Supporting Starbucks

Source:
http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/

I won't allow this link to be clicked to send you on to the opposition.  I don't want them getting 'hits' from me.  However, if you copy and paste that into your web browser, you can see why I'm choosing to support Starbucks.  They have the anti-rights crowd's panties in a twist.
Essentially they have decided to not ban firearms, and rather are simply following the state regulations on weapons.  They are choosing to stay neutral, and not infringe on anyone's rights, on either side.  They aren't forcing people to carry weapons into their establishments, nor are they preventing it.
Therefore, I will be visiting a Starbucks on 2/14/2012, somewhere in South-Western PA, spending my hard-earned money with them.  I would encourage all of my friends to do the same as well.

On the frustratingly-humorous side, check out this quote about a Glock:

It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.

So, of course, the gun shot itself that often.  Not the person who pulled the trigger.  The gun chose to go commit the crime, not the criminal.  And the people were defenseless against an inanimate object.  If you listen to their arguments, you'd believe that guns were NOT inanimate objects, but beings with minds of their own, able to kill of their own volition.

Idiots.

Logic vs. Candlelight Vigils

Source:
Undisclosed.

I won't link them, they don't need any traffic from me.  But, I did make a mistake today.  I strolled (clicked?) on over to the CSGV blog to read the post where they 'out' those who had negative things to say about their candle lighting vigil.
I call this a mistake, because the quotes they pull tend to be tremendously out of context.  When I decided to post a comment to point out that obvious error, I realized that commenting is disabled.  Really?  You're going to out people, using their real names and cities of residence, but won't even extend the courtesy of having an open dialog with those people? 
OK, I can wrap my brain around the fact that they are desperate enough to be that hypocritical, they are desperate.  I can wrap my brain around their being on the wrong side of the issue, not everyone has taken the time to study various issues from a truly neutral standpoint.  I can even wrap my brain around their attempting to take a holier-than-thou stance, it IS, after all, what people tend to do when they do not have the moral high ground.
Where I have issues is with them claiming to be honoring those who have lost their lives to 'gun violence.' 
Not only is their premise a bad premise, but the very act of mocking those killed in one incident in this fashion is appalling. Yes, I say they are mocking those killed, because they are using the tragedy to further their own agenda.
Let's think about this logically:
Step 1 - Define Vigil:

1. A period of keeping awake during the time usually spent asleep, esp. to keep watch or pray.
2. A stationary, peaceful demonstration in support of a particular cause, typically without speeches.

Step 2 - Determine their usage of it. 
Clearly, they are not using the first definition, as they are not keeping watch over anything, and I have yet to hear any of them invoke the name of our Creator.  At least, not in a vain fashion.  So, let's look more closely at the second definition.  "...support of a particular cause..." 
Step 3 - Determine the intent. 
What cause?  If the 'vigil' is to 'honor' deceased, that's not a cause which needs much intentional support.  Step 4 - Apply logic to the method.
Those who loved the deceased honor them as they deserve.  Outside onlookers 'honoring' them tend to be a distraction, and a detraction, from any honor being given unto them. 
Which means that there's another motive.  Is it an attention getting motive, as Miguel suspects?  I think that's a reasonable direction to go with this.  So, really the 'cause' they are supporting here is drawing attention to themselves.
Alternatively, other motives could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Attempting to thwart their entrance into the dustbin of history.
Attempting to redirect  attention from the REAL issue (crime) and topple a straw man they have built.
Attempting to gain monies from people who are too lazy to do the research behind the 'cause.'
Attempting to force themselves into current issues in order to 'feel better' about themselves.
Attempting to use a genuine tragedy perpetrated by a pathetic individual to further their own agenda.

Please, comment below with your own ideas of what their motives or goals could have been.  I'm curious to see what we can come up with!

