When the Left feels that YOU shouldn’t have a firearm, so THEY take it…

Social Engineering isn’t very far removed from the mindset behind #GoodGuy vs. #BadGuy maneuvers… the ‘end justifies the means’ mentality gives them (in their mind) a ‘get out of jail free card’. Anything goes in order to pacify their outrage.

This is why Hillary gets away with so much… she has long admired the training provided to #SJW (social terrorists) types, beginning with his “Rules for Racicals” textbook, and reinforced by a Media and Political machine that succeeds by redefining ‘normal’, ‘criminal’, ‘outrage’, ‘unfair’, well… you get the idea — the whole of our language has been perverted over the last 20 years and whole generations of schoolkids steeped in this insanity are now running things.

So, off to the exercise of the day… an article about someone who was so enraged to discover that another man was carrying a concealed weapon (all guns are bad, all people with guns are bad, all things people do with guns are bad, etc.). Sooooooo… he took the weapon and decided to USE IT… which somehow wasn’t as bad as it remaining, INERT, in it’s holster.

This is why I relentlessly bang the drum that #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder.

Rest assured, when I carry I do so with the understanding that I am responsible for what happens with that weapon… even if it is taken from my person. By extension, it is my responsibility to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to not lose the ability to govern that weapon.

What if someone disarms me and then uses it to kill five innocent people in the room? This is one of the arguments that the Left likes to throw around — we can’t have guns out there because Bad People will have access to them.

My question at this point is, why are the Bad People always the ones who the Left supports and protects? Assuming the worst of people, we are about to have a President known for killing people who are inconvenient to her… Ambassadors, her own associates, and babies.

Her opponent is being called WORSE than her (a murderer), because (it is accused) he grabbed a crotch.

Hmmm.

It should be assumed that if someone attacks you, they intend to follow through and kill you. Tactically, there is no such thing as a ‘light-duty’ assault. Understand that the people fighting most vigorously against legal and safe carry are those who, in their own minds, can’t fathom that normal people DON’T commit acts of violence simply because they are upset. These are the people who we should avoid handing society over to — and our firearms.

LINK: Charges filed after man shot in leg during disturbance in Overland Park (KansasCity.com)

LINK: Gun Control Supporter Steals Concealed Carrier’s Gun, Shoots Him (BearingArms.com)

A buddy got his Indiana Lifetime License To Carry (his firearm) today, and posted about it to his friends…

Lots of them had questions for him about how long the process took, etc., so I stuck my foot in to play Cliff Claven… the following was my comment:

indiana-firearms-licenseI don’t know what the current stats are; but 10 years ago, 1 out of every 15 adults in Indiana had a carry permit.

A little background for the uninitiated: Indiana does not differentiate between concealed carry and open carry — though there are philosophical and tactical arguments for either preference, Indiana folks tend to carry concealed much more than openly; so chances are, you are sitting beside, and shopping beside, people who responsibly carry firearms every day.

To get a permit to carry, you are subjected to a federal background check, your fingerprints are recorded, and a fee is collected. We are a ‘shall issue’ state, which means unless the Sheriff or the State can find a reason that you don’t qualify (criminal background or mental instability), they grant the permit regardless of their personal opinion on the subject (many other states are ‘may issue’, which means they grant permits on a subjective basis — do they ‘believe’ you need it?).

If you are pulled over by a police officer, you are advised to alert the officer that you have a license to carry FIRST, then explain whether you are carrying at the moment, and where that firearm might be on your person (rather than saying, “Hi officer, I have a gun!”).

Having this permit does not give you legal license to ignore posted signs; having a firearm on federal property (even in the parking lot of the Post Office) is a federal offense, even with this card. Having a firearm in a privately-owned business that has posted a ‘no guns’ sign is not a federal crime — it is trespassing; and if you leave when an employee asks you to, they have no legal standing to pursue you.

However if you are of the mind to ‘stand up for your rights’ and argue with the business owner, I would direct you to a re-read of the Constitution, which limits the power of the Federal government, not the local ice cream shop, to decide how your rights extend across the boundaries of other’s rights. If you don’t like the stance of a business on the subject, feel free to educate them on your difference of opinion — but do so while respecting their right to tell you to go away.

TheFourRulesMost states honor other state’s carry permits (this is called ‘reciprocity’) — but Illinois does not honor ours, and Ohio only recently changed to be more permissive… not every lawman in Ohio is aware of this yet. So putting it in your trunk may avoid some heated discussions. Without a carry permit, people in Indiana can have as many firearms as they like in their home and in their car — it is preferred that no loaded weapons be accessible to the driver unless he/she has a carry permit (this relates, I think to statistical truths concerning the background check). But any adult can be armed without this documentation — it just gets harder to explain your good intentions without going through the process.

Statistically, people who are licensed to carry commit far fewer crimes than those who are not (again, relating back to passing the background check), and even a smaller percentage misbehave who are members of various associations and clubs that foster training, safety, and political awareness of firearm-related issues.

Regardless of who’s statistics you most believe, more than twice as many people use a gun successfully to defend themselves as those who use a gun to misbehave… and also statistically, gun ownership nationally and here in Indiana has exploded, while violent crime has continued to decline.

Though opponents of firearm ownership will point out that ‘Correlation Does Not Imply Causation’, the opposite is also true… in areas where gun ownership has been infringed upon, violent crime increases.

Suicide statistics that imply the presence of firearms contribute to the the number of attempts, will point out a decrease in the use of firearms in suicide deaths when firearms are scarce — however they do not show a decrease in the number of deaths by suicide including all other means (CDC and FBI numbers).

I’ll close with this: If you decided to go down this road, you will find lots of people who want to help you choose hardware and go target shooting — but the most important thing you can acquire is good training — learn the FOUR RULES.

