Don’t Panic and Remain Calm…

So evidently a bunch of people on our side of the debate have gone into PSH and labeled Alan Gottlieb a traitor.

I dont trust ANY media, they lie…

But Allen Gottlieb, if this is true as stated, you suck moonbat dick. Fuck you. 

Never Compromise….. come fucking take them.

*blink*  Not to mention the other post hiding behind a login calling Gottlieb a traitor.  Seriously folks, are you that retarded and gullible.

First the primary source for your branding him a traitor is the Seattle Times which is notoriously anti-gun.  So your reactions have served to help cripple funding to one of the biggest legal branches we have to defeat legislation.  This is the principal man behind winning Heller and McDonald and you’re going to call him a traitor over what some liberal rag says.  Are you stupid?

This man thinks in terms of a long chess game. He doesn’t just think one or two moves ahead, he thinks well beyond what most of us can even readily comprehend.

There’s a couple of things everyone needs to realize.  First, our win is not guaranteed  look at New York.  Yeah they were blue, but look at how they accomplished it.  If the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound wants to push something through, we can try to hold them off but I will refer you back to the King Dome/Safeco Field incident.

Second given that a win is not assured, we must take actions and measures to either kill a bill or force an actual compromise.  The act of doing the latter can force the former.

It has become obvious though that the actions of our enemies has forced a wedge in-between us.  Many instead of using our heads instead brand our allies as traitors for no real good or solid reason.  Instead they believe false lies and misrepresented truths as well as labeling others as something they are blatantly not.

Tell me, what happens when you attack a friendly, especially a friendly who is out in front leading a charge?  You destroy his ability to continue to fight for you.  You destroy his ability to trust you for support.  You destroy his morale.

Going and publicly bad mouthing our supporters is nothing more than destroying those who support and fight for our cause.  You do so without actually knowing what’s going on and on the word of someone who wants to destroy you.

Here’s Alan’s statement:

First you should know that I do not support Washington House Bill 1588 as it is currently written.

My support for a state universal background check bill must include a substantial victory for gun owners that includes, but is not limited to repealing, prohibiting and destroying the current state handgun registration system and the data base of several million records of gun owners and their firearms that include the type of handguns and the serial numbers.

This would be a huge victory for our gun rights. We would be the first state to repeal a gun registration system. Think about that and what it means for your privacy as a gun owner and the fact that we all know historically that registration leads to confiscation.

In addition, if you have a carry permit you will be exempt from additional background checks. No checks would be required for transfers between family members. If you are a member of an organization like the Washington Arms Collectors that does a background check for membership, you would be exempt from additional checks to buy a firearm at their gun shows.

There are other inclusions that must be made as well that are good for our rights and freedom that need to be in a final bill to have my support.

My guess is that the gun grabbers will not go along with these provisions and kill the bill. If they do the “blood” so to speak is on their hands, not ours.

There are other smart, tactical, political and morally justified reasons why I have taken this position that I do not want to make public at this time. We do have enemies and I am not going to telegraph our strategy to them by spelling out our battle plans.

I enjoy winning our freedoms more than the fight. I wish I can say that about some of my critics who have pre-judged without knowledge what it is that I am doing.

Anyone who knows me knows that for the past forty years my efforts have expanded and protected our right to keep and bear arms from local city councils all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb

As I said, this man is thinking not just tactically but strategically.

So tell me, who is the bigger enemy to freedom?

  • The guy thinking this through and has the ability to force a real compromise, one big enough the supporters may very well kill the bill?
  • The bunch of gullible idiots who believe half-truths and attack their own on the word of an enemy that wants to see them destroyed?

By all means contact Alan and voice your concerns, but I suggest you think long and hard about who you’re labeling a traitor.  Especially if your goal is to either kill the bill or get an actual compromise.  I’m here to tell you if I get something crammed down my throat, I want them to at least pay with something.

Our enemies want something for nothing.  That’s not happening anymore but if you just sit there in the corner and keep screaming and attacking those on your side, they may very well still get it.

h/t Phil

Quote of the Day – RobertaX (2/25/2013)

Defending yourself is not a matter of “punishment.”  You’re not out to correct your assailant’s behavior, you’re wanting to stop it, as quickly and effectively as possible, with the least collateral damage.  Whatever does that is what you should do.

