Duck Dynasty - no, not a fan!

And not likely to be one anytime soon.

But don't take that to mean I am a drama queen, up in arms at those mean, nasty, dastardly comments by Duck Daddy.

Folks, one person's homophobia is another person's faith - you know, just like one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorists.  Besides, what the hell does homophobia mean, anyway?  No one said that anyone was afraid of gays.  Maybe we should call this "homopitty" because thinking homosexuality is wrong, a sin, a one way ticket on the fast track to hell is not phobia.  Just like, in some "queer eye for the straight guy" way, thinking that Duck daddy is a bearded creature from another plant is not phobic - it is judgemental.  Considering his opinion crazy and archaic is not phobic, it is judgemental.  And ain;t we all judgmental?

Look - there is lots of shit I do that others do not like.  I have been called an asshole more times than I can remember.  I drive crazy.  As is clear from my posting here, I own and carry firearms.  I am sure that all of that and so much more makes me some sort of subhuman troglodyte to some folks.  But know what - no whining, no crying, no big deal.  I don't give a shit.

So - time to get over thinking everyone should accept you for what you are - it ain't happening.  Be what you are.  You want to hold gay pride parades dressed in your mother's underwear - have at it.  Don't care!  You want to be Dan Savage and talk about straight folks like they are morons and trash catholic priests (not that I care for them either - just making a point) - then have at it.  But you can't do all that and then cry foul when someone speaks their mind about you and your behavior.  This ain't no one way street - you are not making the rules for the rest of us.

Look, this is not about freedom of speech; other than prohibiting the government form outlawing speech, there is no such thing.  That is the beloved capitalism and freedom we all love - we can say what we want (and have sex with whom we want) if we are willing to deal with the aftermath.  Speech has consequences.  So Duck Daddy's drool will have consequences, somehow I doubt he said it thinking no one would notice.  A&E suspending him for his opinions is also their right - that damned capitalism and free enterprise stuff.  But it will have consequences.  No speech is free - no act is free; what we say and do have consequences.  Time to get over that.

But look - liberals - there was a time you seemed to care about rights.  Of course, it seems you are only interested in what you want to do.  But you can't tell other people how to live one minute and then next say no one else should tell people how to live.  It's not logical, it makes no sense.  Doing so makes you look stupid - perhaps you are stupid.

The man's religion tells him that a man lying with a man is akin to a man lying with a beast.  Yep, I think that's pretty stupid.  But then I also cannot relate to a man lying with a man so I find both ideas a bit foreign.  I suggest you both not try to convince me otherwise.  Especially not when you want to take away my rights. 

My thought is that both of you have the right to your thing - so deal with it. 

And I am stuck here between you idiots.

And this is why we carry!

And why only a fool wants to walk around unarmed.  Sure - it didn't happen here; in fact, it happened in the pristine bastion of zero violent crime - Britain (after all since they outlawed firearms, how can there be violence?).

Yeah, I know - this will never happen to you, thinking this might happen is paranoia, blah, blah, blah.  But you go head and utter platitudes to convince yourself that you are always safe, everywhere you go, that all those people you encounter, who get close to you in all those places you go mean you no harm and would never go anything violent.

Just remember that Fusilier Lee Rigby let his guard down, felt secure, crossed the street, was hit, run over, stabbed and nearly beheaded all in the land of "No violence here, thank you very much!).  Just remember that one of his murderers was quoted as saying that Rigby was killed because  "he was the soldier that was spotted first."  You might be the first person spotted on that day that someone, anyone, for any reason, decides that your death would be adequate retribution for someone else's folly, that the cost exacted for the behavior of some one who looks like you or shares your job is your death.  There is your unarmed paradise.

If it pleases you to believe it cannot happen to you, that evil will never visit your door, then lie down now and offer yourself up.  For me and mine - I will keep my head up, eyes open, firearm strapped on, remain calm and, if I have to go, I will take as many of them with me as I can.

I can think of no better vehicle for a sense of peace and serenity than being ready and capable to do violence when it is necessary.

Si vis pacem para bellum.

You must be joking...

Oh, my!  A computer-generated random confirmation code and everyone gets their panties in a wad.

We have become a society of drama queens.  Get a grip!

Why is it? (UPDATED)

Why is it that when someone - say a disgruntled 18 year-old - uses a firearm to commit mayhem it makes all the news shows and headlines, yet when a law-abiding properly-permitted citizen uses a concealed firearm to protect others and save lives, the national media, in fact any media other than the local one, ignore this.

