People need to STOP worrying about offending others

People will be offended no matter what happens. But telling someone they can’t fly the American Flag in their window of their residence is bulls**t!

“This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds,” the statement read. “By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained.”

That is a national symbol and, honestly, if it offends you pack your bags and leave this country! I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to help with that.

My husband and I feel that being told not to fly the flag is highly offensive.

~Janelle~

And this is a bad thing?

I find that having more women shooting is a good thing. I also find that referring to them as “fanatics” detrimental. While if someone called me one I would just shrug it off, many prospective shooters may not be that thick skinned. The article didn’t really seem to be negative but the title sure is.

An inanimate object did what?

So I came across this online tonight, “A gun took his son, now Rock Hill dad puzzled by NRA rally.” I fail to understand how the gun magically pointed itself at your son, pulled its own trigger, and then hopped in the car and drove off.

In 1998, Krenn’s 16-year-old son, Erik, was dropping off a buddy on Rock Hill’s South Jones Avenue when four guys carjacked Erik.

Oh wait, it was four individuals that car-jacked your son Erik, pointed the firearm at your son, and then pulled the trigger. These four individuals had no respect for the law then, what makes you think that banning firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens is going to change anything.

Reading the article though, we can tell there is absolutely zero bias and this was in no way written by a bigot.

Erik was shot with a Saturday Night Special handgun, and died. Among them, the four scoundrels got 120 years in prison.

Oh wait, Saturday Night Special, that’s the term coined by politicians to prevent poor blacks from being able to buy firearms for self defense from the Klan in the south. But that statement isn’t bigoted at all.

Not hunting guns, or sportsmen’s guns – Krenn isn’t worried about people deer hunting – but handguns and assault rifles.

So he’s just concerned about people being able to defend themselves and a class of rifles whose definition changes on the whim of politicians. Assault weapons bans actually focus on banning safety features. A pistol grip, a collapsible stock, and a barrel shroud all serve to aid in usability, prevent injury, and tailor the rifle to the operator.

The loss of his son hurts; however blaming that on inanimate objects is not the solution and will not help his grief. The men who committed that atrocious crime are responsible, not the gun. One final question, if defensive firearms are banned, how would one defend themselves from an armed criminal? The police obviously did not save your son, so you cannot expect us to believe that lie. Response is measured in minutes, combat takes seconds. You sir want to rob law abiding citizens of their ability to save their own lives. This woman would be dead if you had your way. This woman would still have her husband if it was not for bigots like yourself.

My suggestion is to seek some grief counseling and seek treatment for your Hoplophobia. Attacking law abiding citizens and forcing them to end up victims like your son serves no purpose. If I had a son who ended up a victim because of your bigotry I would have every reason to be angry because he was robbed of the liberty of self-defense. Your son was the victim of criminals, not an inanimate object.

-B

“Green Economy”

So I was searching around catching up on recent events and stumbled across an article from The University of Washington. Evidently the college Republicans and Democrats had their debate recently.

I was skimming through the article, it had the standard boiler plate arguments about “cap and trade” and concealed carry on campus. What caused the sudden in-depth review of the article is the following line:

‘”A green economy doesn’t have to be a successful one,” Rigsby said’

Did you just say what I think you said? We need to legally mandate an economy that will be unsuccessful. Obviously you’re a little short of brain cells. If our economy stops being successful everything is going to come to a crashing halt. Here’s a question, if the economy structure is going to be unsuccessful, why will anyone invest money in it, including China which is paying for the bailout and Obama-Care? This includes both private and government investors. The goal is to make money; if something is uneconomically viable something has to change. You can NOT legislate that change, though you can try to provide incentives.

I just find the above statement as the prime example why I think government should be extremely limited. Often those in power are not faced with the immediate and harsh consequences of their decisions. What’s worse is when their idea fails; they insist that the failure is the result of some outside influence that needs to be fixed.

A prime example of this is the gun-control debate. Chicago has one of the highest homicide rates in the country as well as the most strict gun control measures. The problem according to Daley and the bigots though is not that gun-control doesn’t work; it is that guns are brought from the outside. Now the powers that be would like to bring in the National Guard to help fight the crime wave. Evidently Chicago’s finest is not enough and they think that deploying the soldiers will somehow curb crime.

Here is a solid lesson in how things work. Police are there to enforce the laws and punish those who break the law. Note I did not say prevent. It is the duty of the civilian population to prevent crime. This is done by making the criminal environment an unsafe one. Why is Chicago’s homicide rate so high? It is because the environment for criminals is safe. A law abiding citizen cannot protect themselves without breaking the law themselves.

