This morning Sebastian posted a link to something the CSGV posted on their Facebook page bashing pro-gun bloggers including one who is a personal friend.  Upon reading it when I got home they had updated to have a response to Sebastian’s response.

The thought that Joan’s “religion” might be acting to prevent others from experiencing the same tragedy she experienced apparently didn’t cross his mind.

The Peterson-Syndrome is showing through.  If we are going to take her argument at face value we must then ask, what about the opinions of people like Suzanna Hupp who had the tools and skills to end the violence brought before them but were disarmed.

Every argument they make is premised with the belief that every permit carrier is going to snap and go on a shooting rampage.  They are often projecting their own feelings and emotions forgetting that a potentiality is not an actuality.  They seem to think our goal is to see people shot and injured while ignoring the fact we are merely supporting the inalienable right of self-defense.

Joan Peterson shot herself in the foot and proved her mental defect when she stated the equivalent of the following:

It is better to have a higher overall crime rate for fewer crimes committed with a gun.

Joan Peterson wants more victims at the hands of criminals as long as they aren’t committed with a gun.  On our side of the fence want people to not be forced by law to be victims. 

• We want women to be able to defend themselves from rapists who would violate them.
• We want the elderly to be able to defend themselves from young thugs who would beat them to death to impress a girl.
• We want people to be able to defend themselves from criminals who would take their lives.
• We want people to have access to the most effective tools of self-defense. 

Often this last point is portrayed as if we want to force everyone to carry a gun.  The fact is though that couldn’t be further from the truth.  We want people to be able to make the choice if they wish to be able to defend themselves.

If we allow Joan’s logic of being a victim of violence to be correct, like Sebastian I am a victim of cancer.  My father passed away from pancreatic cancer when I was 19. 

Just the same though I am also a victim of violence.  My mother stopped the abuse of an elderly couple and arrested the situation when the thugs tried to threaten and intimidate her.  How did she do this?  She used a firearm, not a single shot was fired.  The group of kids were arrested minutes later while trying to steal a car when the police arrived.  People like Joan and the CSGV would prefer my mom had left the couple at the mercy of those thugs and been at their mercy herself. 

My father and mother went to the movies when I was a baby.   A group of four proceeded to be extremely rude, intimidated the staff, and were generally discourteous.  My father went to talk to the manager about the men who were still causing problems after the movie was over.  The men noticing what my father was doing proceeded to start harassing him.  They were warned to move on and to leave.  They continued to harass and physically intimidate my father until they placed themselves between my father and mother.  At this time my dad withdrew his firearm holding it at his side, at no time was it pointed at anyone, he then directed the men to remove themselves from between him and my mother immediately.  They complied and the police, who had already been called, arrived shortly thereafter.  The city of Kent charged my father with “assault with a deadly weapon.”  The jury found him not guilty with less than thirty minutes deliberation.  As jurors were leaving, two jurors approached my father and his attorney and informed them that prior to this trial they disliked firearms and supported gun control.  They then expressed that had they been in my fathers position they would have wanted a firearm, and due to the trial they were expanding their horizons.  In this case the CSGV would prefer a father be outnumbered and possibly permanently injured to not return home to support and protect his children.

The bottom line is that ultimately each side of this debate supposedly wants the same thing, less violence.  The problem is the anti-gun lobby only cares about “gun violence”.  If rape, murder, and other violent crimes increased but a gun wasn’t used, they would still consider that a win.  In our book crime is crime, no matter the tool used.  It ends up that the firearm is the most effective tool for self-defense, anyone can learn to use a firearm and physical ability is not the deciding factor in use.  God created men, Samuel Colt made them equal.  People have even more right to make themselves NOT a victim than to be forced by law to be disarmed and become prey for predators. 

CSGV’s Facebook page is becoming an everlasting document to prove fear mongering to gather support.  Their latest attack was against AntiTango, for this post.  What’s interesting is what they chose to complain and then lie about.

