Search Results for: node/SSCC children police

“Green Economy”

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on “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.

When to fight?

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on When to fight?

On Joe’s blog today Joe posted another question from Mark Philip Alger to go along with the “Just One Question“.

To summarize here:

When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?

This is a question I have often asked myself over and over, and it is a very critical item. There have been numerous comments made on the subject and many have different feelings. Ultimately I think everyone has their own independent tripwire of what will “set them off”. Joe’s page on Civil Disobedience serves as a good resource to those who have never pondered the question.

I read that new post just after re-reading the Declaration of Independence. Now if you’re wondering why I would spend my free time reading that, or the Constitution or any other numerous items regarding history, it’s because I don’t want to repeat it. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other peoples mistakes. History gives you the ability to see events and what occurred because of them.

Back to the point however many only remember a few phrases, such as: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Many do not remember the laundry list of things that was done by the King that was presented as evidence. Now while many of these may not directly pertain to our present state of affairs, we should however also note other lessons that we’ve learned in the 20th century.

My personal thoughts on the subject is that the denial of the any specifically enumerated right of the people, most especially the right to keep and bear arms is a tripwire. Any and all attempts to prevent the people from being able to arm themselves properly for the defense of themselves, family, or property serve no other purpose to make us subservient to the state. This includes attempting to restrict ammunition by tax, or by requirements. A firearm without ammo is only an expensive club. While some would argue that you can stash weapons and use them at a later time, not everyone will be successful in stashing weapons. With restrictions on firearms, restrictions on travel and speech will exist limiting our ability to organize.

My definite words to live by are the lessons of the 20th century. When it came to New Orleans after Katrina, certainly shoot any soldier collecting weapons, nail the police chief, and the mayor too. At this point their sole goal is to be bigoted against us and kill us. To me it’s like negotiating with a terrorist who only wants you dead, what is there to negotiate? If it reaches this point you must trip and act. As for legislating it’s much harder to say. If someone actually starts collecting after legislation, they are definitely guilty, but who will hold them accountable.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, they’re very fluid and it’s a topic that is very difficult. It is not clear cut like someone attacking you in your house or stealing your property. However it is someone stealing your rights.

The Bullet Counters and Self Defense

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on The Bullet Counters and Self Defense

Thomas Sowell is an economist and excellent writer who frequently writes articles that are aligned with my view of the world. He recently wrote an excellent article on self-defense and the media repose. What really caught my attention was the following:

“People who are full of excuses for criminals– bad childhood, unemployment, unfair world– sit in the safety and comfort of their editorial offices and presume policemen to be guilty until proved innocent. And they concoct clever headlines about killing an “unarmed” person, as if someone trying to run you over with a car poses no danger.”

In a previous article I wrote about someone who charged the police with a pellet gun. In that case the media statement was to point out that it was a pellet gun in the title, but ignore the fact is was manufactured to look real. There was a response from the community based on 20/20 hindsight. Again something Mr. Sowell points out strikes me:

“Such people seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition, that there are times when decisions have to be made and acted upon immediately, whether or not we know as much as we would like to know or can carry out our decisions as perfectly as we wish we could.”

There is a reason it is called 20/20 hindsight. Often you learn and discover things after the fact that would have altered your actions and resulted in a different outcome. My problem is the same as Mr. Sowell’s; these people often speak without any knowledge of the subject, and refuse to be educated even though they realize they have no understanding. Often we have to act upon assumptions based on the data available. Often however you gain more data that charges the assumptions, however when this happens after the decision is made, only the information leading to it should matter.

For instance if someone breaks into my house in-the middle of the night I assume him to be armed. Here’s why: small cramped space with a single entry/exit. This makes the assumption he is armed because I have no way to retreat, and due to the cramped space I will have little reaction time. If he does what I tell him when I tell him, I will have no reason to shoot; if however I cannot see his hands and he doesn’t cooperate I must shoot because I have no other option to ensure my wife’s safety and my own. Because of the situation, a 20/20 scenario is likely, however if I don’t react I could easily end up dead. To those that think dead is an option, it is not, he came in my house and I am the one guaranteed to leave under my own power.