LINK: Apply for a New License to Carry (IN.gov)
LINK: Gun Safety (Wikipedia.org)

Don’t like to be raped? Just tell them you don’t like it. -Our Leftist Betters

When I was in elementary school (and junior high), I was picked on a lot by other kids (I know, right?). Instead of fighting back (a skill and ideology that I did not adopt until near the end of high school), I dutifully went to my teachers to, well, beg for protection.

I got beat up a lot.

The teachers would just stand out there on the playground, smoke their cigarettes, and chat with each other as if we were a great big television show that they were not in charge of.

Their response? “Well if they’re bothering you then just stay away from them.” It took me a lot of years to process the disillusionment from having been so abandoned by those responsible for my safety. The point is, they actually thought that advice was ‘common sense‘.

The idea that a tormentor would FOLLOW A VICTIM was beyond their comprehension.

The same idiocy was adhered to in United States case law for decades, where if you were in physical danger and had the ability to move your feet, you were expected to ‘leave the area’ rather than defend yourself. Dozens of cases were tried in which victims ended up being prosecuted because they did not properly observe their ‘duty to flee’. In many of these cases, fleeing would have left others — like their own children — behind to be harmed — in most, the attackers would have had no reason not to pursue their victims no matter how much running away occurred. But Prosecutors abused this logic so much for so long that we now have Stand Your Ground laws… that make clear it is not the responsibility of the victim to surrender — but rather to survive.

The idea that a tormentor would FOLLOW A VICTIM was beyond their comprehension.

“What alternative outcome would the opponents of Stand-Your-Ground desire? That the defending victim of the aggressor be the one that was killed? Or perhaps merely maimed? Raped, Beaten down?” – Stand Your Ground: The ‘New’ Self-Defense Doctrine That’s 136 Years Young (legalinsurrection.com)

The Left mocks these Stand Your Ground laws in a (mostly successful) attempt to make the public ignorant of their function.

“You hear that sentiment expressed by the anti-Stand-Your-Ground folks today. Listen to the pro-thug faction talking about the Zimmerman case and you’ll soon hear someone lament that poor George should have exhausted his brains on the sidewalk before being justified to use deadly force to stop Martin’s vicious attack. After all, it was just an “ass-whuppin.'”

Now, we are seeing the same idiocy repeated to rape victims… they should run away, piss themselves, throw up, or announce that they have an STD.

The idea that a tormentor would IGNORE A VICTIM’S PROTESTS is beyond their comprehension.

According to our ‘betters’, no one should be allowed to believe that SHOOTING A RAPIST is a socially acceptable or morally justifiable action. But, it is.

MorallySuperior

“I didn’t need 45 rounds per minute…” #Journalism replaced by #Activism

So there’s this guy, who doesn’t mind throwing his name out there as a liar — who posted this ‘account’ of a recent visit to a gun store. So long as people like this find ‘messaging’ to be a better option than ‘truth’, those who are easily led by the nose are going to continue to be trained as future generations of hoplophobes. (I’m not linking to his post — would rather he not get the traffic. But I found the post on Google using just his name; so if you’re driven to go make friends, be my guest. But understand that going to harass this guy is not going to change his mind — he’s a typical Leftist who is only interested in bending minds to match his… facts and experience have no bearing on his agenda; and he already knows people dislike him… from other things he’s been involved in, I think he relishes the opportunity to piss people off, and counts it as a victory when people express their distaste for his views — so don’t feel the need to go stoke the fire.)

Buckley Jeppson
June 14 at 8:18pm · Portland, OR

Today I went to my local gun store (US Guns, 9063 SW Barbur Blvd.) to ask about AR-15 guns. I didn’t go in to berate, but to try to understand why a store would sell such weapons. The two young guys in the store were understandably jittery but tried to answer my questions.

ME: I’m trying to learn more about the AR-15 and why an ordinary citizen would want one. I already know that the AR does not stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle” but for ArmaLite, the company that developed it.

CLERK at US Guns: Most people use them to shoot cans and stuff.

ME: You’d have to be a very bad shot to need that kind of gun to shoot cans. I did just fine with my BB gun and my dad’s 30-06 deer hunting rifle. I didn’t need 45 rounds per minute.

AmmoChartBUCKLEY
CLERK #2: They are good for shooting coyotes and ground hogs because those little suckers really move fast.

ME: It seems that the AR rifles are nearly all you have here, except for the hand guns.

CLERK: Yes, they are our most popular.

ME: But surely everyone isn’t buying them to hunt coyotes, ground hogs, and tin cans.

CLERK #2: They are good for wild pigs in Texas. They’re a real problem in some parts there.

ME: But we don’t have wild pigs in Portland. Why do people in Portland buy these types of guns?

CLERK: Well, some are for protecting their families and property.

ME: Protecting them from whom?

CLERK: I don’t know, that’s just what they say.

ME: Have you ever had someone you love killed by a gun, and I don’t mean while hunting rabbits?

CLERK: No

ME: I have. You are young, and the older you get the more likely you are to lose a loved one. Whether you think they are killed by a gun or a person you will discover they are dead. What would happen if you stopped selling AR rifles?

BOTH CLERKS: We’d be out of business.

ME: So it’s about the money.

CLERK: Yeah.

ME: I ask you to reconsider and to stop selling these guns. Thank you.

And I left. But wait, there’s more:

Part II
As I headed to my car I was approached by a guy who was in the store and followed me out.

GUY: They are lying. They sell the guns to people to protect themselves when “they” come?

ME: Who is “they,” zombies?

GUY: Yeah, that and all the others who might try to steal your food after an earthquake or take your guns or imprison your family members.