Evidently making your kid eat his dinner qualifies as child abuse now.  These people are so obsessed with victimhood that they perceive every action as having a victim.  This even includes the act of self-defense. 

That’s right folks, they admitted that they believe the aggressor is the victim when someone being attacked defends themselves.  I have altered the situations below to reflect their process failure.

• The victim was shot while trying to rape a woman in her home.
• The victims were shot while breaking into a house on the east side of town.
• The victims were shot while robbing a liquor store.
• The victims were shot while mugging someone at gun point after shooting at their mark.

I could keep going but that should illustrate the process failure.  They do not understand that in each of those cases the person they are calling a victim is anything but.  They ignore and discard any defensive gun use, even if there isn’t a shot fired.  They then extended this victimhood mentality towards tango’s child.

If you skipped the drivel, just note comment #3 from Craig Hexham, as well as the comment from Joan Peterson herself, the last one is a gem as well (see what I did there).  They all seem to think that making a kid eat his dinner is causing the kid pain and suffering.  I was a picky eater when I was a kid, still am actually, but I will usually try anything once, doesn’t mean I’ll like it.  So was that child abuse by my parents growing up?  NO because if I didn’t eat I would be a starving kid. 

My dad when I was 6 months old was making sure I retained my natural ability to swim.  He was trying to get me to leave him and swim a foot to the wall.  I would hold on to him and eventually I would get upset and start crying for no real reason.  He was holding me and I was well above the water, his response, dunk my ass under water.  When I would come back up shortly there after, we’re talking seconds, I wasn’t gasping for air (note the dive reflex in babies), but I stopped crying.  Eventually I figured out the wall was a more stable object to hold onto and swam the foot.  A woman proceeded during this whole even to yell and scream at my dad that it was child abuse.  She had two kids, about 4 and 5, neither one could swim at all.  I swam competition through junior high and high school and still am an excellent swimmer today.  Some would claim it was child abuse, however I as the supposed victim by the method of CSGV’s thinking would vehemently disagree.

What we are actually seeing, it’s actually common even out side of this immediate realm, is the use of children as leverage by the threat of CPS  to force the other side of the argument to yield.  In this case CSGV lied, created a situation, and is now claiming to contact CPS because ultimately they disagree with the parenting style and politics of the parent.  That is not CSGV’s kid, that is not the governments child, neither has any business telling a parent how to raise their kid.  Child abuse is real and it is a problem.  This is NOT child abuse and to claim this as such, as well as other aspects that pertain to parenting and raising your child, demeans every person who ever actually suffered it at the hand of their parent.  My only hope is that whoever ends up investigating this turns around and fine’s your ass for filing a false report. 

H/T Sebastian who also has something to say on it here.

So now they are going after us through other meth­ods. Through our chil­dren, our work, any­thing they might do to cause us legal dif­fi­culty. They don’t even have to be cor­rect or hon­est. After all, how many peo­ple have gone bank­rupt after hav­ing to defend them­selves in court, only to be found inno­cent? [You can beat the rap, but not the ride] How will they attack us next?  –Patrick

[I previously talked about Antitango’s issue here.  Patrick makes a connection a bit further than I did in realizing the full potential of this type of attack, as it is a method to use to bankrupt us, destroy our families, and crash morale.  I know from personal experience there is no such thing as winning a lawsuit, especially one brought by the state.  The amount of damage that can be done by this type of slander and libel is serious and dangerous.  At a minimum you’re out of the fight while you get your kids back and your kid is forever scared.

Let me state something right here, right now, for everyone to know so we’re clear.  Anyone who attempts to take my kid away through libel, slander, use of force, or any other threat towards my child will unleash a horror upon them the likes of which they will have never seen.  The most dangerous man in the world is the man who has absolutely nothing to lose, and when you threaten his family or his children, that prospect becomes reality.

My wife says I’m mild mannered and easy to get along with, to a point.  That point is where you intend to bring harm to myself or my family and the type and method of harm is inconsequential.  –B]

A father of 4 was murdered in cold blood today in Britain after breaking up a fight in McDonald’s.