Gun control doesn’t have to be successful about controlling crime, just in controlling the slaves.

Gun Control Is Racist

Talk about a blast from the past. I found a bunch of stuff I handed out at school from time to time.

Needless to say my teachers were less than appreciative.

Then after doing some more digging around I discovered that not only does the JPFO think that those people are Bigots… but they have mental problems. I also found a copy of “‘Gun Control’ Kills Kids”.

I don’t know how I missed that post on Joe’s blog, but somehow I did. From looking at it, it was probably before I started reading it often.

All warm and fuzzy…

I read something today that made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not in the good way either. Here are a few snippets from what I found.

(U) decentralized

terrorist movement

(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who

pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless

resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization

 

What are they doing that makes them terrorists?

Resistance defines something other than terrorist. Here’s the definition of terrorist:

(n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)

That definition is very straight forward and to the point. However a group of individuals with similar ideological goals are terrorists. Yes I’m stretching but do you think they wont?

 

(U) hacktivism (U//FOUO) (A portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism.”)

The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or

technology-enabled political or social activism.

Hacktivism might include website defacements,

denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target’s network to

introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.

 

Now they say might include, however the main definition states the use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end. Blogs are a cyber technology. That’s just for starters.

The one that made me want to post on this though is the following.

(U) direct action (U//FOUO) Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience

ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of

violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or

anarchist extremists to describe their activities.

 

I have highlighted, underlined, bolded and italicized the key word that should NOT be in that statement. You are now profiling people doing legal action as extremists. Basically the vibe I got from the whole damn thing was you could place just about anybody into the definitions. It is also the most bigoted racist thing I have read in a LONG time. This is part of their new set of tools to weed out those who are not good little sheep. The best way to control speech and actions is to just make it uncomfortable to express yourself. Talk about firearms in schools is a forboden topic now. These same schools claim to be open to the free exchange of ideas. The correct statement is they allow the regurgitation of their ideas.

 

God I need a beer. Guess I need to update my SHTFP. This is getting downright scary.

Hat Tip to TriggerFinger for the school story.

Ignored Lessons

For those who have never read it, Joe Huffman wrote this great page on civil disobedience. The lessons quoted from someone else at the end drive it home.

Remember the lessons of the 20th Century:

Lesson No. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you don’t want to go because of who you are or what you think– kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent them. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant’s executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.

Lesson No. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms– kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

Lesson No. 3: If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you may be more easily identified– tell him to go to hell. Registration of people and firearms is the required precursor to the tyranny which permits genocide. Bureaucrats cannot send soldiers to doors that aren’t on their list.

Lesson No. 4: Believe actions, not words. Tyrants are consummate liars. Just because a tyrant is “democratically elected” doesn’t mean that he believes in democracy. Reference Adolf Hitler, 1932. And just because a would-be tyrant mouths words of reverence to law and justice, or takes a solemn oath to uphold a constitution, doesn’t mean he believes such concepts apply to him. Reference Bill Clinton, among others. The language of the lie is just another tool of killers. A sign saying “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Makes You Free) posted above an execution camp gate doesn’t mean that anybody gets out of there alive, and a room labeled “Showers” doesn’t necessarily make you clean. Bill Clinton notwithstanding, the meaning of “is” is plain when such perverted language gets you killed. While all tyrants are liars, it is true that not all political liars are would-be tyrants– but they bear close watching. And keep your rifle handy.

From Obama’s mouth:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

His statements on guns coupled with the above are greatly disturbing and certainly lesson 4 comes into play.

Suspension of the 4th Amendment

The ACLU has gone after firearms on more than one occasion and has thus ended up on my wolf in sheep’s clothing list. However they came out with a new campaign involving the Constitution recently I will at least call attention to. I do find it interesting they’ll defend the 4th and 1st Amendments but they feel the 2nd Amendment it is somehow different with regards to whose rights it guarantees.


Evidently if you live within 100 miles of any border, including water your 4th Amendment rights have been “suspended”. There were some news articles back in 2003 however this has largely gone unnoticed. While the provision was placed within the 4th Amendment, 100 miles is royal overkill. To make matters even worse however, what is to prevent them from declaring that International airports are not covered under the same provision? 100 miles around any international airport will cover probably 99% of the US.

Time to go rack up some range time.