Quote of the Day – Paul Barrett (4/24/2013)

The gun debate has been tilting toward the pro-gun side for more than a dozen years. The Boston Marathon bombings will continue that trend.

Paul Barrett – The Boston Terror Will Benefit the NRA, Hurt Gun Control

April 23rd, 2013


[Let me start off by saying, Paul was trying to be fair though there were a few comments that I don’t really agree with.  For example attacking Wayne LaPierre or this little bit at the end of his article.

But the NRA and some of its friends are not interested in rational discourse. They thrive on slippery-slope reasoning, according to which any limit on guns is a mere precursor to firearm registration and confiscation. As any gun manufacturer will tell you, the 9/11 attacks helped sales at firearm counters around the country and strengthened the NRA’s hand in lobbying against greater federal restrictions.

Paul most people, even the NRA, are willing to have a rational discourse.  The problem is there are so many irrational people on the other side trying to control the conversation the only reasonable thing is to just shut it all down.  For example look at Fienstein and what she was pushing and trying to tack on to that bill.  Moving further forward that bill honestly didn’t have anything really to do with background checks.  The people pushing for the bill even admit it would have not made any difference at  any of the mass shootings.

So is it irrational that we want to put on the breaks, let the emotion die, and approach this in a rational and reasoned manner instead of an emotional hysteria?

There were a few other errors, such as the comment regarding background checks for commercial firearms sales.  That is already required by federal law, so are we redefining commercial sales to include any sale?  Including letting someone borrow a firearm? At which point if you exempt it, today’s exemption is tomorrows loophole, not to mention how do you define and prove “borrowing”.

Paul’s conclusion though is correct and can easily be seen with this poll.

Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.  

That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes.

As noted by Weer’d the lock-down also occurred in one of the most difficult areas to get a gun permit.  I expect there will be a large influx of new owners in that area.  Many of them will have an experience much like this individual.

“You’ll need a license for that,” the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun.  Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter.  At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I’m not a gun person. 

“To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township’s police chief.  Even a BB gun.  Can’t even take one down to show you without it.”

Many had a wake up call last Friday.  Couple that with incidents like this, it’s no wonder people want to buy firearms for their own defense.

Then Angela Kramer softly pleads for help as the gunman who killed her parents and brother seconds earlier searches for her inside the family’s Darien home.

“I’m in my house. There’s shooting,” Kramer tells the operator in a low voice immediately after the loud gunshot.

Kramer’s 911 call lasted for more than 55 minutes until police searched the darkened house and rescued her from her hiding place.

Boy, Chicago’s restrictive gun laws while pushing reliance on the police really helped that family now didn’t it.

Last weeks incident served as wake-up call to many, doubly so since it was a citizen who was confined to his house that found the man on the run after they lifted the lock-down.  I’m sure that man probably would prefer to have a firearm the next time he investigates something out of place.

*As an additional aside.  I’ve met Paul and his wife both and they were both extremely nice.  I do not think Paul was trying to slight gun owners as a whole or even directly wanted was was really in that bill.  Odds are the particular publication for which he works had a serious hand in the tone of the article.

I do not know of any gun owner who actively supports giving firearms to criminals.  We all know damn well how that would have a negative affect on us and our rights.  What we don’t want though is the state coming in and arbitrarily denying or delaying the rights of law-abiding people because in the end, we know the criminals will still get their hands on a firearm.  The comments within that article do nothing more than aid in driving a wedge and turning off the other side causing them to ignore you and your position.

I do not think any firearm owner would complain about providing additional tools to aid people in “doing the right thing”.  Where we all have a problem is trying to trace that and enforce it under law.  It becomes this complicated problem fraught with danger because it will become all to easy to criminalize someone who would actually be innocent. -B]

 

Quote of the Day – God, Gals, Guns, Grub (4/2/2012)

So where am I headin’ with this whole diatribe… well I’m tired of gals who tell me they’d do anything to protect they’re kids when they don’t have a plan, training, or tools for that night when some scumbag kicks in their door during a home-invasion. You don’t need a “rape whistle” or to fire off a double-barrel shotgun into the air. You need sound advice and the determination to take care of yourself and survive no matter what you encounter.