Personal Experience: Carwash Ambush

 This isn't the first time I've had to use a firearm in self-defense.  It's merely the first since I started blogging.  But, several things come into play which I want to emphasize to anyone who happens to be reading this.On Sunday, I was hanging out with my daughter at my fiance's house.  My future in-laws were there, the ladies doing wedding planning, my daughter and I watching a Narnia marathon, and a relaxing day being had by all.  After the snow fall of the week prior, I decided it would be a good idea to wash the salt from the car before it had any more chance to corrode my paint and undercarriage, and make me another victim of the steel buckle of the rust belt.
As such, I asked my daughter if she would like to accompany me to the car wash.  Her eyes lit up, and after the Narnia movie which was playing at the time ended, we were on our way.
Upon pulling into the parking lot, I noticed two young guys sitting on a curb along the back portion of the lot.  They didn't strike me as significantly out of place, as there is a fair amount of pedestrian traffic there.  This is not a bad part of town by any stretch of the imagination, and there are always people milling about.
As I rounded the back end of the car wash, I asked my daughter whether we should use the 'spray it yourself' or the automatic wash.  She chose the automatic, as she enjoys watching the machine do the work.  Since this particular car wash has no brushes or rollers or other 'things-which-hold-dirt-from-other-cars-and-use-it-to-scratch-mine' I conceded, and proceeded to the far end of the building, getting in line behind a dark purple Pontiac Grand Am.
At this point, I noticed that the Grand Am was a significant distance behind the next car up in line, but attributed that to the driver having the vehicle in park while waiting for others to move up, and being in no hurry, so I brushed it off.  I looked into my mirror to chat with my daughter, and noticed out of the corner of my eye movement in my passenger side-view mirror.  As I shifted focus to that mirror, I saw the aforementioned young men walking in the direction of my car,  from behind.  I then noticed that they both had their hands clutching things in such a way that I could not see what was in them.  At this point, my senses went into overdrive, and I started taking in every detail of what they were doing.
They split up behind my car, one coming to the driver, the other remaining on the passenger side.  At this point, I knew hesitation COULD prove to be a problem, and taking a simple precaution would cause no problems.  So, without interrupting my daughter (who was talking about something which for the life of me I can't remember now), I drew my firearm from my holster, and held it against my chest, with the barrel directed at the driver's window.  As the kids reached the front doors of my car, they turned to face it from both sides.  I turned to look at the one on my left, made eye contact, raised my gun ever so slightly.  His eyes widened, and he turned to run.  I then looked to my right, and saw what was in the hand of the kid on the other side of the car.  An ASP.  At this point, I started to swing my firearm in his direction, expecting to have to fire it after he broke the glass.  As soon as he saw what was in my hand, however, he also bolted.  After he ran, the car in front of me (remember that dark purple Pontiac?) turned a tight turn, and booked it around the corner.
The kid who had been by my driver's side door ran through one of the DIY carwash stalls, shoving the guy who was washing his car.  I watched him on the other side, as the other kid reached him, and then the car. They jumped in, and took off up the street.
My daughter, meanwhile, was blissfully unaware of the encounter.  As a parent, I'm exceedingly grateful that I was not only able to protect her, but I was able to do it in such a fashion that she never had to feel any fear, and was able to continue her story with only a slight pause when she noticed the guys run from the car.
The entire incident took a very short amount of time.  I couldn't begin to guess how long it did take, but even reviewing the slow-motion capture in my head, there was very little time involved.

Remember I said I wanted to point out a few things?  Well, here are they key factors:
1 - It was broad daylight.
2 - It was in what is considered to be a safe area.  A 'good part' of town.
3 - This area, on the whole, has a lower crime rate than most of the rest of the USA.
4 - I was not out looking for anything, instead trouble found me.
5 - If I did not pay attention to my surroundings, things could have gone very differently, especially if I was not already preparing as they were approaching.
6 - They did not have (that I was able to see) any firearms of their own.  That would not have prevented them from perpetrating violence upon myself and my daughter.
7 - If I had been unarmed, or prevented from owning or carrying a weapon, it would not have ended so peacefully.
8 - One person against many doesn't stand a chance, without something to balance the odds.  The threat of violence was sufficient to bring resolution to the situation without the need to follow through with the threat.
9 - I hope the thugs who sought to ambush me (or whoever happened to pull into the lot behind their getaway) will reconsider their plans, and realize that their victims may not be willing to be victimized.

This is just another reason why we have a 2nd amendment.  Personal responsibility.  Only I am able to protect myself and my family.  I cannot rely on anyone else to do so.