ME: Is that something that really concerns you?

GUY: Yeah, with the way the country has been going the last 7 years. . .

ME: You mean since we got a black president?

GUY: Well, not just that but look at all the Muslims and immigrants streaming across the border to get us. I have six ARs, and plenty of ammunition.

ME: But you can only shoot one gun at a time.

GUY: But I bet I feel lots safer than you do.

ME: No, I’m not afraid of hoards of zombies, Blacks, Mexicans, or Muslims coming after me and my family. I’m more afraid of going out dancing, or to church, or the movies, or school.

GUY: Nah, those are pretty safe places.

I drove away proud that I hadn’t screamed at anyone, but just asked questions, hoping I would learn something. I did, and it made me cry a bit as I drove home.

I thought of my friend John, a husband and father, who was depressed about school and couldn’t buy beer in Utah because it was Sunday, so he bought a gun and shot himself.

I thought of my daughter, who wanted to clean the carpets but was turned away because she was wasn’t old enough to rent a Rug Doctor. But she was old enough to have bought a gun if she wanted.

There is something very wrong here and the only way it will get fixed is if we all get off our butts and do something about it. Everyone start by finding your neighborhood gun store and go in and ask questions. Challenge them a bit to think about it and to come clean with the real reasons for these guns. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It has to do with the money they make from paranoid people, made even more paranoid by the NRA. We all have a gun story. Tell them your story and ask them to stop selling AR guns. They probably won’t, but you will have made them think about it.

And the rebuttal, from a polite, but righteously annoyed capitalist (whom I’m betting the poster above is banking on not having the same publishing reach for an effective rebuttal):

US Guns, LLC
June 17 at 6:00pm

Good Day to Everyone,

We are aware of the Facebook post put forth from Buckley Jeppson, that post has since now been removed but the spark of debate is has started has remained. Before we begin to cover our version of events we must implore everyone to not turn this into a forum used to attack or slander anyone’s political, religious, or ideological views we have to be above that kind of behavior.

Mr. Jeppson did visit our establishment on 06/14/2016 at approximately 12:38 PM he then left at 12:44pm. During his time in our establishment he did enquirer about the assault rifles on our wall. Our employees responded that by strict military definition we had no assault rifles. From there he asked what practical hunting use these firearms served, refusing to accept they might have one. Our employees gave numerous examples how they could fit within the parameters of his question whether varmint or modifying the system with a different barrel, caliber, and magazine capacity to comply with local fish and game regulations for a hunting purpose. Mr, Jeppsons response was the belief that people in Portland had no use of any firearm within that capacity.

Beyond these initial similarities Mr. Jeppson’s account of the situation is a fabrication. Both the employees working at the time are Veterans who served multiple deployments overseas and have both experienced the loss of a comrade due to gun fire. It is Mr. Jeppsons lie that our employees said we do not know this experience that offends us deeply. It is also an outright fabrication when Mr. Jeppson claimed the AR-15 is our best selling product and without that product we would go out of business, we sell much more than the AR-15 pattern rifle and it represents a small market share of our overall business.

One last point we feel the need to address is the customer who rushed out after Mr. Jeppson to engage him in conversation. While we have no definitive proof that this did not occur out in the parking lot, after review of our own security footage we can say that no customer stormed out from our store after Mr. Jeppson. Only one customer was in the establishment at the same time as Mr. Jeppson and left approximately 6-7 minutes after Mr. Jeppson’s departure. If such an exchange did in fact occur it was some other individual and not a customer from our establishment. We are working how to disseminate this footage.

We once again implore calm heads in this situation, do not rush to conclusions nor turn this into a personal attack.

US Guns, LLC.

UPDATE 06/17/2016 3:51 PM – We Have been informed the original post is back up.

When the First Amendment is no longer valued by those who don’t like the Second either…

Many people I have interacted with have trouble comprehending why a gun owner could even BE a gun owner — after having been inundated with anti-gun propaganda by their favorite media outlets for most of their lives. The answer is Experience and Education — not just about firearms and the Second Amendment … but very simply, what the tools of the propaganda artist (skilled liar) are and how to identify them.

The example I came across today that relates closely to conversations I have been having with intelligent, but unschooled, friends of mine all around the country, is this one found in the “N.Y. Daily News”:

‘What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud’ (NYDailyNews.com)

I want you to go read this article (which I call a horrible piece of work, and amoral at best, outright evil more likely), and then consider these critical-thinking questions that a 3rd-grader in my day would have jumped to — REGARDLESS of your point of view on firearms:

  • Why is the gun dealer in the article even in this business?

  • Why is it that I can’t find this (supposedly real) gun dealer on Google?

    (Oh, I mis-spoke; look what I found; a brand-new Facebook account that notes, among it’s less-than-half-a-dozen-posts: “Started Working at Franks Gun Shop Double Tap Shooting Range … Posted on May 14”. The Facebook account itself was created on May 14th as well — only one month previous to the date the article was purportedly published. Although, the gun shop itself has its own Facebook page that hasn’t been updated since 2015… the most recent post is littered with comments from angry Americans who can’t believe the ‘facts’ in the article came from a gun dealer… who would by necessity have better information that this … but Frank apparently doesn’t have an internet connection, because there is no response to the comments and queries so far.)

  • Why is this ‘former police officer’s opinion so very different from every other officer I have ever met? Oh, one of the Facebook comments clears that up: “The owner has no concept of the idea of gun laws, he is subjective as to who he sells to, and uses his “Europe Law Enforcement” career as the basis of him being a subject matter expert on guns and gun laws in America, after a scant 6 years here in the US.”

