It appears that there is a new service out there catering to doing online background checks of potential employees.  Overall I don’t have much of a problem with this, a private company certainly has a right to use any information that it feels would affect performance in the workplace.  This new middleware company does the work to keep the employer from seeing information that could lead to other biases which are currently legislated against.  For example they make sure to strip off marital status, sexual orientation, religious views, etc.  What did catch my attention however was the following statement from the companies CEO.

Then it assembles a dossier with examples of professional honors and charitable work, along with negative information that meets specific criteria: online evidence of racist remarks; references to drugs; sexually explicit photos, text messages or videos; flagrant displays of weapons or bombs and clearly identifiable violent activity.

What’s wrong with that?  If the individual has broken no laws what is the issue.  If you dig through my website you will find many photos of firearms.  Numerous pictures of explosives going off.  As well as numerous articles involving self-defense, which is a violent response against someone doing violence against you.

Mr. Drucker said. “We also see flagrant displays of weapons. And we see a lot of illegal activity. Lots and lots of pictures of drug use.”

He recalled one man who had 15 pages of photos showing himself with various guns, including an assault rifle.

There’s that set of words, assault rifle.  Obviously this man is a puritan who is projecting his belief system on others and judging them based upon his world view.  There is nothing on my site which promotes illegal activity.  I have gone through extra effort to make sure I am legal and as a result have had myself placed on numerous government lists.  Why sir are you attempting to limit the employment of gun owners who are proud of their stance on gun rights?  I might advise Mr. Drucker to be quite careful since I’m sure if someone finds out that their ownership of firearms caused a negative report from his company and thusly resulted in missed employment opportunities, his company now carries the liability for the discriminatory action.  It might be quite difficult to prove, but eventually given enough people it can happen.

Bob Parks did a wonderful article recently on the history of the Democrat part and detangling their web of lies.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “explosive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

He proceeds to cite examples of how the democrats have been bigoted since 1858 all the way up to the present.  Go read the whole thing, I applaud him for his effort and work since those are facts that are all to often ignored.

H/T Patrick

This morning Sebastian posted a link to something the CSGV posted on their Facebook page bashing pro-gun bloggers including one who is a personal friend.  Upon reading it when I got home they had updated to have a response to Sebastian’s response.

The thought that Joan's "religion" might be acting to prevent others from experiencing the same tragedy she experienced apparently didn't cross his mind.

The Peterson-Syndrome is showing through.  If we are going to take her argument at face value we must then ask, what about the opinions of people like Suzanna Hupp who had the tools and skills to end the violence brought before them but were disarmed.

Every argument they make is premised with the belief that every permit carrier is going to snap and go on a shooting rampage.  They are often projecting their own feelings and emotions forgetting that a potentiality is not an actuality.  They seem to think our goal is to see people shot and injured while ignoring the fact we are merely supporting the inalienable right of self-defense.

Joan Peterson shot herself in the foot and proved her mental defect when she stated the equivalent of the following:

It is better to have a higher overall crime rate for fewer crimes committed with a gun.

Joan Peterson wants more victims at the hands of criminals as long as they aren’t committed with a gun.  On our side of the fence want people to not be forced by law to be victims. 

• We want women to be able to defend themselves from rapists who would violate them.
• We want the elderly to be able to defend themselves from young thugs who would beat them to death to impress a girl.
• We want people to be able to defend themselves from criminals who would take their lives.
• We want people to have access to the most effective tools of self-defense. 

Often this last point is portrayed as if we want to force everyone to carry a gun.  The fact is though that couldn’t be further from the truth.  We want people to be able to make the choice if they wish to be able to defend themselves.

If we allow Joan’s logic of being a victim of violence to be correct, like Sebastian I am a victim of cancer.  My father passed away from pancreatic cancer when I was 19. 

Just the same though I am also a victim of violence.  My mother stopped the abuse of an elderly couple and arrested the situation when the thugs tried to threaten and intimidate her.  How did she do this?  She used a firearm, not a single shot was fired.  The group of kids were arrested minutes later while trying to steal a car when the police arrived.  People like Joan and the CSGV would prefer my mom had left the couple at the mercy of those thugs and been at their mercy herself. 

My father and mother went to the movies when I was a baby.   A group of four proceeded to be extremely rude, intimidated the staff, and were generally discourteous.  My father went to talk to the manager about the men who were still causing problems after the movie was over.  The men noticing what my father was doing proceeded to start harassing him.  They were warned to move on and to leave.  They continued to harass and physically intimidate my father until they placed themselves between my father and mother.  At this time my dad withdrew his firearm holding it at his side, at no time was it pointed at anyone, he then directed the men to remove themselves from between him and my mother immediately.  They complied and the police, who had already been called, arrived shortly thereafter.  The city of Kent charged my father with “assault with a deadly weapon.”  The jury found him not guilty with less than thirty minutes deliberation.  As jurors were leaving, two jurors approached my father and his attorney and informed them that prior to this trial they disliked firearms and supported gun control.  They then expressed that had they been in my fathers position they would have wanted a firearm, and due to the trial they were expanding their horizons.  In this case the CSGV would prefer a father be outnumbered and possibly permanently injured to not return home to support and protect his children.

The bottom line is that ultimately each side of this debate supposedly wants the same thing, less violence.  The problem is the anti-gun lobby only cares about “gun violence”.  If rape, murder, and other violent crimes increased but a gun wasn’t used, they would still consider that a win.  In our book crime is crime, no matter the tool used.  It ends up that the firearm is the most effective tool for self-defense, anyone can learn to use a firearm and physical ability is not the deciding factor in use.  God created men, Samuel Colt made them equal.  People have even more right to make themselves NOT a victim than to be forced by law to be disarmed and become prey for predators. 

Someone needs to get a clue and STFU. The very first picture is of one of the nicest couples I know. There is no problem with firearm ownership no matter a person's location, especially when it is in someone's own home. Personal defense is a God given right that cannot be taken away. Its obvious how left the Huffington Post truly is.