UPDATE:  I spoke with the police, and let them know about the event.  I provided as detailed a description of all the actors as best as I was able, and they have filed it as something for which to be alert.  No incident report, nothing else exciting.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Bias

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195751-109-0.stm?cmpid=newspanel

So, his entire premise is sexist.  Not to mention that he ignores simple, basic logic. 
My first question to the author of this article would have to be: "What about people who are legitimately weak?  If your premise is that men don't need guns to be men, what about those with infirmities, women, kids at school, and other people who are at a physical disadvantage?" 
The usage of simple logic dictates that if we do away with firearms, the people with the most ability to use force will be those with the most force available.  His goal is to return us to a day of inequality, where women were domineered by men, and other social injustices abounded. 
He also makes an enormous blunder when he references the Cullen report in Scotland.  Their logic is that if the number of gun owners is decreased, the level of gun violence will decrease.  This just makes no sense when you actually apply the logic of the real world to it.  When you look at Scotland, which is well known for it's anti-gun laws, you see an INCREASE in violence, including gun violence.  You see a higher per-capita rate of being a victim, and other things which indicate that disarming the populace serves the exact opposite purpose of it's stated intent.
He also says:

The emphasis is on resolving disputes through force -- physical force initially, lethal force ultimately.

He misunderstands the intent completely.  The emphasis is not on resolving disputes through force (if that was the case, there would be many more men in prison, businesses would contain boxing rings, and we'd see fist fights in stores over prices of goods.), rather it is on being prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones if someone else chooses to use force against us.  It has nothing to do with disputes whatsoever.  The reason I carry a gun is not to give me the upper hand in a dispute.  It is to provide the even footing required to be safe if the unthinkable happens.
Additionally he states:

Then there's the concomitant vigilante mentality and the belief that the righteous gun owner may have to fight the government itself if his Second Amendments rights (as he sees them) are not respected.

Firstly, he couldn't be further from the truth.  We won't fight the government ONLY for our Second Amendment rights.  Our founding fathers often made reference to the need to balance the government, and the only way to do that is with an armed citizenry.  Again, the goal is not to go out looking for this lack of respect, it's to respond when our rights are violated.  It's a reaction to an offense, not the initiation of offense.

Lastly, and what I find most amusing, is that he is a professor of poetry.  While I would try to avoid name-calling and such, I figure 'he started it' so I might as well make the comment demanding to be made.  That isn't the sort of profession which is very 'manly' anyway.  I think he has some pretty perverse ideas of what manhood is all about.  He chooses to ignore logical reasoning and the consequences of living in the real world to defend his own fear of inanimate objects.  Not the behavior of any real man I know.

I firmly believe that only people who have knowledge and understanding about a topic should be published addressing said topic in such a fashion, as his complete lack of understanding about the firearms community, and what it means to be a man, makes him look exceedingly foolish, and is a heavy mark against the Post Gazette's credibility.

Taxation without representation!

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11307/1187126-68-0.stm

Pennsylvania is at it again.  There has been talk about this, and I understand why.  However, any tax added without it being passed through the legislative and executive branches is unenforceable.  I'll be curious to see if they do start attempting to enforce this, how well it holds up in court when the population of PA objects, and files suit.

We're already in a bad economy, and some nitwit bureaucrat thinks it's a good idea to increase the tax burden on the citizenry.  When will they grasp that this form of idiocy is NOT the answer?

Which wrong(s) make a man guilty?

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oregon-man-found-with-gun-sniper-book-after-football-game-held-without-bail/2011/10/31/gIQA0Q8LaM_story.html

In my perusing of news reports, I came across this gem.  Clearly this individual was 'up to something' in this scenario, but what justified the move by police to intercept him in the first place?  Also, notice on which events the Washington Post places more weight.  It isn't the fact that he's already committing a crime by possessing a controlled substance.  It's not even the fact that he had a firearm on school property.  No, they mention and emphasize FIRST his activities as a 13 and 15 year old kid.

His age at time of arrest?  26.  That's 11 years.  11 years of no (mentioned) charges.  11 years of being a productive member of society.  (Or at least not being a drain on the system, from what we're able to tell.)