I used the above merely as an aid in illustrating how decisions must often be made by assumptions and not just pure data.

-B

A Win for Georgia

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on A Win for Georgia

I know many may see this as the end of the world but I believe Jefferson said it best, “Laws against the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither disposed nor inclined toward violence.”

All this law is doing is allowing those who already carry concealed firearms to continue to do so in spaces where they would otherwise be prohibited. The man who gets his permit is not the person you should fear. A person can violate the law and carry anyway. The person who scares me is the one who carries in violation of the law. I know many who carry every day, and nothing happens. Some people don’t like the idea of firearms for self defense and I believe this stems from a lack of personal responsibility. Often they argue you can call the police to save you. They cannot seem to fathom why someone would take the responsibility to defend themselves.

Limiting the carrying of licensed permit holders does nothing but disarm people who want nothing more than to not be cattle. My views of college campuses currently is that they are giant fields of cattle ripe for the picking. Interesting tidbit though, from talking to many students, some are carrying any way. The reason behind it is, until they need it, no one has a clue. I don’t as I am a law abiding citizen but this just shows how dumb and futile ban’s are.

B

Bloomberg vs. Adventure Outdoors

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Bloomberg vs. Adventure Outdoors

Evidently when that douche failed at getting his lawsuit against gun manufactures to succeed; he instead decided to attack gun stores.

“Bloomberg’s suits said Adventure Outdoors and the others did little to ensure they were making only legal sales and, as a result, those weapons were used in crimes 900 miles away.”

So, let me get this strait, Bloomberg didn’t think that the sales were legal so he initiated the lawsuit. The ATF, with the way they conduct business, would have steam roll this guy already if he was doing things incorrectly. Not to mention the fact that previously Mayor Bloomberg had said this in a deposition:

NSSF noted that perhaps the mayor’s insults stems from his self-professed ignorance of our nation’s firearms laws and regulations, business practices of firearms retailers and the duties of the ATF. “I don’t know what the law is and what procedures are,” responded the mayor to a deposition question on illegally purchased firearms, NSSF quoted him. “I have no knowledge of what appropriate safeguards are for a dealer to comply with the law or what standard practices are in the arms business,” they quoted him.

In the same deposition Mr. Bloomberg admitted he did not know that ATF conducted inspections of firearms retailers. “I didn’t even know they had inspections,” the bewildered mayor offered and Bloomberg also noted that he did not know what a Federal Firearms Transaction Record, commonly known as a Form 4473 was or a NICS background check.

Looking at the lawsuits themselves, they are insane. In order to buy a firearm and then immediately transfer it is a felony, that’s like buying for someone else. To sell knowingly to a felon, is a felony in and of itself, again fail to see how this is the stores fault. This is nothing more than an attempt to find another way to prevent law abiding citizens from their right of self defense. These firearms could have just as easily been stolen from someone’s house and then taken to New York and sold. Seriously who tries to sell stolen guns in the same town where you got them.

As an FYI you will get caught, I have seen it happen. Guns have gone into shops on consignment and the owner sees it up on the shelf and says, “That’s my gun.” A quick records check by the owner indicates it is, the weapon goes to the police and the person that brought it in is contacted. Then they follow the trail back who stole it.

With all this focus on the “bad” what about the “good” of firearms and firearms ownership Mr. Bloomberg. Or might he have forgotten an Oath and Law that he became a part of a long time ago and that the trail didn’t end. He by no means is acting in a manner to uphold that first tenant of the law. The proof is in that he is discussing and attacking based on presumptions he knows nothing about. He is willingly operating blind at the misfortune of others.

Accountabilibuddable–Seminole Fl

By | | ,
Comments Off on Accountabilibuddable–Seminole Fl

Former Seminole police officer Ronald Baker was sentenced Friday to life in prison for repeatedly molesting an underage female relative at his Sunrise home, taking pictures of the girl in compromising positions and storing those pictures on his home computer.

Honestly this one’s hard to actually say he’s really been held accountable as long as he’s still breathing.  However it is a nice start and if they put him in with the general population he would be on his way to finding out what it’s like to be on the receiving end.

Ronald Baker, may never know the benefit and safety solitary confinement would give you.

