The choice of tool doesn’t matter

Joan Peterson has now admitted that she would be happy if gun deaths were zero, even if the total number of violent crime incidents increased.  This is coming on the heels of two mass knife attacks on the East Coast.

The first occurred in Brooklyn killing at least 5 people and injuring two others using both a knife and running one person overThe next occurred in New Jersey where three elderly people were attacked in a restaurant.

If their goal is to make society safer, how is having a higher violent crime rate actually better?  There is no screaming to ban assault knives, or to keep knives out of the hands of criminals.  The tool the anti-gunners are attacking also happens to be one of the best tools for self-defense.  A elderly person can effectively defend themselves from a youthful attacker who would instead kill them.  Mrs. Peterson, go to hell, you have no business telling us to give up our guns for a higher crime rate.  With a lower crime rate, society overall is actually safer, leave it that way. 

Violent crime, is violent crime, the tool doesn’t matter, what does matter is those same tools save more lives than they take.

Why the TSA needs to go

When you see the following regarding someone’s experience with the backscatter X-Ray machine and someone opting out, it should be obvious why they’re doing it.

Or it was, until a male TSA agent walked behind us and hollered: "Hey, I thought she was mine! I was gonna do her!"

And that, buddy, is exactly why I’m opting out instead of standing in the see-through picture machine. Thanks for validating my choice.

Remember, they claim the necessity is for our safety, but given who the TSA hires and comments like this, it’s to get their rocks off.

H/T to Uncle.

DC Metro randomly searching riders

This past December the DC Metro announced that it was going to start randomly searching DC Metro riders.

Metro Police Chief Michael Taborn said the coordinated effort with the Transportation Security Administration was not in response to a specific threat but was part of a continuing effort to keep the system safe from explosives. Boston, New York and New Jersey transit officials do similar searches, according to the agency.

Evidently trying to travel to your job at work is grounds to consider you a criminal.  Again the claim of necessity is much like that used for aircraft and these shenanigans even involve A Security Theater.  This has absolutely nothing to do with security, but giving them more control.  The TSA is out of control and it seems some still feel like they need more.

Just when it seemed when it couldn’t get any worse, this new article surfaces.

Richard Sarles said Tuesday that the agency’s random bag-searching policy is here to stay. He defended the searches that he used when running NJ Transit, arguing that they help to disrupt terrorists’ plans.

"It’s not as much about detection as it’s about deterrence," he said in an interview on WTOP radio.

(Emphasis mine.)  They even admit publically that they will probably fail to detect someone attempting to smuggle explosives on.  It’s all about “deterrence”, aka, providing the illusion of security.  This is the second time this idea has been pushed, the first time it was shot down.   The person who pushed it the first time was recently promoted to a higher position.  Given all of that I guess someone really wants to run around saying “Respect my Authoritah!”

H/T to myself, I emailed it to myself and then forgot about it, I discovered it while cleaning up my inbox tonight.

Change the tool

In San Diego evidently a cabbie either fell asleep or blacked out, he then crashed into 25 people, critically injuring six.

Twenty-five people were hurt in the shocking accident in the Gaslight District, with six of those suffering critical injuries, including a 42-year-old woman whose leg was amputated below the knee, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

There has been no screaming for outlawing automobiles in the wake of this event.  Unlike in the wake of Arizona.  Actually the press is so light on it, it was discovered and posted in the GBC by someone in Australia.  There has not been a single mention though of requiring additional safety devices as a result of this accident.  Despite there being systems which can detect inattentiveness of the driver.

It becomes obvious that safety isn’t the real goal.  People might claim it to be, but obviously if it was they would be screaming for changes with regards to automobiles after this accident. 

H/T: jigsaw

Who is John Galt?

So here’s the trailer for your enjoyment.  I didn’t even know they were coming out with a movie.  If you haven’t read the book, I highly suggest you do.  I’m reading it again because I read it a long time ago.

H/T: David

“The Gipper” Obama is not.

Our fearless leader feels that he has the right to call himself “The Gipper”.  The only person, other than The Gipper himself, who has the right to call himself the Gipper is Ronald Reagan

The Gipper, for those who do not know, was a young college football player for The University of Notre Dame by the name of George Gipp.  He died at a young age from strep throat at a time when antibiotics weren’t available yet.  On his death bed this is what he said to his coach:

I’ve got to go, Rock. It’s all right. I’m not afraid. Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they’ve got and win just one for the Gipper. I don’t know where I’ll be then, Rock. But I’ll know about it, and I’ll be happy.

Ronald Reagan, before he was President, was an actor who portrayed George “The Gipper” Gipp in the film Knute Rockne, All American and was referred to as The GipperReagan later used the line “Win one for the Gipper” in a political slogan in 1988.

His most famous use of the phrase was at the 1988 Republican National Convention when he told Vice President George H. W. Bush, "George, go out there and win one for the Gipper."

Obama has, in no way, earned the name “The Gipper” and how dare he try to refer to himself as such.

Mind your manners

Breda created a wonderful list of manners that you should follow when open carrying.  These rules are truthfully  common sense for most of us, but it’s still good to enumerate them.

        1. Be exceedingly polite – use words like “please,” thank you,” and “ma’am.”
        2. Smile a lot.
        3. Do not touch your gun. Ever.*
        4. Do not call attention to your gun. Ever.
        5. Do not talk about your gun unless someone asks. Ever.

*Unless you need it, obviously.

Manners and attitude make all the difference especially since you are having to overcome the negative stereotype created by the media.  Once when I was in Safeway a woman wide eyed and looking at me very nervously.  She had walked up behind me while I was waiting in line.  I noticed her reaction just after she walked up, I just smiled and said, “Hi.”  She relaxed considerably but was still a little put off.  After getting through the checkout line I smiled at her, said “Have a nice day ma’am” as I walked away.  She not only but smiled back, but also said to have a nice day.

That is what we want, we want to destroy this negative stereotype.  When carrying openly you are an ambassador for all gun owners.  Your actions not only reflect on yourself, but on all of us.  The above rules aid in accomplishing that goal.

A Compromise

So evidently there was a way for Janelle to opt out of the Union.  However there was still a small caveat, the 3% that would go to the dues still has to go elsewhere.  More specifically it has to go to a charity of her choice.

Then we had an epiphany.  We’re going to just have the 3% go to the Second Amendment Foundation.  I guess that’s a compromise since I already send money their direction anyway.  I would send it to someone that works against the unions, but I am not aware of any organizations that do so.  

I highly recommend sending donations their way, they have produced very good results.