From the story:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke said the weapons and the books, each by themselves, did not make Amoroso a danger. But taken together — along with his arrest at age 15 for shooting a pellet gun at a passing boat filled with tourists on the Rogue River, and writing on a classroom desk at 13 that he wanted to kill teachers and students — there was enough evidence to show he posed a danger.

Is it really that difficult a concept to consider that someone participating in a sport is going to take it seriously, do research, purchase equipment, and the like?  I know hunters who consume sniper-related material like water, simply because it's a passion for them.  The challenge of learning how to make shots which seem impossible, the tricks and tools used to calculate the ballistics, and other factors readily turn this into an exciting hobby for many.  

So the magistrate judge and the post both look to this person's past.  What makes it so hard to believe that a 13 year old boy would feel anger toward other students and teachers?  Perhaps he was bullied, or had bad grades and was frustrated.  Perhaps he was just a normal kid, who made the mistake of writing what he was thinking.  And that was half his life ago.  

So let's move up a few years, find something more recent.  He was a 15 year old with a toy pellet gun.  15 year old kids aren't known for making the best choices across the board.  It might have been beneficial to him to have had somewhat 'closer adult supervision' than he had that day.  But again, once incident, shooting pellets at a boat, and years later it's being brought up as a sign of how dangerous he is.

It's not until they go through all this that they bother to discuss the crimes he was ACTUALLY COMMITTING at the time of his arrest.  These are plenty reason to lock him up for a while, and press charges.  While I absolutely understand the logic behind eliminating the war on drugs, and legalizing them for various reasons, that isn't the reality in which we live.  As such, his possession of drugs is a viable, legitimate charge.  As is his possessing a weapon on school property.  Again, I understand the reasons for wanting that foolish law repealed as well, and I whole-heartedly support that movement.  But that's not reality.  The law is still there, so it is still a crime.  But they still can't, in their biased minds, differentiate between the actual crimes, and perceived crimes:

Police found a loaded pistol, hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition, marijuana, a camouflage jacket, and a novel about a sniper attack on a football game in his car.

What about having rifle ammo in his car is so bad, especially when the only firearm found in the vehicle is a handgun?  What about a jacket that happens to be a certain color scheme is so terrible?  Why is possessing a book so evil?  Should we burn all books that mention the word 'sniper' or 'gun' to protect people?  Are we really at that point?

I get that adding all this up, the guy looks suspicious, and frankly he's a bit of an idiot for his behavior, but let's not start a witch hunt over perceived wrongs.  Let's focus on what he ACTUALLY did, and let the justice system do it's job.  There are enough straw men around, we don't need to be building more out of excessive paranoia.

Hermain Cain - Presidential Material?

Source:
Undisclosed

I know my readers are intelligent enough to find this video if they are motivated to do so, I do not want a direct link from my blog to her. 

I'm listening to a broadcast by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in which she is viciously attacking Herman Cain.  Her problems with him include being associated with Americans for Prosperity, seeing a disproportionate number of times he encounters the number 45 in his day to day life, and some other random things.  

In short, he notices a number appearing more often than others, so she calls him a numerologist, and compares him to Nancy Regan controlling President Regan's schedule based on astrological readings, saying that he is associated with the Koch brothers, and that he thinks David Koch is a patriot makes him crazy. 

But the most delicious bit of irony is when she said:

"Herman Cain was one of the public faces of Prosperity 101.  It is a workplace seminar program that business use to educate their employees about the dangers of things like health reform, and taxes on millionaires, and regulations on businesses.  So your boss tells you to sit through this lecture, you sit through the lecture, message received, your boss essentially just told you how to vote.  In other words this Prosperity 101 thing is another the Koch brothers are funding a means by which businesses can get their way politically.  Intimidate your employees into voting for your bosses interests too."

Emphasis mine above.  The irony is that this is exactly what the unions do.  They force their employees to attend 'educational' events which attempt to brainwash them to voting for the left.  They go so far as to make threats, and want to have a voter card for union members.  The unions take this concept to extremes which are inhumane and anti-liberty.  Yet an independent organization  which attempts to educate people about reality is touted as intimidation?  