When open carrying, you are a diplomat

By | |
Comments Off on When open carrying, you are a diplomat

The whole open carry incident in Michigan is getting annoying and it’s becoming annoying for numerous reasons.  I stopped commenting on different threads because it seemed the majority of people just lacked critical thinking ability.  It turned into a pointing game with people screaming that people were actually the equivalent of Joan Peterson and the Brady Campaign.  All because they voiced their OPINION that carrying a long arm was unnecessary and runs a serious risk of causing damage.  As Robb said, “you need to be prepared for the consequences”, that includes having people angry at you that would normally support you.

This morning Uncle posted that Michigan Open Carry has now been served with a restraining order and civil suit.  Fan-freaking-tastic,  from reading the suit I have a strong feeling that MOC is going to win, however there are some questions the court is going to have to settle and the win isn’t cinched.  The big item is who exactly the preemption law actually applies to, and does it actually restrict the library.  If you read the law word for word the answer is the library is not restricted. 

What many fail to realize is there is absolutely no correlation between the law and justice. Laws are not created for justice, and if there was a correlation it would imply that there could be no law which could violate our natural rights.  So when someone goes and picks a fight like this it’s unnerving.  It is unnerving because those who started it usually didn’t actually think the whole episode through as if they were on the other side.  Which leads me to why many people are upset over the incident, and why Breda, PDB, and others made posts regarding being on your best behavior.

What happened in Michigan was unfortunate and totally avoidable.  The major complaint has been about behavior and how people acted.  It sounds as if the people who were involved were not regular patrons of the library, were not known by the library staff, and the all around behavior created the mess that we now see.

The individuals involved in this incident could have easily preceded their "political action" by actually regularly using the library and being regular customers.  Got to know the library staff and talk with them prior to even open carrying in the building.  While they did this they could still conceal carry as to be armed, but plant the seed of trust.  Instead some loitered as irregular customers, who from the description of the article weren’t really in the library for related business, openly carrying weapons, and refused to leave until the police asked them to.*  Being unknown to the staff or anyone else around, while openly carrying a holstered firearm shouldn’t be cause for alarm, it does panic some, especially those whose support we are trying to win.  It is doubly compounded when said individual dresses in such a way to fit the media stereotype.  You should look like someone you would want your daughter to marry, professional and kempt.

If they had introduced themselves to the staff prior to the actual event, become known to staff, they could easily have protested the wrongful regulations of the library without any serious negative effects.  The conversation between the protesters and staff would have probably been much more open and comfortable.  When approached by the staff, the staff would have been more comfortable and the staff would also been more receptive of the information the carriers were conveying.  The staff could have also just told patrons, “Don’t worry about it, they’re regulars.”  Not to mention the fact if the protestors actually had business to conduct in the library it probably would have aided their case.  I’m willing to bet none of the individuals from MOC involved in this incident even have a library card for that branch. 

This was not people acting in a normal capacity (conducting every day business), it was group of armed people gathering in a location as a form of political protest.  While within their rights and the law to do so, their lack of planning, forethought, and actions prior to the event have created a mess of legal litigation and negative public relations which is very damaging to both open carry and well as the right to keep and bear arms in general.  I like being able to open carry and when I hear about events like this, it pisses me off because instead funding serious action, the community is now going to also be funding a skirmish that is actually going to result in zero legal gain, possibly lose ground, and could have been dealt with easily by thinking and diplomacy.

Michigan law was in their favor, at that point you don’t need to be a dick, you need to be diplomatic.  It’s a policy problem, not a law problem.  They were dicks because they didn’t properly engage their targets in polite conversation, they may have tried, but they had created a hostile atmosphere that shut down the people they were trying to talk to.  Going “It’s my right” doesn’t change this fact, it also doesn’t alter the fact that some of those that shut down may have been positive if it was a pistol to start with, or hadn’t been loitering in a section they probably weren’t really interested in.  It’s a consequence of the decisions they made.