RobertaXPizza Robber Update
February 25, 2013


[I’ve never quite understood the method of thinking that ties self-defense into punishment.  Can I not kill someone until after they’ve killed me?  Is that the new standard now?  When it comes to rape then, can a woman only rape her assailant back after she’s been violated?  Why is she not allowed to stop the threat.  Yes some times stopping the threat does involve the assailant’s body reaching room temperature but that’s the risk of their profession.

You know how the assailant would still be alive?  By not attacking his intended victim.  Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

“I didn’t kill him, he killed himself. I just carried the bullet for a while.”

The criminal made his choice and in the middle of the crime the victim can, and should, do all that he can to protect himself and family.  Someone is threatening force against them and they are not and should not be required to be mind readers to determine if the threat is real or just words.  If you use something that looks like a gun in a threatening manner, it’s a gun, and I will not fault the individual who defends himself from you.

The criminal takes a risk that someone might defend himself, and if the criminal continues to fight even when presented with force being applied back from the victim,  the onus for the outcome lies squarely with the aggressor.  Stop blaming victims for the outcome of actions and choices made by criminals. -B]

 

Quote of the Day – Oleg Volk (2/21/2013)

Sharing skills that a prospective partner lacks makes them more independent. That, in turn, makes the relationship more honest. A person who doesn’t strictly need you for a meal ticket or protection but chooses you anyway is more likely a true love. By contrast, politicians need dependent voters and foster learned helplessness with their policies.

Oleg VolkIndependent Women
February 13th, 2013


[In case it isn’t fully apparent, let me also use the other way Oleg presented this.

homedefense_612HC-P_5155web

Image By Oleg Volk.
A Picture is worth 1000 words.

We’ve had a pile of politicians lately showing their true colors towards independent women as well as their overall lack of respect for them, Jay G even has a nice list of different statements showing the truth and hypocrisy of their behavior.

All the women in my life are very independent and frankly, I’d rather keep it that way.

I’ve mentioned before why I get angry, that however didn’t even touch on the fact that I see that same type of behavior as attempts at enslavement and forced dependence.  When someone argues you or some class of people shouldn’t have access to arms, be them students, women, blacks, or any other discriminatory measure, know they mean to make that class dependent, not independent.

It’s all a matter of trust in the end and they don’t trust you. -B]

Random Thought (2/13/2013)

So yesterday Sebastian came across a video and they had closed comments but you could do the thumbs up or down rating.  The video in question started making the rounds.  Low and behold they all the sudden disabled the rating system on the video.  I think I might see why because here’s the snapshot of the ratings when they disabled it.

The dislikes started coming in hard and fast.  This got me thinking.

Gun control proponents claim that gun owners are nothing more than a bunch of inbred, uneducated, knuckle dragging neanderthals.  They claim to out number gun owners in support for their cause.  I have a problem though, lets look at the Candle Light Vigil video stats.  Click the “i” button in the upper right for stat info.

While yes it doesn’t have the views, lets look at the positive to negative vote ratio… Lets do the same to my LAPD police qualification video.

Again, very strong positive viewing rate.  We can do the same with a video from the NRA.

That’s a ratio of 3 to 1 in support of the video.

It was noted by Sebastian that the gun control movement is a movement of old white people.  Old people are not necessarily the best at using or understanding technology.

So a couple different options to explain this discrepancy and their love of reasoned discourse.

1.  Gun owners are not the uneducated knuckle dragging neanderthals they claim us to be.  If we are in the minority, we are in fact more educated and technically literate as we have a larger presence on this series of tubes known as the internet.

2.  They are in fact a movement of old white people with very limited support from the younger generation.  Their projection of us being a group of uneducated hillbillies is merely a reflection of how they view themselves.

3.  They are actually in fact the minority position and cannot garner support overall.  If we assume an even distribution of technically skilled and adept people on each side, this would indicate that gun owners far out number our opponents.