Rachel, you really are living in your own fantasy world.  You need to either wake up and join the rest of society, or get off your soap box: You make yourself sound more and more unintelligent and uneducated every time your trap opens.

Ataaaack Waaatch Part Deux - Joking Around

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html?tid=sm_facebook

It's good to see that there is a post at the Washington Post ridiculing it as well.  Sure, they attempt to point out the 'motivation' and the 'good things' that will come of such a site.  But let's face it.  They know as well as we do that it's an attempt at censorship.  One which will ultimately fail.
Instead, it's like being on a battlefield, and our enemies have air-dropped a large supply of weapons and ammunition behind our lines.
As I said to a co-worker, the people know what he's trying to do, and won't stand for it.  Her response was that not everyone hates it, the people living on "government money" (our money) love it.  I then said 'Stop trying to depress me. I said people, not sheeple.'
Let's keep the joke going.  Toss comments and funny links here, share the best stuff you can find!
This video (sent to me by a friend) is priceless!

At Least He Shot Himself For Us

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/06/at-least-8-reportedly-shot-at-ihop-restaurant-in-nevada/

Yet another example of the police and law enforcement agencies being too slow to react.  After a shooter shoots people and himself, they arrive.  After the threat is neutralized, they shut down a street.  After ________ they _________.  Fill in those blanks with pretty much anything you want.  We see this in case after case, instance after instance.
If the police existed to prevent crime, this discussion would never happen.  however, they are a reactionary force, not a preemptive force.  They are unable to prevent this sort of thing.  \
I don't know anything about the shooter at this point, if he was high, if he had mental problems, if he was an escaped con out to get the world, or if he was a normal Joe who snapped, or what.  At the end of the day, that doesn't matter.  What matters is that no one there took the action to stop him.  It could be that none of them was armed, or it could be that he already shot those who were.  What will you do if you're confronted with such a situation?
This is why it's important for us to take our safety seriously, and responsibility for ourselves, and not rely on others for it.

Tased Man Awarded Damages

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11236/1169599-100.stm

I live far too close to this city for my comfort.  The short version of the story is that a police officer used excessive force, a jury found in his favor, but yet he was only awarded a couple hundred dollars compensation for it. 
The man had to go to the hospital, and we all know how cheap that is.  This is insanity.  Get me out of here.

Jumping at Shadows

Source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-virginia-tech-lockdown-4-20110805,0,3215763.story

Most of you, by now, have heard about this incident.  Back in 2007 there was a mass shooting at the school.  While that was a sad, and even unfortunate incident, it has had the effect of making people at the school jumpy and afraid.  Rather than encouraging the students, faculty, and others to be aware of their situation, and prepared to handle it, they are skittish.  One person, who saw something they weren't even certain about having seen, led to a lock-down of the school, a massive amount of expense to the school, local tax payers, and emergency responders.  This comes with the additional side-effect of putting many officers into play in a non-issue, and leaving other areas un-patrolled, and reducing the response time to any other issue.  

In what world does it make sense for the masses to live in perpetual fear?  In what world does it make sense for people to blindly rely on the reactions of someone else to save their lives?  But most importantly, in what world is it the business of one person what any other person is or is not carrying on their person?  If you are worried about someone else carrying a weapon, train yourself in their use, and be prepared to do something about it yourself.  Otherwise, shut your mouth, stop whining like a nitwit, and leave the rest of us to live our lives the way we want.

Atheists are Vampires?

Source:
http://m.christianpost.com/news/atheist-groups-lawsuit-against-9-11-cross-sad-misguided-52940/

I don't have time to write my usual commentary on the idiocy of people, however here is the winning quote of the article:

According to the lawsuit, several claimants have suffered both physical and emotional damages from the “existence of the challenged cross.”
Among the damages listed are “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

Reading that makes me think these atheists have more in common with vampires than humans.  Seriously, it's a symbol, seeing it isn't going to hurt you.  

However, it DOES make me think about a new career path:

"Boydy - The Vampire Atheist Slayer"
All I need to do is wear a cross, put some on my car, and mount them on every door and window of my house.

What are your thoughts?

Update:  A coworker just suggested that '...anyone who is physically hurt by seeing something needs to grow a pair."  I think she's right.