  • If the gun dealer “has difficulty explaining why law-abiding citizens need a gun that can empty a 40-round clip in less than five seconds”, where is this number coming from? Because, a semi-automatic rifle can only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled — so the AR-15 would have to be in the hands of a super-human to be able to fire EIGHT BULLETS A SECOND. But this author expects that you will be to repulsed and terrified of this prospect that you won’t question it’s veracity.

Then, after having read how ‘terrifying’, ‘loud’, and how much the recoil bruised the writer’s shoulder, take a look at this big burly little girl firing the same rifle that the Media so-very-much needs you to be afraid of:

11 Year Old Girl Shooting AR 15 at 100 Yards

When you’ve finished watching this young lady, in a controlled environment, following safety guidelines that her parent chooses to administer (just like they would with any power tool in the garage), take a moment to consider what advice our Vice President provided, also in an attempt to get Americans to fear the AR-15:

Joe Biden’s Womens Self Defense Advice: Double Barrel Shotgun

‘Uncle Joe’ says, “You don’t need an AR-15; it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds…” The following video show the difference between a shotgun, which DOES KICK HARD (counter to Joe’s kindly advice), and an AR-15, which little girls shoot with absolutely no problem (because they fire very small rounds and are designed to manage the recoil so well that the AR-15 has become Americans’ favorite rifle):

Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15

The article notes,

“The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

It sure seems that this ‘reporter’ must be smaller than the little girl in the above video…

And,

“Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.”

You see, an AR-15 ONLY has a ‘semi-automatic’ (one bullet per trigger pull) mode — if it has a ‘fully automatic’ mode (multiple bullets per trigger pull), it is not an AR-15, and is not legal for non-military use or sale … SO NO LAW WILL OUTLAW A MACHINE GUN THAT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL… that’s kind of like saying we need to make heroine illegal because the laws that make it illegal already aren’t working. The fact that this gun dealer can’t sell an automatic weapon to this reporter because it’s already against the law is NOT the message that he hopes you will get from his article.

Semiautomatic vs. Fully Automatic

The writer wants you to be afraid of people who own something that just isn’t scary enough — even in his own opinion — to frighten you off if he delivers only the truth.

By the way, it may not interest you to know that the rifle used in the horrific Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida — was not even an AR-15. While it WAS a black semi-automatic rifle, I mention this little bit of trivia so that as you read articles written by supposedly ‘professional journalists’, you will notice that maybe if they swear up and down that it was an AR-15 — you will have a clue about how much effort they put into really researching the event before committing words to press, and applying their good name and reputation to their article. #RealJournalismIsDead

Sarah Silverman still thinks she’s funny, and several others agree

The following is my response to a comment left after one of the videos below… about a separate NRA for black Americans (watch them below for context):

“I find your defense of the NRA troubling, though. If this organization was truly consistent in advocating arming citizens regardless of race, then why isn’t it representatives or leadership (or even the majority of its members) speak up in defense of Trayvon Martin? If anything, he seems like the best possible factual example for anyone to use in order to argue that private gun ownership is necessary to prevent tyranny from the state and its agents (such as the police). If the NRA was truly honest in its conviction to arm people of all races, then I would expect them to argue in Trayvon’s defense, saying “This man should have been armed! He is an example of how minorities need to be armed in order to defend themselves against brutal, violent police racism.” Instead, it seems like more NRA members are coming to Zimmerman’s defense, if anything.” –Benjamin Chylla

It will never be the NRA’s responsibility or agenda to support the Left’s need to hold Race up as the only reason anyone ever fires a gun. “If the NRA was truly honest” ??? In this statement, you are showing, in public, that you are completely unaware that Trayvon was not an innocent bystander, not a victim, and not ‘unarmed’ — for the NRA to ‘support’ or ‘defend’ him in any way would make no sense… he was the attacker! Minus 30 points for your factless, baseless ideological argument.

AngryBlackMenWithGunsThe NRA’s current mission is to protect the right, currently guaranteed by law but constantly under threat by those who the law is supposed to protect us from (those people who don’t get the ‘equal protection’ concept) — for all Americans, regardless of race.

But pretending that Trayvon was the Good Guy means that you are either mal-informed, or are intentionally attempting to continue the agenda the Left has been tilting into for years, that when a black person gets shot, it MUST have been racially motivated — therefore, all resources must be brought to bear to criminalize any non-black who defends themselves.

SarahAndHerFingerYou want to make this an argument that is won or lost based on the number of voices who agree with your version of the ‘facts’? Great — you won; more people in this country currently believe that Trayvon was innocent than those Americans who agree with the jurors determined in court. But, then, there’s the pesky facts that are going to keep getting in the way of that agenda…

I repeat: It will never be the NRA’s responsibility or agenda to support the Left’s need to hold Race up as the only reason anyone ever fires a gun.

You really hate the NRA so much that you’re willing to appear — in public — as a blithering idiot to lambaste them? It’s people like you that make me want to become a lifetime member.

LINK: “Professional Racists convince public that Race the issue in Zimmerman/Martin case, and that officials shorted investigation.” (WeAreTheVoicesInYourHead.com)

“If I am not mistaken, it was George Zimmerman who followed Trayvon all the way to his house, without even a reasonable suspicion of any crime taken place…after specifically being told by the police over the phone NOT to do so. So any argument that Zimmerman was the one acting in “self-defense” is nonsense.

And even, for the sake of argument, you want to point out that Trayvon pulled the first punch (even though he was technically complying with the “stand your ground” precedent), the use of a gun against him was not justified. Zimmerman was hardly even injured. Maybe if Trayvon had a gun (since he had the right to stand his ground), he could’ve simply pointed it at Zimmerman, told him to leave, and the whole thing could have been avoided altogether. This is the argument that the NRA often uses in order to explain how more guns will somehow lead to less violence, and they could’ve applied it to Martin just as easily as anyone else.