Given my personal experience, people who support the right to keep and bear arms are often extremely intelligent.  To give you a quick example, the members of the 2nd Amendment Gun Club at Washington State University were predominately engineering majors and no one was going for a BA, everyone was working towards a BS.  While every group will have outliers, the assumption that all gun owners are uneducated and not very intelligent is blatantly false.

This would point towards option 1 as well as option 2 as being most likely.  Option 3 is also quite likely because even in places like Facebook the Brady Campaign fails to generate the kind of support in likes that is enjoyed by the NRA.

I think their unwillingness to stand up and defend their position through comments and general video ratings has exposed the truth of their soft underbelly.  We have a fight on our hands and we just need to keep up the work.

Quote of the Day–Paul Barrett (1/27/2013)

But only a small minority of cops practice diligently. “There’s this myth out there that all police officers are gun enthusiasts, and train like crazy and shoot all the time,” said Rutherford.  A dirty little secret of law enforcement is that many cops don’t take range time seriously.  And even in high-crime cities, the vast majority of officers go years, or even an entire career, without getting into a gunfight.  The average officer is a mediocre shot, or worse.

Paul M. BarrettGlock The Rise of America’s Gun

Page 55


call5300

Image by Oleg Volk.

[First up, yes I’ve been slacking.  I’ve had this book for almost a year and have been distracted by reading other books.  I do need to come up with an efficient way to store and save quotes from books.  I started reading it just after Paul gave me a copy.  But it ended up being set off to the side and I picked it up and starting reading it again.  I’m glad I delayed it to the current political climate.  I’m going to have a small stack of quotes by the time I’m done.

It is worthy of note that Paul doesn’t sit really on either side of this debate.  He is educated on the subject due to the research for this book.  A book he wrote merely because he thought the growth and economic success story of Glock was interesting.  He’s right, it is an interesting story but one that is intertwined in politics.

Yesterday there was a “debate” on twitter and someone was throwing around the highly trained police argument again.  My video was dismissed as being biased and was implied to be unscientific.  Which is interesting because I provided all the information necessary for anyone to be able to recreate it.  Including the stage descriptions, the alterations made, why, and how the stages compared the LAPD stages.

There are some myths that just wont die.  I’m sure that this quote would be dismissed as being “biased” by this same individual.  Except this is the Rutherford providing the quote and commentary in Barrett’s passage.  is it really biased when police officers admit the “dirty little secret” as well?

People argue this point and refuse to admit they’re wrong for a couple of different reasons.

  1. It is the foundation for calling 911 and waiting for the police.  More training means they are better equipped to deal than yourself.
  2. They want to believe that the police are a superiorly trained force which allows them to feel safer.
  3. Their knowledge of firearms is 0 so police automatically gain a superior place in the knowledge department.  Everyone else is just like them right?

I’m sure there are other reasons, but we all know that you cannot rely on the police to come and save you.  That was ultimately decided by SCOTUS in Warren v. District of Columbia.  Not to mention your average police response is measured in minutes, not seconds.

You elected your officials because you trusted them to faithfully perform their duty and adhere to their oath.  I trust the people I love, one more than most, and that’s why I went out of my way to give her a gift for our wedding.

DSC00005

Image by Oleg Volk.

Our elected representatives however don’t trust you and want you disarmed.   They want to deprive you of a basic human right.  They want to make sure you are defenseless and reliant on the state for assistance from criminals.  They want you dependent and unable to revoke your consent in case of the event you deem that action as necessary.

Don’t fall for the lie.  Don’t believe myths with no evidence to support them.  Believe history and the lessons it teaches about civilian disarmament by governments.  –B   ]

Quote of the Day – Jennifer (1/25/2013)

There is one thing and one thing only that has proven time and time again to stop someone bent on violence. A gun. And I promise you that no amount of gun control legislation will ever eliminate them, it will just change who has access to them.  The thing you need in that moment where the law has already failed you, will only be accessible to criminals and representatives of the government (some overlap). Or do you really believe the criminals will just turn them in? Even if they did, that doesn’t really offer me a whole lot of comfort if I am staring down a 266lb criminal (the observant among you have already noticed that is twice my weight; a big guy, but not freakishly so). My husband is nowhere near that size, but he could easily overpower me physically.