All I want is for people to think ahead and use the grey matter between their ears, and most especially show some empathy towards the people we’re trying to persuade.  Be tactful and think your actions through.  In this case they took the frog and tossed it into the pot of boiling water and some people seem surprised that the frog wanted out.  Now the gun community has to fight a battle here, for a right already won back, because someone couldn’t just think and be diplomatic with the library.  It’s much easier to convince them if you know them on good grounds first.  While this won’t work for every occasion, in this case it was certainly possible, and it’s true 99% of the time.

*Some have said they were never asked to leave, others claim they left immediately when asked.  I find it hard to believe this brouhaha is happening if they had left immediately.

**Also JayG nailed another thing that pissed me off on the head.

*** Just found three updates from Robb.

Guns on Campus, A Response

By | |
Comments Off on Guns on Campus, A Response

So the WSU Daily Evergreen ran a horrible opinion piece today regarding carrying concealed weapons on campus.  The piece was so full of inaccuracies, it just couldn’t be ignored, especially since many will take it as fact.

She starts by listing off Texas and Arizona which are currently looking at legalizing concealed carry on campus as Utah has done.  She then follows this up with this baffling quote of contradiction. 

I believe people should exercise their right to bear arms. Though I believe the right to bear arms should not be negated under any circumstance and strongly agree with the National Rifle Association slogan which states, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” I have to question the expected benefits that come from passing these laws. Texas and Arizona are known for their gun friendly customs, but most students and faculty do not want this legislation passed. If the state’s efforts are to create a safer environment for the campus, they should pay more attention to the desires of the student body.

There is a common theme throughout that entire comment, feelings.  There are no facts presented, she attempts to justify the position by how most students and faculty feel.  Her arguments then continue on to what is called projection.  She uses many of the classic examples that we often hear the VPC or Brady Campaign use.

  • The problem is actually quite rare and carrying is unnecessary.

Most people have a fire extinguisher in their kitchen, not because there is a high likelihood of fire, but because it’s a tool that can stop the problem before it becomes severe.  People have disaster preparedness kits in their garages for rare and statistically unlikely events.  Many have training in CPR and First Aid, I also am a Certified Rescue Diver, not because I expect to use any of them, but they are tools and training to help in an emergency.

Firearms are tools, they are carried not in the hope that something will occur, but to be used in the event of the unexpected.  Hope is not a plan, and wait is not a verb.  People who can defend themselves as well as others are disarmed and forced to be victims by the ban of weapons on campus.

People carry all the time, more than you probably even realize.  How is there a magical line that makes the campus any more safe than any other place?  Also, firearms are not used only in the incident of a mass shooting, but are used in other forms of self-defense against violent crime.

  • Police won’t be able to differentiate between the good guys and bad guys.

This is a classic argument used by gun grabbers.  It has been proven false numerous times, including at Appalachian School of Law,  New Life Church Shootings, and even in Tucson a carrier not only wasn’t shot, but didn’t shoot the person who disarmed the shooter.  Searching through Google, I was not able to find any news article, or standard post indicating this has ever actually happened.  All I was able to find was stuff from the VPC and Brady Campaign spreading their lies.

  • Someone else may obtain the weapon and use it.

Not everyone attending the university lives in the dorms or in Greek housing.  Why should they be punished and prevented from defending themselves because others do?  That aside, there are methods that can easily be employed to secure a weapon, even in dorms or Greek houses. 

  • Carriers could go and get drunk while carrying.

This shows a complete ignorance of the law.  It is illegal to be drunk and carry.  Not only is it illegal, but it can result in your permit being suspended, weapon confiscated, and a mess of legal bills.  This whole assumption centers around projection.  The author sees herself doing it and assumes that everyone else would.  The bigger problem with that though is permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the country.

These points also ignore the fact that 26 different colleges in three states have legalized carry on their campuses for permit holders and none of these points has been a problem. 

At the end, she closes that the school should fund alternative methods of security.  This action is nothing more than a security theater.  The fact is you are responsible for your own safety and security.  No matter how much money you throw at the problem, you will not be able to solve it by alternative methods.  Preventing people from effectively defending themselves serves no other purpose than to ensure that they are nothing more than defenseless victims should the unlikely actually happen.  This whole argument is about being prepared for the unexpected.  Just because it is unexpected doesn’t mean it can’t happen here.