Raymond left the 24-hour McDonald’s but was chased into a cul-de-sac. The gun was then delivered and Mr Mitchell was beaten and pistol-whipped before being shot three times in an alley in Brixton, South London, at 6.50am on Sunday. Raymond, nicknamed Brown, was taken to hospital but died hours later.

Amazingly enough given all of Britain’s strict gun laws the criminal was still able to obtain one and shoot the innocent person who broke up the fight.  The individual was disarmed by his government and was told to rely upon the state for his protection.  We see how gloriously this blind faith failed this individual. 

His children are now left without a father not because of a gun, but the actions of an individual.  The individual responsible for this crime would have used a baseball bat, a tire iron, or any other tool available to him to commit this crime.

We also see through other statements that no one came to Mr. Mitchell’s aid even though they heard him in trouble and in fear for his life.

One neighbour, who saw the shooting but was too terrified to be named, said: “He was begging, literally begging for his life. I didn’t dare look out my window in case they saw me. I heard them laughing and swearing at him, calling him a ‘b***h’. I heard them laughing afterwards as well.”

Thanks to the disarmament of the population people who could have helped were instead rendered helpless to ensure the demise of Mr. Mitchell.  The police didn’t help Mr. Mitchell, the neighbors didn’t help Mr. Mitchell, the only person who could have helped him was himself.  That person was intentionally disarmed by his government to ensure the safety for their criminal class.

I’m sure Joe loves this little ditty just as much as I do.  I live in the middle of wheat fields and mice come seeking warmth during fall and winter.

To better protect children, pets and wildlife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it is moving to ban the sale to residential consumers of the most toxic rat and mouse poisons, as well as most loose bait and pellet products.

I mean, how else are we going to deal with these little bastards?

Cats would just feed the coyotes.  A bigger cat isn’t legal to leave around, and I doubt an exterminator will make a house call to the middle of a wheat field.  May the douchebag that came up with this piece of crap policy end up with an infestation of mice in his house so bad it is rendered uninhabitable and condemned.

H/T Tam.

In the small little hick town I live in, we don’t have problems like they do in DC.  The little town and a town wide flea-market and my buddy who lives down the street had his kids set up a lemonade stand in the front yard.

Earlier in the week I had informed him the timing was perfect since it coincided with Lemonade Freedom Day. 

Here was the sign put down the street from the stand.

Then about 10 feet before the stand was another one advertising just the lemonade and cookies.

I was hoping the local cop would swing by and buy some but I didn’t see him all day which makes me think he was working dispatch since all the college students were coming back into Pullman this weekend.  We did however have another sheriff and a convoy of oversized loads with a state patrol escort drive by.  In every case the officers waved at the kids.

The oversized loads surprised us and I didn’t get pictures of the escort, and I didn’t think to grab pictures of the officers waving as they went by.  Go figure.

The kids got decent traffic, however with the town being as small as it is, there were 4 other stands along the highway evidently. 

I had no doubt that our day was going to remain uneventful, but sadly I am by no means surprised that a bunch of bored jackboots with nothing better to do went and arrested children for selling lemonade.

Earlier yesterday I heard about the following incident at UC Berkeley.

A man allegedly threw an aluminum water bottle at a UC Berkeley student Thursday evening on campus, causing minor injuries to the victim’s face.

Why did this man throw the water bottle at the woman?  Because she wasn’t going to attend and support the local occupy rally.  I promptly tweeted it and from doing so it was placed on Facebook.  A friend of mine replied with a comment and there was a small exchange.

I began to write up a response on Facebook and it grew to the point where it became a post in and of itself.  It became a clear cut definition of why I can not and will not support the movement.

The first and most principled issue is that while I agree that there is a problem, I have a strong disagreement with the proposed solution coming out of those involved in occupy. Their solution to the corruption is more government power and expansion. Completely disregarding the fact that large government provided the power to create this problem in the first place, much less grow it to its current size.  Give the more power to the government to regulate industry, never mind that government interference in the market is what allowed the bailouts.