There is little reason to wonder why people seem to think that firearms are only ever used by civilians for evil.  For one, they see only what they want to see, they know the truth and thus are immune to new data.  Second, they only hear what others want them to hear, few of them will know that a firearm in the hands of a fellow citizen is more likely to save lives than to take them. [Few know that they are more likely to be shot by police than by an armed citizen].

Lastly we have to realize that wishing that this law-abiding citizen had been prohibited from having his firearm in his possession, is tantamount to wishing that the people he defend would have been killed.

UPDATE:  Well, if the victim in this home invasion had been armed,perhaps he would have been able to save himself from being stabbed and the alleged invader from a terrible death.  (Not that the invader did not deserve a terrible end, but the bleeding hearts who are so afraid of firearms might also find his avoidance of bisection a good thing - and, in this case, a positive reason for armed self-defense.)  Remember that most successful defenses with a firearm do not even involve its discharge. If the victim had had a firearm and held the perpetrator for police, he would never have made his fateful unsuccessful leap.

Perhaps...

They might have been better of if there were armed.

A step in the right direction...

Really very happy to see this finding from the 1st District Court of Appeals.  It is about time that the assertion by officials at universities in Florida (and elsewhere) that they can resist state preemption by considering themselves "school districts" was called out for its absurdity.  Isn't it clear that the assumption that underlies such policies is that the young people we send to college are too out of control, too impulsive, too uncivilized, too violent to allow them to exercise the rights they are allowed to exercise everywhere else?  What does that say for our view of our students (and faculty)?  I can only hope that this decision will ultimately lead to a step in the right direction for all schools in the Florida State University System, putting them one step closer to allowing those of us who work here to have some reasonable way to defend ourselves.

Some of the comments in the story deserve attention:

"I am looking forward to getting my concealed weapon, but I don't think it needs to be on campus for the simple fact that having weapons on campus heightens things to get more violet," said UNF junior Susan Kurilla (the misspellings and such are theirs, not mine).

- Ah, you are clearly the product of our education system, misinformed and illogical.  How does having weapons on campus make things more violent - perhaps you should read some of the tragic tales of violence on campuses where lawful carry of gun are prohibited.  Are we assuming that there are we are over-run by potential shooters who do not act out because the university president establishes policy that says they can't have a firearm on campus?  Kind of like "Oh, well, I was thinking I'd shoot-up campus this week, but I do not want to get expelled for violating policy"?  Really.  Are our campus really bastions of safety? (See my previous posts on this matter).  Gun-free zones and safety-free are defense-free zones and experience tells us that shooters know this.

"I feel like you should have the right to protect yourself, but at the same time I think it opens doors for more bad things to happen," said UNF junior Megan Mclain.

- Well, this is a clone and probably enough was said.  Just another emotional and illogical statement with no shred of evidence to support it.  Why do you think this?  Because Sung-Hui Cho brought weapons onto campus and killed people?  But weren't the weapons he brought already against policy, illegal?  Did the policy dissuade him?  Might just one armed potential victim have persuaded him to take his own life that much sooner?  Again, are you saying that you and your peers are that immature, that uncontrolled, that untrustworthy that we cannot allow you to exercise rights that others can (or that you can when off-campus)?  How does being on campus change this?

If only people would think through their positions, instead of just "feel" things.

"Just our protection. Our personal protection," Bratton said.

- That is it, plain and simple...there is no reason that I, because I work on a college campus, should not be able to take charge of my own personal protection.  The campus police you say?  Where were they at VT?  How long did it take for them to respond there and at Sandy Hook?  Why, because I work on a college campus, should I be required to "die in place" when I might be able to defend myself?  That is not your damned choice to make for me.

No, I am not a ninja, not an "operator", not an LEO.  I do not want to be.  But I am a military veteran, well-trained in the safe and effective use of firearms of all kinds, and an individual who does not wish to give over the responsibility for his safety to others.  I have a CWFL which allows me to carry concealed.  I train on a regular basis.  I can defend myself and in so doing defend others.

I am not talking about clearing buildings, about hearing the alerts and going on the offensive.  I am talking about defending myself, my students, and co-workers should a shooter enter our area intent on running up a body count.  I am talking about doing what I can to avert such a tragedy and, quite frankly, dying on my feet and not on my knees begging for my life as so many others have died in shootings in gun-free zones. Cowering in fear, begging for humanity from inhuman animals while waiting for someone to save me is simply not in my plan.

