

What He Said

Kim du Toit points us to this article written by Anthony Esolen, and in doing so says (to our troops):

Forget the childish chirps and querulous wails of the Commies, the hippies and the little boys and girls come fresh from the mall. Compared to them, the number of men, real men who stand behind you is enormous.

Never forget that

Damn skippy. But that's not the half of it. The rest is below the fold.

The article is entitled "Over Our Dead Bodies" and it addresses many points I see bandied about from time to time.

Like Kim's "Pussification" essay, Mr. Esolen addresses one plight of today's man:

Men cut the rock, and the rock cuts back. We men who have neither been born eunuchs nor made ourselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, but who have allowed others to make eunuchs of themselves and of us, all for a watercolor impression of peace, a safe life of Monet purple, with even erotic love blurred into the bland, as we pretend to courage while rutting in padded cells with helmets and shin guards and other soft and slack prophylactics of the soul—we nannied men could not have carved this place.

He also addresses something near and dear to my heart - those who carried their country's flag into battle.

The lad who carried the flag in the old fields of war was unarmed and most conspicuous, but most necessary for the rallying and ordering of his comrades. He was indispensable in his choosing the honor of being the single man least likely to survive the battle.

The same people who pee all over themselves at the thought of the movie "300" wouldn't think twice about letting someone desecrate their country's flag. Just a piece of cloth, my ass.

Of course, not all heroes are in uniform:

A man need not bear a saber to be a true soldier. When Louis Pasteur was searching for cures for infectious diseases, he had not our same luxury of safety. He was a devout Catholic who attracted to himself young men of high ideals and similar devotion. Those men knew that to be Pasteur’s assistant meant constant exposure to, and experimentation with, disease. Theirs was less a profession than a creed. They went forth in the wake of a plague in Egypt, to seek knowledge and cure the sick.

There's so much there, do yourself a favor and read it all.

One last bit:

Or, more outlandish still, it is as if men themselves were to forget their manhood and were to coddle their flesh, prinking it and bedaubing it and festooning it with trinkets,

That goes out to all you boys out there walking around looking like you've been hit in the face with a tackle box. Grow up. That goes for you "Metros" too. Continue Reading

Rambo

Went to see it. Plenty of fighting and flying body parts.

You'll have no trouble hating the bad guys.

It ain't Shakespeare. It's Rambo.
Continue Reading