JenniferIn Is Not Gun Control; It Is Citizen Disarmament
January 24, 2013


[And that folks is the meat and potatoes of this debate. Criminals don’t obey the laws, and in a just world we wouldn’t even need laws. But we live in reality. The reality is that the laws work to constrain those who are good, while benefiting criminals who don’t care about the law as it is.

Anyone who cannot seem to understand this basic fact is disregarding how the law works.  They wish to do nothing more than criminalize those with opinions they disagree with.  They wish to criminalize those who would willingly defend themselves as others would wish to criminalize gay marriage or criminalize interracial couples.

Criminalizing those who have no ill intent towards society serves no purpose other than to quell dissent and remove those from society that you would disagree with.

And that my friends is their end game, even if it means sending us to camps in box cars, those who would take our arms have no problem doing that if that’s what it takes. -B]

Quote of the Day – Reed Exhibitions(1/24/2013)

“It has become very clear to us after speaking with our customers that the event could not be held because the atmosphere of this year’s show would not be conducive to an event that is designed to provide family enjoyment. It is unfortunate that in the current emotionally charged atmosphere this celebratory event has become overshadowed by a decision that directly affected a small percentage of more than 1,000 exhibits showcasing products and services for those interested in hunting and fishing.”

“ESS has long been proud to participate in the preservation and promotion of hunting and fishing traditions, and we hope that as the national debate clarifies, we will have an opportunity to consider rescheduling the event when the time is right to focus on the themes it celebrates.”

President of Reed Exhibitions – Announcement Postponing ESOS

January 24th, 2013


[Let me translate for you.

It has become very clear to us after our customers have responded with such unity and clarity that our actions have destroyed this event.  Our taking a political stance obviously destroyed the family atmosphere and our goal to drive a wedge in between different parts of the sporting community has failed spectacularly.

We failed to understand or realize that gun owners and sportsman alike understand that they must hang together or must most assuredly hang separate.  In our attempt to double down on stupid after early negotiations it has become obvious that it has destroyed any reputation our show had remaining.  We were merely trying to discriminate against a few vendors and did not expect the majority of other vendors to stand up for them.

“ESS has long been proud to manipulate the preservation and promotion of hunting and fishing traditions to try politicize and destroy things Reed finds unacceptable.  We will have an opportunity to consider rescheduling the event because we know there are some still willing to do business with a bunch of political hacks.”

Bitter has more on the shutdown of the show.  Honestly I am glad to see the show shutdown but the political front is starting to heat up.  Time to write back in, though I must say we need to watch and watch closely.  I’m not sure what the best approach is, but if we’re going to get stuck with something, we need to get something out of the deal.  They have cake they can give up and by all means if they want compromise, lets make it a real one. -B]

The Internet is Forever

So this goes along with my stupidity lasts post from yesterday along with how despicable and nasty the other side is.  You see, a particular jerk tweeted some nasty things at some friends of mine.  It was quite obvious he was attempting to stereotype gun owners in the classic sense.  Insulting my friend Erin in the process.

It devolved into him bitching about America and general nastiness, but then it became epic.  He left a tweet and I said, well I’ll screen shot it when I get home… Well he memory holed the bastard by the time I got there.  Bad news for him, it was still sitting in my browser this morning.

Here’s what was in his feed this morning:

Notice what tweet he sent down the memory hole.  Such a nice comment that, because you know wishing illness and death, a miserable one at that, on another human being is the mark of tolerance and willingness to coexist.  This is why they dislike firearms, they have no self-control and wish violence and hate upon others.  They project their behavior and attitudes onto everyone else and assume that everyone is like that.

I have no doubt that he would be more than happy to have his government eradicate those he deems undesirables with differing opinions.

As we say time and again, gun-control is bigotry, even gun controls roots very roots are racist, and this man is a shining example of it.  Don’t like “X” prevent them from having a gun so you can safely beat them up.  It’s kind of difficult to beat up and harass a minority when they can shoot you for trying.

Guess those on this side of the gun debate are horrible people for wanting to ensure that everyone has equal access to firearm and not discriminate on who has a right to armed self-defense and who does not.

When all you have is stereotypes and bigotry, you have no argument.