It’s not paranoia, just reality and the world we live in… so… To the weaker sex… accept it and plan accordingly!

God, Gals, Guns, GrubTo the weaker sex: accept it, plan accordingly!

April 2nd, 2013


 

[I have nothing else to add that he didn’t say in that post.  Which I recommend reading the whole thing.

Some may be upset by what he said, but the fact of the matter is just because it’s politically incorrect doesn’t make it false.  We have tools and people are perfectly capable of learning the skills necessary to defend themselves.  It’s much easier though to say evil men just shouldn’t do that.

Well I’m sorry folks, evil men do exist and the prey on those weaker than them.  Accept it and plan accordingly. -B]

Quote of the Day–John Klein (3/23/2013)

If I had known this would come from those mags, I would have purchased them for that sole purpose.

John Klein – IM Conversation

March 22nd, 2013


[The magazines in question can be seen here.  Screen shot is below, though it’s worth clicking over just to read the whole debate it started (I will include the best part).

image

You can probably already guess who the problem child was in that threat of comments.  Read through them the debate was interesting even if honestly it fits the script I’ve seen 100 times.  Seriously I don’t know how they do it but I swear every “debate” goes through the exact same evolution. The kicker though is during that evolution they always do the same thing at one particular point.

image

And that folks, ended the debate.  Seriously, he stayed quite after that.  Though there is one other comment that frankly had me laughing my ass off.

image

I think Matthew’s final observation there nails it.  I gave plenty of counter anecdotal evidence along with information he could independently verify.  Instead he alluded to the idea that John and I are compensating for something.  Yup, that’s the sign of the winning argument there. –B]

Quote of the Day – Robb Allen (3/14/2013)

These are the people who consider themselves more enlightened than you or I and who think they have what it takes to rule your life. It’s like watching a retarded kid scream about how your tying your shoelaces wrong and then gets confused over the Velcro straps holding his sandals on his hands.

Robb AllenIgnorance can be deadly
March 14th, 2013


[And it isn’t just one or two people who seem to think like the person who wrote the provoking tweet either.  Look at this recent tweet that came across twitter.

Don’t worry I responded as my snarky self.

After which he couldn’t take it and promptly banned me.  Not unexpected given their prevalence for reasoned discourse.

Honestly I think Robb nailed our opponents with that analogy. -B]

And They Call Me Racist…

I’ve been called racist because I disagree with the policies of Barak Obama.  I’ve been called racist because of my membership in the NRA.  Tell me, am I really racist though for either of those things?

Hmm, interesting, why wasn’t this covered in the 5 o’clock evening news?  Why didn’t the media out all these folks who are obviously racist for their views of the NRA?

Could it be that people are using the racist label to shame those with opinions of which they differ?  Could it be the racist flag is being thrown when someone doesn’t like the argument of the other and see it as an easy out?  Or could it be that those people are honestly racist and think that anyone else must always be racist in their motives?

You have people like Joan screaming things like:

Plus, the NRA has thought of a cynical new way to make angry white guys more afraid of Black people with guns by encouraging people of color to arm themselves.

*blink* Seriously, I’m the racist here because I don’t have a problem with anyone being armed, yet Joan isn’t racist and is upset at the though of black people carrying weapons because it upsets her and her racist friends.

Look at the reaction by anti-gunners because Colion Noir decided to join with the NRA.  Heck, look at the media in general (just google Colion Noir NRA and you’ll find pages of this type of garbage), their focus wasn’t on Colion’s message, or that he had been doing videos on his own for a long time, it was, “How dare the NRA have a black man come into it’s ranks, especially as any type of spokesman!?”

Seriously, who’s acting racist in this debate?  Because the NRA doesn’t have any other members who are black, much less any black members of the board of directors?  Could it be you cannot argue with facts and logic and you are upset that the NRA represents 4 million people of whom you wish to deprive them of their inalienable as well as constitutionally protected rights?