If I have to conclude that any ideology is counter-productive here, it would be the idea that the black criminals are somehow are more powerful because the Left is somehow “defending” them out of political correctness.” –Benjamin Chylla

“If I am not mistaken, it was George Zimmerman who followed Trayvon all the way to his house…” Factless. The testimonies show that Zimmerman walked perhaps a block and a half from his car — not even anywhere near Trayvon’s house. Did you read the transcripts? Did you even listen to the (unedited) 911 tapes?

“after specifically being told by the police over the phone NOT to do so” Factless. “We don’t need you to do that” is not a command… not even a suggestion… and the court conversations end up in basic agreement of this, from both sides. So… you DIDN’T read the transcripts…

“(even though he was technically complying with the “stand your ground” precedent)” Factless. Not only did NEITHER SIDE of the case use the SYG argument (or even bring up the definition of what SYG might have meant in this incident), it would only have been relevant if Zimmerman had found himself in a situation — even for a moment, and regardless of anything that might have happened up until that moment — where he would have needed to decide whether it would be more appropriate to run (to save his life), or fight (to save his life). Dragging out SYG shows, again, that you have formed your opinion based on rhetoric and media abuses of the truth, and without a legal understanding of what occurred that night.

“Zimmerman was hardly even injured.” Factless. I will take it from your statement that you have no way of reading a police or medical report, nor have you ever had your head bashed repeatedly on the concrete. I do, and I have…

“…he could’ve simply pointed it at Zimmerman, told him to leave, and the whole thing could have been avoided altogether.” Factless. Again, from an evident ignorance of the testimony and facts in evidence, you presume that Trayvon did NOT circle back and SEEK ZIMMERMAN OUT — which is what the evidence DOES say.

“This is the argument that the NRA often uses in order to explain how more guns will somehow lead to less violence, and they could’ve applied it to Martin just as easily as anyone else.” You are attempting to make Trayvon out as someone who needed to be ’empowered’ so that he would have as likely a chance to survive the encounter as Zimmerman did. Unfortunately, Zimmerman only pulled his weapon out after he had been beaten on the concrete repeatedly — which effectively quells any argument that Trayvon felt unequal or deficient in any way.

READ SOMETHING that didn’t start on HuffPo or Rolling Stone.

Target is an ironic brand to request that gun owners don’t aim to shop there…

But it’s their store, their property, their environment, their customer base, their profit margin. Not a big deal for those of us who will choose to shop elsewhere.

TargetIt’s just voting people

Unlike the mis-characterizations from the Left, People Who Carry are not mean, paranoid, easily angered, unhinged or thick-headed. They are, however, deliberate, predisposed to serve others, interested in self-preservation, and PREPARED.

Along with the decisions that one has to make before making the Lifestyle Choices necessary to Carry comes an acknowledgement that not everyone will agree — and to be OK with that.

We aren’t going to march the perimeter, Jericho-style, like many lobby groups on the Left do… bullying is a tactic of those so amoral and weak-minded they can only achieve their goals as a mob — you won’t find those characteristics as often among people who have come to an understanding that sometimes in life, there is no one to take care of you and your family… but YOU.

P.S.: A special shout-out to the ‘advocacy groups’ who are trying to prove me wrong… that the People of the Gun are the types who show up in groups in an attempt to coerce a company to do their bidding: “HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU?” (oh, and… “STOP IT!”)

LINK: “Tamara Keel” (BooksBikesBoomsticks.blogspot.com)
LINK: “MDA Claims Victory: Target Asks Patrons Not To Bring Guns” (ModernArms.net)
LINK: “Good Citizens and Good Neighbors: The Gun Owners’ Role” (NRAILA.org)
LINK: “Open Carry Texas Controversy” (TopShotChris.com)

Category: 2A

When the People Revolt, because their Rulers are Revolting

I want everyone to take a moment a look at what American ‘Progressives’ are trying to accomplish. Someday, if things go well for them, all we will have as a last resort against a government that has ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO CARE what the people want or need, will be slingshots and BB guns.

The very term ‘Progressive’ is a purposeful lie — Statism is what they seek. They believe that individuals are less worthy of rights than the mob. And when the mob has the uniforms, the guns, the tanks, our healthcare, our transportation system, our banking system, out very economy — in their grip — well, it will be a little silly then to start talking about term limits, won’t it?

We have the Bill of Rights because most states would not sign off on the rest of the Constitution until they were added. But you knew that, right?

Iron Mike Norton
“This is a photo I pulled from a set showing the recent violence in Ukraine. Those of you who are much smarter than me, will probably notice the same thing I did….these poor folks are defending their country with air guns.

“The man in front is clearly holding an air rifle. The man behind him is holding what looks to be the very same Crossman BB/Pellet gun I used to shoot with my cousins as a kid.

“If this doesn’t explain why gun control is IMMORAL, I don’t know what it is gonna take. Ukraine has been a “gun free” zone for years, mostly because the government convinced the people this day would never come. According to statistics, one in six Ukrainians owns a firearm, and most are illegal according to current Ukrainian law.

“What you end up with is citizens trying to defend themselves with BB guns and hundreds of people dead at the hands of government. So much for the “humanitarian” argument of the gun control lobby. Disarming a man will NEVER make him safe.”

airrifles

Letting Someone Other Than Yourself Define ‘Paranoid’

TheTruthAboutGuns asked on their Facebook page, paranoid1795883_641730189227745_1414196971_o“Is home carry paranoid?”

That depends. If someone bothers to break into your house, do you think that person is going to take longer than you to locate his weapon, get it ready to use, and point it at you and your family? It is possible the intruder could be one of those really lethargic people that they talk about on road construction sites (you know, ‘SLOW MEN WORKING’?).

