My View on the Latest Gunnie Brouhaha

I have to say, JR echoes my sentiments exactly and points to a real threat to the gun owner community.

First, his thoughts:

I am sure that most of you who read this blog also read others who have already commented on this controversy, on the name calling and on the personal attacks. I think some of the best commentary posted so far is by Kevin with "Frightening the White People" and "The Four Boxes". Both of those are well worth your time, as is David's commentary in "Principle Freaks Need Not Apply"

[snip]

I am not going to jump on the bandwagon for either side of this issue

Sorry, folks, neither am I. Reason being, both sides have valid points and it's just a matter of where the line is drawn. So, up to my line, I'm with Sebastian. Once my line has been crossed, then the shooting starts.

Where is that line? I don't know, but I'll know when it's crossed.

The thing is, arguing about this subject is an exercise in herding cats. I'll go out on a limb here and say every single gun owner has a line. The thing is, every line is different.

Every. Single. One.

So, arguing about it is an exercise in futility, because your line is further from mine, you're a pussy, and I'm not. Conversely, if your line is closer than mine, you're a nut, and I'm rational.

The bottom line is, we're all in this fight together. We'll have these "discussions", but we need to reach a point where we say "Ok, you and I have different lines" and move on from there.

Now, as to JR's look at a real issue we need to address, go there and read!

. Continue Reading

Speaking of Anti-Gun Males

This is a good read. Reminds me of Bryan:

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

Damn skippy

Thanks to Joe Huffman for the link.

. Continue Reading

Reset Buttons - Updated

There are plenty of thoughts on the "Reset Button" out on the Intarwebs. Most recently, Kevin takes a run at it over at his place (emphasis original):

We should have pressed the "reset" button often - had a mini-revolution somewhere in the country about every 20 years or so - just to keep our political masters reminded of who it was who holds (now held) the reins, but after the one big one from 1861 to 1865, our stomach for it was (understandably) gone.

And now it's too late.

It is, of course. We're too comfy, too used to the Way Things Are to even consider any kind of revolt. Our infrastructure is just too damn good to mess with. Any bad things that happen get cleared up quickly enough, and we accept that sometimes, when really bad things happen, it's time to back up and start over.

But what happens when the government can't make things right? What happens when the government gets more than it can handle?

That's when the reset button will get pushed, and about the only time we'd be able to do it with any chance of success. It would be pushed out of necessity, though. Pushed by regular people who needed to simply survive. Think Katrina writ big.

I mean, what would happen if, right now, the earth had a major seismic event? Not only would the New Madrid and San Andreas faults pop, but our coastlines would be at risk as well.

The midwest is already flooded. Wildfires are popping in and out in the west. How much would it take to overwhelm FEMA? Sure, the states would handle things initially, as they should, but what would people do if there was no help on the horizon?

Organize, that's what they'd do. and, once things sorted itself out, those who organized and survived would be leery of someone coming in saying "We're back! Sorry for the delay, we shoulda took that left at Albuquerque." Yeah, sure buddy. Go back where you came from, we don't need you here.

Far fetched? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure it would take nothing short of it to spur people into action.

UPDATE: The MadRocketScientist has something similar up, from back in February. This is uncanny (emphasis mine):

Alternately, we'd need a touch of chaos. An event so drastic and far reaching that it shakes the very foundation of our country. Something that reveals the true limits of our governments ability to respond to a crisis (think Katrina, writ large). Honestly, the only chaos I could envision that would be of sufficient scale to topple the bureaucracy would be a massive natural disaster, terrorist attack, or military invasion. Something that the Federal Government would be helpless to respond to and would tax local government to the breaking point.

Scary! But, I think Katrina did expose some governmental shortcomings on every level, and is an apt description of what we're both talking about.

Go read his post on this, it's a better read. He can write, unlike yours truly.

. Continue Reading

Sebastian Figured it Out

The Root of Reasoned Discourse™

I think the reason for the vitriol is that we have unwittingly hit on a nerve. The LA Times article presented gun owners in a human light. For those who have their identities wrapped up in who they are not, which is ignorant, paranoid, rednecks compensating for some kind of inadequacy and reacting to an irrational fear of crime stoked by the right wing establishment, it’s horribly destabilizing to a smug sense of self to read that those types of people might actually have things in common with you. They may even have a serious point of view!

No, no. Can’t have that.

Yeah, that would require a complete re-inventory of their own merits. (emphasis mine)

. 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

More Situational Awareness

In response to the earlier post on Situational Awareness, Unc sent me this:



So, dear readers, how could this have been avoided?

That had to hurt. After he woke up. Continue Reading

To Shoot or Not to Shoot

Over at Brillianter.com, MostlyGenius discusses Third Party Intervention.

He's not the first, of course (is anything really new on the internet anymore?), but the question remains: As a gun carrier, would you intervene in a violent situation that doesn't concern you?

My answer is - it depends. If I had a realistic chance of ending something bad - let's say a mall shooting, I would like to think I would take those steps. I don't know. Never been there. I do believe, however, that it would be my duty to try. Most folks usually say "get you and yours safe, don't play hero". I understand that. If I were armed with a mousegun and the shooter had an SKS, I would most likely do just that.

But, if I were to have one of my larger guns with me, I'd have to consider taking action. Situation awareness would be critical. Rule #4 would be foremost in my mind. If all those things were in place, I'd take the shot. I hope.

It's not a hero thing. I've been to war. I know some heros, but I'm not one of them. Continue Reading