You all keep using that word in that way and honestly it’s going to be the same as every other abused adjective, devoid of meaning.  You’ve labeled so many people terrorists no one really cares anymore.  When we see a real terrorist you call us racist if they aren’t Christian or have a slightly darker skin color.  Doesn’t matter he just tried to kill a bunch of people, we’re being racist if we label him a terrorist.

I’m seriously sick of this bullshit and hypocrisy.  When I see a man, I see exactly that, a man, nothing more.  He has his own ideas and character and if I call into question either of those things and his skin is a different color than my own I suddenly become racist?

Tell me, am I not allowed to judge a man by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin?  Because it seems everyone is insisting I judge by the color of their skin and ignore his actions and character.

And lets not forget about being called women haters and otherwise being disparaging towards women either; yet those who want to disarm women get a free pass when they say things like the following:

“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak said during the hearing. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Not to mention the commentary by Joseph Salazar and the recommendation that women should just piss themselves to fend off attackers by the University of Colorado.

Seriously, WTF!?  How am I the racist misogynist pig in this debate?  How am I the person who hates women or those of a different race?  How is it that my desire to have equal access to arms is a racist or misogynistic tendency?  Someone explain to me how treating every individual as being an equal is treating them as being unequal.  I don’t freaking see it and frankly I’m getting down right pissed at those telling me I am while claiming women should just lie back and think of England.

Because evidently it’s a misogynistic to prefer a woman standing over the cooling body of her attacker in an alley instead of lying brutally beaten and raped with her rapist running away to possibly never be caught.

Because evidently it’s racist to want minorities to have the same rights as everyone else.  It’s racist to want those to have arms to defend themselves from the same threats any of us may face.

Why didn’t anyone tell me I was back in 3rd grade and it is opposite day?

h/t Joe

Sometimes they’re brutally honest

@Drake_Reinhardt @soderstromk@crazytrkdriver2 Yes. A rapist should be punished appropriately, not killed. It’s called justice. –Evan Olcott

Preserved for eternity

image

Yeah I saw a flurry on twitter and after that pile of horse crap, I did get involved.  The guy those is the classic case of Peterson Syndrome.

Best part is he kept saying self-defense was ok, but we shouldn’t kill anyone.  Tell me, what is the most effective method to stop an attacker.  As said before shooting someone merely starts a timer.  The shortest timer is smacking them in the face which is darn near instantaneous.  Center of mass causing massive blood loss is also quick, but also fatal.

Feel free to go pay that rapist supporting woman-hater a visit on twitter.  Remember though, supposedly it is me who hates women for wanting them to get training and empower them to be independent and fight off those who would do them harm.  He admitted he had never been raped but he is more than willing to force his morality and views on real victims.

He focuses on his dream “utopia” of training men not to rape as if evil is merely a learned trait.  Instead I teach women to defend themselves to make rapists lose interest and not want to harm women in general.  Too bad most rapists do it because of a control fixation.

Would it be great if evil didn’t exist, you bet your ass, but as long as we exist, the strong will attempt to prey upon the weak and I want the weak to have every advantage for their own survival at their disposal.

I can’t believe this crap, it makes me sick.  Doubly so since I constantly hear how I’m the problem with women’s rights and some how I cause a lack of respect towards women or endanger them.

Language Warning:

Why do I teach and encourage women people to get the tools and training to defend themselves?  Because FUCK rapists criminals that’s why.

*Evan Olcott, the internet is forever and your general hate and disrespect for women and rape victims shall be remembered forever you sick horrible excuse for a human being.

Quote of the Day – Joe Biden (2/28/2013)

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming.

Joe Biden – Field and Stream Interview

February 25th, 2013


 

[I don’t know how many times I need to say it, but seriously folks do not take any of the advice this man is offering.  He obviously does not know what he’s talking about and does not have the slightest clue when it comes to the laws around self-defense.

All I have to say is yeah Joe, and then you find out it was your kid running up to the door afraid of the same noise you heard.  How many different times can you give a rule 4 violation as good advice?  Seriously, WTF Joe? -B]

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]