Or, maybe you should have your EDC (every-day carry) on you during all your waking hours.

remoteFor years, my EDC has included a P32, my keys, my phone, a Leatherman, and a flashlight. What will the Bad Guy find you prepared with? An ink pen and the TV remote?

You may think, “Not likely to be a problem, because uninvited guests tend to avoid breaking into a house unless no one is home”? To that I say, you may be giving the criminal element too much credit for analysis and forethought. STATISTICS SHOW THAT ONE OUT OF FOUR HOME BURGLARIES OCCURS WHILE AN OCCUPANT IS HOME.

BONUS ROUND

OK, so now those of you who are still around for this deeply-disturbed article are wondering, why keys? Well, here’s the thinking behind the rest of my EDC (these from much discussion, study, and a little training in security and hand-to-hand bludgeoning):

Keys – Imagine yourself as an intruder, and upon entering a home you find the Daddy, the Mommy, possibly a couple of kids and a puppy — and in that house you see several items you would love to fence; but the Daddy is in your way. Do you turn around and leave the neighborhood, or do you grab the guy and throw him out of his own house, locking the door behind him? Now, it’s a really good thing for you that he’s left his keys in a bowl in the hallway!

Phone – I’ve heard for years that people don’t like to carry their phone when they don’t absolutely have to; besides, what if you have a land-line in the house already? First, see the part about the keys, above. Then, consider that the phone line going into your house is not protected from any dude with a pair of pliers… it’s on the OUTSIDE of your house, usually entering at near-to-ground level! If your mobile phone is too inconvenient to keep on your person at all times, you have the wrong phone.

Leatherman (or other multi-tool) – Do I really have to explain this? Are you a man? Or a MINO?

Flashlight – It’s true, a flashlight is only useful when it’s dark. So, can you please explain to me how your day is so regimented, and you are so disciplined, that you are going to get up off the couch to find that flashlight and slip it into your pocket at sundown?

LINK: “EveryDayCarry” (Facebook.com)
LINK: “Every Day Carry” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “The Truth About Guns” (Facebook.com)
LINK: “Everyday Carry Blog” (EverydayCarryBlog.com)
LINK: “Should I Carry My Gun in My Home?” (Guns.com)
LINK: “Home Invasion” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “U.S. Department of Justice – National Crime Victimization Survey, Victimization During Household Burglary, September 2010” (BJS.gov)
LINK: “Occupied Home Invasion” (Google.com)

______________________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM 2014-03-25:

“How paranoid does a person have to be to want to carry a gun around everywhere?” … the question is phrased specifically to make gun owners sound mentally imbalanced. It is phrased to shame gun owners into warping their thinking to more closely match that of the person attacking our right as individuals to defend ourselves… our right to survive.

Let me turn that around: Just how unjustifiably paranoid do you have to be to want non-criminals to be unarmed for YOUR safety? Because it’s the non-criminal that is bound by more restrictive gun laws, and popular peer pressure to disarmthe thug is only happy to have your assistance.

LINK: “Chance encounter with CHL holder saves Frisco woman from robber” (WFAA.com)

“…threw my clothes out on the lawn; AND HE’S GOT A GUN…”

Look around you — friends, coworker, relatives, neighbors… if, on a really bad day, any of them were angry at you after a disagreement — would they be capable (in temperment, mental capacity, and by having a grasp of our current world) of knowing the IMPACT of calling up the police and telling them “We argued and he has a gun!”?

LINK: “Police shot unarmed man, drove an armored truck through his door when he did not exit his property on command” (PoliceStateUSA.com)

What do you think is important to take away from this educational experience (read article linked above)?

  • Do you obscure firearm ownership from everyone?

  • Do you only associate with others who agree with your Right to defend yourself?

  • Do you take time to educate everyone you meet about the Constitution, the stats that show the 100’s more times firearms save good people than they aid bad people, the difference in lives saved when a CCW-holder (who’s already on the scene) steps in and stops a killer before the cops have time to arrive and only count the victims?

Just 40 years ago, kids in elementary school were taught firearm safety IN CLASS, and high school students competed in target shooting ON CAMPUS; and despite all the Presidential noise about it, you’re more likely to be murdered with a hammer than with a rifle — so it makes me wonder, have the Threats changed, or has the Conversation?

Who owns the Threats? Who owns the Conversation? Who owns the Change?

18957_559305237466297_182731942_n

LINK: “The Closet of Self-Censorship” (LurkingRhythmically.blogspot.com)
LINK: “Police shot unarmed man, drove an armored truck through his door when he did not exit his property on command” (PoliceStateUSA.com)
LINK: “Statists once again attempting to sway public opinion on self-defense after insane person kills in gun-free zone” (WeAreTheVoicesInYourHead.com)
LINK: search ‘shot in his driveway’ (Google.com)
LINK: “The Crime of ‘Swatting’: Fake 9-1-1 Calls Have Real Consequences” (FBI.gov)
LINK: “Don’t Make the Call: The New Phenomenon of ‘Swatting'” (FBI.gov)
LINK: “Meet ‘swatting,’ the dangerous prank that could get someone killed” (TheVerge.com)
LINK: tag: ‘swatting’ (RedState.com)
LINK: “SWATting, a Deadly Political Game” (LAWeekly.com)
LINK: tag: ‘swatting’ (KrebsOnSecurity.com)
LINK: “DailyDirt: Swatting Is Not A Harmless Prank” (TechDirt.com)
LINK: “The Left’s Dangerous New Line of Attack: SWATting” (TownHall.com)
LINK: tag: ‘swatting’ (LawEnforcementToday.com)
LINK: “Dangers of Domestic Violence Calls” (PoliceMag.com)
LINK: “10 Domestic Violence Reminders for Veteran Officers” (PoliceLink.Monster.com)
LINK: “Batterers with Badges: Officer-Involved Domestic Violence” [PDF] (AmericanBar.org)
LINK: “Guns + Domestic Violence Offenders: Deadly Combination for Police” (TheCrimeReport.org)
LINK: “Results dramatic when experts join officers on domestic violence calls” (CaliforniaPoliceChiefs.org)
LINK: “201 LEOKA (Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted) Report” [PDF] (FBI.gov)
LINK: “Officer Down Memorial Page: 2012” (ODMP.org)
LINK: “The Psychopathology of a Hoplophobe” (TheTruthAboutGuns.com)
LINK: “My first hoplophobe encounter” (USACarry.com)
LINK: “Perspectives: Getting gun owners back out of the closet” (StGeorgeUtah.com)

