Liberals, Logic, and Open Carry

So, I've noticed something in all the debate over Wisconsin and Obamacare.  Liberals believe that you can prove something true with logic.

Now, I will admit, I only took basic Logic in college.  However, I distinctly remember that one of the rules of logic is that you can only prove things false.  You can show that the form of an argument is valid, and that it is a sound argument provided the given premises are true, but that does not make the conclusion true.

However, if you can show that an invalid form has been used, or that a premise is false, then you have proved that the argument is false.

Yet I constantly notice that the moonbats want to "prove" things with logic.

It doesn't work that way.

Stand by for an update of Florida's Open Carry Fight soon.


We are not the sheep, they are not the wolves

    “It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion”

    ---W. R. Inge

For once, I think I need to make a speech on the subject of resistance.  The left has begun to use its superb organizational abilities to intimidate libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans who don't want to play the socialist game.  See the reports here, here, and here.

We, the gun-owning, freedom-loving portions of this society are the wolves here.  The liberals can declare that firearms are evil all they wish.

We know better.

We know that a tool is just a tool, and that all that should cause fear are dangerous men. For dangerous men are able to continue harvesting sheep when the bullets run out.

When clubs with nails in them are the weapon of choice, dangerous men can still survive.  When the entitlement checks stop, where will the liberals get their organic, no hormones, grass fed beef?

The point needs to be made that if the liberals try to arm themselves, they tend to think that the solution to every problem is to throw money at it.  While they are certainly going to be able to afford the best Rock River, DPMS, and Bushmaster assault rifles, how many of them actually know how to use them?

How many gun control advocates have actually served in a combat unit? How many have trained in small unit tactics, guerrilla tactics, hasty and prepared ambushes and defenses?

Now, what percentage of their total manpower is that?

I would expect it to be very small.

On the other hand, it is mostly conservatives who volunteer to fight and risk death for this nation. Most combat veterans would be very pleased to deliver their share of bullets long before they consented to surrender their firearms in a confiscation scenario.

I have a child coming. He or she will not grow up in a world run by the like of Pelosi, Napolitano, and Reid. Either we will win, and restore this nation to its former greatness, or we will lose, and they will seem small villains compared to what will arise in a society trained to believe that it is entitled to anything it wishes.

Disturbing Trend and Agents Provocateur

I've noticed a trend lately, and it worries me.

On lots of our blogs, I'm seeing comments along the lines of "if the liberals do X I'll show up and kill them."

I really hope this is nothing but the works of federal agents provocateur trying to get our movement to discredit itself.

True freedom is possible, yet it will not come if we start the bloodshed.

It will require an overt, unmistakable hostile act from the left to justify our shedding blood in the name of Liberty.

If we fire the first shot, we lose.  It is that simple.

We must come in peace.  It should be the peace of Gen. Mattis perhaps,
I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.
Just remember, friends, gun-rights activists, IIIpers, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists, we cannot start this fight.  We can end it, but if we start it, we lose.

How not to behave on the range

A few weeks ago at the local range, an elderly gentleman arrived with his pistol case and targets.

He then proceeded to walk forward of the firing line while the range was hot. After many screams of "Cease Fire!" and "Cold!" we allowed him to continue forward, since the range was now cold, and put his targets up.  He happened to use my target stand, but the other shooter to my left was kind enough to offer me one of his targets so that we could return to shooting as quickly as possible, and without argument.

Upon his return to the firing line, the elderly gentleman calmly loaded his magazines, made his weapon ready, put on his ear protection and shooting glasses, and began slow fire on a cold range.

After more shouting, there was a bit of a stand off as several hotheaded individuals wanted to eject him from the range, and others wanted to educate him.

We prevailed, and he was sent to read the range safety rules, then came back, fired a single magazine on the hot range, earning himself 1 hit on a 12inch square at 15yards with a compact XDm 45.

At that point, the obviously new-to-firearms old man packed up and left.

Now, no one was hurt that day.  Yet, there was much misbehavior.

I am not speaking of the elderly man, who obviously did not know range etiquette or safety.

The misbehavior belonged to those who ridiculed him, and did not try to help him.  I myself spent a few moments trying to help his marksmanship and weapons handling, but the constant commentary from those who had wanted him removed from the range embarrassed this gentleman.

Instead of jeering him, we should have helped him.  I think it unlikely that this man will ever come to our range again, and that is a horrid thing.  It seems obvious to me that he had never handled a gun in his life, yet something had happened that convinced him he needed a pistol.  Now, if he ever needs that pistol, he will not be confident in its use. He will be a tragedy, and the anti-gun rights extremists will try to use him as an example of why the rest of us don't need our guns either.

What should have happened?

After the first incident, someone, myself or anyone else, should have pulled this gentleman aside and asked if he needed help.  Asked if he knew the range rules, and if he wanted some instruction in the use of his weapon.

Instead, we treated him like a child.

That was my mistake, and the mistake of everyone there that day.

I hope never to make one like it again.

9 months

My current wish, is that this rotten structure will hold together for just 9 more months.

My comment to the ATF about the proposed multiple sale regulation
From:     [Redacted]
Subj:     Multiple Sale Reporting Comments
Date:     Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:34:51 -0500

As a Veteran, I have been interested in this development.

I believe that this proposed regulation is outside the ATF mandate and is specifically barred by Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a) .

Any such regulation would almost certainly lose a court challenge.

With the state of this nation's finances as they are, why is the ATF proposing a rule that will do nothing but cost money in litigation?


Sipsey Street found the giant clips!

One of the readers at Sipsey Street Irregulars found the giant clips that the anti-gun-rights extremists are always trying to ban.

Go see them now, before the socialists make Congress ban them!

ATF in the hotseat

The ATF is under massive heat about anti-gun rights activites on the southern border.

Check out the synopsis at David Codrea's blog.

Backlash Rules.

1: Ask for our firearms, and we will give you bullets at high velocities.
2: Ask for our freedoms, and we will give you rebellion.
3: Ask for our homes, and we will take yours.
4: Ask for our ideas, and we will give you facts and logic.

I wrote these tonight, because someone asked if I was a member of the Tea Party.  I am not.  I think they have some good ideas. I also think that most of them are only against taxes and big Government, and not actually in favor of anything.

Those who seek to tear down an edifice without any idea of the consequences are fools, and ignorant as well.

Tea Party Militia

Tea Party militias in Oklahoma

What is next? Republican and Democratic Militias, most likely.  Followed shortly by civil war of course.

Is it just that none of them think the others will stand for their beliefs?

Or are they all just itching for a war?