So between that and the type of behavior I see out of occupy, it limits the support I’m willing to give.  Instead of fellow protesters acting to remove or turn in those committing crimes, they are acting to shield them from the police.  This makes them as guilty as the criminals.  See aiding and abetting.

TMW’s example of the video out of Portland provides another window considering their camp as a whole issued that statement as a representative of occupy.

TMW’s statement is right, they have no respect for women, and their actions prove it.  Not only do they recommend not reporting the rape, but are actively discriminating against women.  I am not the only one with that type of view, and it was a woman who brought it to my attention complaining about the discrimination.  Add that to the initial incident I posted about being a woman assaulted by a man it becomes quite relevant.

If they acted like adults instead of spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum I might actually care and converse.  Sitting around occupying an area while attempting to prevent others from using the space to draw attention to your plight is like a kid rolling around on the floor of the supermarket screaming because they didn’t get what they want.  Not all are like this, some I actually have had a decent conversation with.  Those however have not been the majority experience for me.  Then add that up with the violent crime as well as general theft and it’s obvious they have a serious deficiency with their views of private property as well as personal rights.

This childish behavior has also been quite visible to me without doing much effort on my part.  More often than not my experiences have been similar to this:

fun trick: give #iamthe53 people an injury that will force them into a hospital stay. suddenly the system doesn’t work anymore

Even more than the quote promoting violence against those with differing opinions read through the comments too.  One guy, who’s post was censored, did nothing but spew profanity and call names instead of discussing the topic.

From my position the difference between occupy and the tea party is best put with this image:

So it can be surmised as this, every time I see something like in the original post, it further cements my feelings for two reasons.

1) No one polices themselves as stated above.

2) No one attempts to remove themselves from the group to separate themselves from the behavior and instill the point of disagreement, but instead remains in place there by condoning it.  (Find me a counter presentation to TMW’s video that tells occupiers to saying to report crimes instead of the message provided above to prove me wrong).

My integrity and my word is unbelievably important to me.  I will not loan my credibility or integrity to a group of individuals with such low morals who do not stand for the same beliefs and principals as myself.  My support for occupy is limited to allowing them to exercise their right to speech and peaceful assembly.  However their actions towards private property as seen in Oakland have indicated their move in a different direction.  Couple that with the damage and costs being accrued to be covered by the taxpayer, who may not support their cause, and we arrive back at my original position.  I cannot in good conscience support them.

It is said that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  The same goes with your right to assemble and speak.  When you inhibit and prevent other members of the public from travel on public roads, when you damage public property sending tax payers the bill, and then go and damage private property in the end, you no longer have a right.  You no longer have a right because you are taking property and inflicting your will upon others there by inhibiting their rights.  If the protesters want to take over a park for an extended time a couple things need to happen:

1. They need to take over maintenance of the park.  This includes cleaning it and operating it since they have now taken over principal use from the general public.  I.E. pick up your trash and clean up after yourselves.  Camping like that is extremely high impact on the area.
2. They need to find an efficient way to share the space and ensure others can use the space who are not a part of their protest.  Being harassed while trying to go for a walk in the park isn’t acceptable.  The likelihood of harassment increases if you do not agree with the sentiment of the protestors.  The longer the protest, the more you prevent the rest of the public from using the park.

Neither of these matter in the case where someone has actually donated private land for them to use.  That’s fine and they have every right to be there for as long as they want without police harassment until such time as the owner of the land feels they should leave.  You absolutely have a right to protest and peaceably assemble and I support that right.  The question is what right do you have to, infringe on the rights of others to conduct business, have the government take their money to pay for your protest, and prevent others from the free use of public space and facilities for extended periods of time.

So given the fundamental beliefs, their attitudes towards crime, and their actions towards the rights of those who are neutral or against their stance I can not and will not support them.