I hope this decision by this appeals court is one step closer to giving me back that natural right.

Can't quite buy it...

Never have been one for hero worship - at least not the heroes that the pols, pundits and prevaricators feed us.  So, to be honest, I cannot be sold on Nelson Mandela as hero.  Survivor, someone who was imprisoned, perhaps for the wrong reasons, for many years?  Perhaps.  But hero is a strong word for someone with his history. 

I would refer folks here to see at least the less than shiny side of today's hero.  Perhaps - well, most certainly - the goals of the hero and how well they reflect the current sentiments of the people that define them will become the metric for heroism.  That and the use of heroes to label others as evil.   As can be seen from Mandela's own comments here - the methods of terror, no matter who uses them, may be justified in hindsight when the culture decides the cause was just.  Today's "sensibilities" (perhaps inanities) help to define the hero and wipe away the taint of terror.

I would wish we could see how disingenuous this biased, backwards looking perspective can be.  But we love to create heroes, most often at the whim of today's pet issues.  Mandela is a hero because being downtrodden has advantage.  Sadly we - they - think little about the role such heroic terrorists and the adulation they receive play in educating today's children about how to approach life.  This is a game of ends justifying means - terror is justified, if decades later the ends are valued.  Will there come a time when today's terrorists will also be viewed as heroes; in fact, are they already? Why should be be surprised?

'Tis a dangerous plan.

Huffington Post: The New Front for Gun Control

A diner at Sir Edmond Halley's a pub in Charlotte, N.C., thanks the owner for hanging a "no guns allowed" sign.

All I can say is good luck with this.

Let's see: 
- Columbine - school, gun-free zone. 
- Aurora CO theatre - no firearms allowed policy. 
- Sandy Hook elementary, Newtown, CT - gun-free zone. 
- DC Navy Yard - no guns allowed.

What is the magic process whereby declaring your area a "No Guns Allowed" zone will prevent gun crime?  Now think rationally and respond honestly; if a person is willing to kill - to violate the most sacred of laws  - then how is a sign that says "No guns Allowed" going to stop them. Seriously, is a person intent on killing in that store/theatre/school today going to walk up to the door and say "Damn, I was going to kill people here, but my gun is not allowed"?

When will this foolishness end?

The person who will see that sign and either A) leave their firearm outside or B)(and this is the better option) just not come in and do business, is not the person we need fear.  How many times must it be said; those are the people who abide by the law - by definition, they are not going to commit murder in that store/theatre,/school today.

What is abundantly clear, given the list above, is that those who desire an unimpeded path to a large body count of defenseless victims and the posthumous infamy it ensures find their best hunting ground in places that law-abiding citizens cannot carry.  The fact that we leave our children, who have not choice, in such a state is unconscionable. 

Police cannot prevent such events, they can merely hang crime scene tape and draw chalk outlines.  It is not their job to be everywhere and prevent such events - that is our job.  And the killers have no intention of surviving such events.  These cowards will take their own lives as soon as they meet resistance - they are not afraid of their own death, but not there for a shoot out, not likely even trained to engage in one.  Hence, one armed law-abiding citizen who produces a weapon - even if they do not fire it - is likely to end such tragedies.  But, if need be, they can hasten the shooter's journey ti hell. 

Need some evidence - see here among many other places.

If laws and signs could stop such people and such behavior, then crime prevention would mean simply putting up signs that forbade robbery, rape, mugging, shoplifting, domestic violence, and so on.  Simply having a law would mean bad behavior did not happen.  Speed limit signs would be their own enforcement.  If such fantasy works for you, then I hope you find solace in your faith in magic and willingness to be helpless when things go wrong, when your idealism proves futile, to leave your survival to others.  But that is your choice and you should not force it upon the rest of us.

Oh - and in many states, such a sign has no meaning in relation to stores or restaurants.  While you can ask me to leave your place of business if you discover I am carrying (which you won't unless I have to use my pistol to save you and the other sheep in your store), I will not be breaking any law.  But chances are good, if I can help it, that I will keep my pistol in its holster and my money in my wallet and move along to somewhere I am welcome and will feel safe knowing that I can protect myself and that the business owner has not hung out a sign advertising easy prey and money.