Guns are an Equalizer among Men — but an Unfair Advantage against Tyranny.

995888_501258359972207_1783656265_n

Somebody’s not doing their part!

According to the Brady Campaign folks, the NRA want us to keep killin’ so they can keep sellin’ (the NRA doesn’t sell guns — in fact, it doesn’t represent gun manufacturers, either… it’s membership, annual dues, profits from promotional clothing, and donations are provided by the CUSTOMERS of the gun manufacturers).

But the main political drive of the NRA is to counter the propaganda and legislative attacks on the 2nd Amendment rights of American Citizens — so if you don’t understand that the opponents of the NRA are making INFLATED CLAIMS (that’s lying, folks) about armed citizens being a risk to themselves and others, you might also be unaware that more people LIVE because of guns than the number who DIE.

How is that possible?

Any state, municipality, or even country that has increased its regulations on private firearm ownership has increased in violent crime, or political tyranny ending in massive deaths. Conversely, in any state, municipality or country which has reinforced the personal rights and freedoms of individuals to protect themselves, there has been a corresponding DROP in violent crime, and get this… ADDED LONGEVITY for the respective public servants.

My conclusion from this is that when the people are easily threatened, those who seek power do so only to serve themselves. When the people are NOT easily threatened, those who seek power do so only to serve the people.

LINK: GunsSaveLives.net
LINK: A-Human-Right.com

In the movies, when someone fires a gun in the air, everyone stops and pays attention

Let’s just start with the plain-and-simple: Firing a gun in the air is dangerous, and is illegal in most civilized societies … EVEN the ones that embrace firearm ownership and self-defense rights. THAT BULLET IS GOING TO COME BACK DOWN.

But, Joe Biden recommends that we step out on our collective porches, fire a 12-guage shotgun in the air, and expect that all the Evil in the world (be they varmits or ‘white-hispanics’ targeting us for our non-drug-related bag of Skittles) will run like Hell to get away from us.

He’s not just an idiot — he’s a DANGEROUS idiot.

Don't+Shoot+bigBut, since we’ve all seen firing a gun in the air done on old TV shows (and in celebrations around the second- and third-world), it just seems like making that bang-bang thing do some noisy-loud something will be just perfect to stop what needs stopping, right?

No. What it might do is rapidly change the situation — but you have no control over exactly what kind of Change that will be. (Kind of like the last couple of elections; but I digress…)

Does Gun Ownership Belong Hidden In The Shadows?

When a society deems gun ownership to be something unacceptible to common popular culture, then much of what people learn about the subject comes only from Hollywood — or worse yet… Joe Biden.

Remember, it was Leftists that have been working so hard over the last 50 years to teach your 2nd-Grader how to be sexually active ‘safely’… Without their help, children might learn ‘wrong’ information from their parents, and be exposed to ‘incorrect values’ that will ‘hinder their development’.

4th_of_July_957s_2013Remember, it was Leftists who have been beating the drum that if Abortion is outlawed, they will continue in secret and in much less ‘desirable’ conditions (what is the condition that makes murder acceptable?). ‘Doctors’ won’t be trained, licensed and certified. Locations will not be sterile. Women’s rights will not be protected. (As they are now at Planned Parenthood facilities, they profess…)

The Leftists are COMPLETELY AWARE that by making firearm ownership an ‘unacceptable’ thing, they push it back into the shadows, where firearms training is often skipped altogether (only Bad Guys, and soldiers on the battlefield, should even have access to a weapon — never mind ‘normal people’ actually *knowing how to use one*, right?). Letting your neighbors, doctors, teachers, coworkers, and friends know that you even own a firearm will darken their view of you forever…)

Then when someone does something REALLY STUPID like FIRING A GUN IN THE AIR, the Left is all too giddy about the opportunity to point out how dangerous firearms are in ‘non-professional hands’.

—–
If you decide that a firearm is something you may be interested in looking into, then TRAINING should be as important as ownership. ASK ME (ask someone!) if you want to know about options that will fit your situation… the best is always in-person instruction with a certified NRA Instructor, followed by one-on-one instruction by someone who simply has years of experience on the subject, followed again by video training available online and on DVD. There are LEGAL implications, SOCIAL issues, ENVIRONMENTAL impacts, and TACTICAL methodologies that you will not get ‘in the box’ when you purchase a firearm.

LINK: “Gun safety” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “Va. mom charged after firing gun into air to scare off daughter’s attackers” (WashingtonTimes.com)
LINK: “Mom Fires Gun, Follows Biden’s Advice” (FreedomEden.blogspot.com)
LINK: “Man accused of illegally firing shotgun cites Biden’s advice” (WashingtonTimes.com)
LINK: “WA Man Wants Apology from Joe Biden After Being Arrested for Following the Vice President’s Advice on Shotguns” (GunsNFreedom.com)

Learning to live without the assistance of the Federal Government

The Government Shutdown has caused all sorts of administrative headaches, even for departments that have stayed operational — simply because of the reduction in manpower (file clerks, research assistants, analysts, phone bank operators, etc.). It’s inevitable that at some point, this slowdown in Federal productivity will eventually affect those who need a background check for purchases at gun shows (one is scheduled at the fairgrounds this weekend in Indianapolis ).

So, we are working on a National Test to see whether someone is too insane to have access to a firearm, too stupid to be trusted with a firearm, too criminal to get caught outside the house with a firearm, too bad a parent to keep firearms away from children and teenagers, too uneducated to grasp the legal ramifications of the presence and use of a firearm, or too ‘radical and extreme’ politically to be trusted not to shoot an opponent rather than debate in a civil manner.

The neatest part is, there is only one question on the test, and it requires no studying or prep-time. Here it is:

FULL LEGAL NAME: [_________________________________________]
TODAY’S DATE: [_____/_____/_____]
U.S. CITIZEN STATUS (circle one): [ Legal / Undocumented ]
STATE OF RESIDENCE: [_________________________________________]
AGE (circle one): [ Old Enough to Enlist / Not Old Enough to Enlist ]
LANGUAGE PREFERENCE WHEN ADDRESSED BY A LEO (circle one): [ English ]
Q&A PORTION:
1) Do you now have, or have you ever had, an
Obama bumper sticker on your vehicle? [ Yes / No ]

LINK: “The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” (Heritage.org)
LINK: “The Myth of the ‘Gun Show Loophole'” (NSSF.org)
LINK: “Issues by Topic: Background Checks/NICS” (NRAILA.org)
LINK: “National Instant Criminal Background Check System” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “Gun shows in the United States” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “Gun Safety” (Four Rules of Firearm Safety) (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “The Gun Show ‘Loophole’: More Gun Control Disguised as Crime Control” (NCPA.org)
LINK: “EVENT: Indy 1500 Gun & Knife Show” (Facebook.com)
LINK: “Indy 1500 Gun & Knife Show” (IN.gov)
LINK: “World Class Gun Shows: The Indy 1500 Gun & Knife Show” (Indy1500.com)
LINK: “Are you a Liberal, Conservative, or … a Southern Conservative?” (WeAreTheVoicesInYourHead.com)

gun-show-sign851x315

[PDF]

Category: 2A

Starbucks finally gives in to pressure from Leftists Alinksy-style battle against personal rights

UPDATE: STOP!!! DO NOT READ THE POST BELOW! No, really — somebody else did it better here, and I highly recommend you click over and see where my own opinion has ended up, right alongside Lloyd

“Gun-Rights, Barney Fife Style” (ArmedLutheran.us)


(…and now for my original post, for those of you who are poor at following directions…)

I have a lot of respect for the way this has been handled by the Starbucks folks up to now; and I have a lot of respect for the way they’re handling it now. I’m sad that they have had to stand for all the activism from BOTH sides of this debate — that is not their role (they just want to sell coffee…).

Having said that, and understanding that they have unfortunately made it easier for hoplophobes to stage a freak-out when a carrying customer is noticed, I choose not to visit them any more because — just as most legally-carrying people will respect the wishes of Starbucks not to carry in their stores — there will eventually be a number of Bad Guys who are not bound by the same decorum that will now see Starbucks as an appropriate place to do Bad Things with firearms. You see, we have all just collectively pointed out to the Bad Guys that none of us will be able to offer any resistance when they choose to use deadly force to steal $150 from the cash register.

Clearly, mass shootings never happen where this first step to delineate a completely defenseless audience has not taken place.

Secondarily, let me point out that this isn’t a Second Amendment issue — it is one for the state level, at which it is decided how personally-owned (and sometimes carried) defensive weapons should be regulated, and what constitutes ‘normal’ for those communities. This isn’t about combating tyranny; no one at Starbucks is saying that people shouldn’t be able to own or carry — they’re just asking that we don’t do it there.

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company

Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

LINK: “The CEO Of Starbucks Is Writing Letters To Americans Now, Too. Awesome.” (ChicksOnTheRight.com)
LINK: “Coward or Idiot? What About Both?” (MichaelZWilliamson.com)
LINK: “Starbucks And Your Gun: Congratulations, Idiots.” (TwoWheeledMadWoman.blogspot.com)
LINK: “This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks” (PracticalTacticalPodcast.com)
LINK: “Why I’m done with Starbucks (at least for now)” (Rare.us)
LINK: “McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts to Gun Owners: Hey, We Respect Gun Laws” (TownHall.com)
LINK: “Gun-Rights, Barney Fife Style” (ArmedLutheran.us)

She SHOT and KILLED her assailant? HOW HORRIBLE!!!

549505_226289400853259_1823456370_nCivilians aren’t in competition with the police — but also, we are not ‘in addition to’ the protections provided by the police. Rather, the police force’s ability to serve the community is ‘in addition to’ our own responsiblity to protect the lives of ourselves and that of those around us.

To believe that we should just LAY DOWN AND DIE (because self-defense is not any of our business) is an idea only of those who believe that the State is more important than Life itself — which is not just opposite what freedom and clarity was claimed in the Declaration of Independence… but also opposite of the idea that God has Created us (the State is only a creation of Mankind — a lesser thing than what God has put on this Earth by His own hand).

549505_226289400853259_1823456370_n

LINK: “A Factual Look at Guns in America” (AmericanGunFacts.com)
LINK: “United States Declaration of Independence” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Wikipedia.org)
LINK: “Self-Defense: An Endangered Right” [PDF] (CATO.org)