NC bill to allow carry in restaurants

February 27, 2009 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Newbie Info 

From the Barrel of a Gun alerted me to NC Senate Bill 235, which would allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.

I’ve already written my senator, and called the office.  You do likewise, please.


February 27, 2009 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Me 

I’ve spent the last two days at home taking care of a sick munchkin.  She had a high fever and coughing.  As seems to be generally the case, I seem to be getting whatever it is she had.  Right in time for the weekend.  *Sigh*

It begins…

February 26, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Obama Gun Agenda 

Eric Holder has announced that the Obama team is planning on banning guns-that-look-like-assault-weapons.  Lets hope they manage to keep the provision prohibiting the “shoulder thing that goes up”.

Saddle up, folks.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

The most sense I’ve heard in a long time

February 21, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Politics 

Alan at Snarky Bytes being sensible about GM’s troubles:

Recessions are a necessary part of the economy. Like seasons and forest fires, they strip out the dead and useless and leave room for new growth. Recessions are not a crises to be managed and trying to avoid or mitigate them only make things worse. The ONLY thing that government spending can do to a recession is make it worse.

Amen!  The longer we try to forstall the inevitable, the more good money we will throw after bad.  A short, sharp pain now is much better then a long, drawn-out “bailout” that will ultimately end in failure.

Oh, and I’ve added Snarky Bytes to the blogroll.

Moving South

February 21, 2009 by · 2 Comments
Filed under: Gun Folks 

All the cool kids are doing it!

On bigotry and opinions

February 17, 2009 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Gun Rights, Politics 

A bigot is a person who, without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
From Wikipedia, article on “Bigot”

My earlier post, “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis” has prompted a few responses, and a few further thoughts.  Take a look at the definition, and then re-read the corresponding threads.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck….

Catherine responds

February 17, 2009 by · 2 Comments
Filed under: Activism, Gun Rights 

Catherine has responded to my post “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis”

While the original post was indeed inspired partially by Catherine, it is part of a much larger trend.  the same pattern repeats itself over and over again in the blogoshpere.  But Catherine was kind enough to reply, so allow me to retort.

You are wrong on many accounts:

1. I was not spouting. I have an opinion and I am entitled to it.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. The point of my post, as I believe the points of my confederates, was to point out that your opinion was based on ignorance.  Your augment is literally of the variety “The sky is green.  It’s my opinion and I am entitled to it.”  Certainly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.  If you disagree with our facts, then refute them with your own.

2. I have suggested that the approach be far different. If you want a discourse on the topic and really want to educate as you say you do, I think it would be better to do it in a manner that actually indicates that you would like a discourse rather than lecturing and indicating that you think someone who wants gun control is just dumb. That goes nowhere.

I have never called you dumb, Catherine.  And I will state again, now, for the record:  I do not think you are dumb.  I think your arguments are ill-informed and made from ignorance.  And I think your case is weak.  I have historical precedent, statistics, and yes, a bit of snark to support my case.  You have feelings and your opinion.   I believe my case is stronger.

3. Statistics can be skewed either way.

Really? The CDC and the FBI skew their own statistics?  My numbers come from the source.  I don’t filter; I don’t have to.  If you disagree with my interpretation, then by all means let’s discuss it.

4. I was not arguing.  It was my opinion.  The pr-gum(sic) bloggers went on my blog and argued.  I only questioned and refuted some of the arguments that did not seem well supported.  Others were never backed up with anything.

Horsepucky.  You made a political statement in a public forum stating that you believed that MY civil rights should be abrogated.  That’s a mighty serious thing.  Understand, it is the semantic equivalent to standing on a street corner and saying “I don’t think women should have the right to vote because some of them vote for stupid things.”  Then, when you are understandably challenged, you respond with “Well, that’s just my opinion.”  It may be your opinion, but it is an ignorant, bigoted opinion, and I am going to call you out on it.

If you feel that any of my assertions, or those of my fellow bloggers are incorrect or poorly supported, I would welcome the opportunity to debate you on the merits of the argument.

5.  There is no “appeal to emotion.”  It was my opinion and how I feel about the topic.  My blog is a forum for expressing my opinions.

From your blog:

When you watch this video think about those who needlessly died yet again because of America’s obsession with guns.  Seven people wounded, two dead.  The largest mass shooting in the history of Miami.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be so proud today.  More dead and they and their members are to blame.

The bloodbath in Liberty City was the result of an assault rifle-wielding murderer who unleashed a spree of bullets on people playing an exceedingly dangerous game of street dice.

Yep, no appeal to emotion there. Catherine, words and phrases like “bloodbath” and “obsession with guns” tend to…um…appeal to emotion.  Q.E.D.  (A little lawyer lingo, there.)
And, while we are on the topic, American’s “obsession with guns” didn’t kill anyone. A maniac with a rifle did. Punish him, not me.

6. You are definitely wrong on this one. If you look at the sequence, I never called Rustmeister a name. One day after our conversation was over i received a pingback from his blog. On his blog he said in essence that I was stupid, crazy and delusional. So who called who a name?
After that, I wrote a post calling it the way that i see it. He’s an NRA shill as I see it based on the badges on his blogs. I also personally think he’s a right wingnut since I do not believe that the Second Amendment stands for the proposition that you need guns to overthrow the government, as gun bloggers were saying on my blog.

*Sigh*….where to begin here?  First, I have gone through the tracks, and I can’t find any place where Rustmeister called you a name.  I disagree with your characterization that he said that you are stupid, crazy, and delusional.  I did note that one commenter called you delusional.  I certainly have never called you a name.  I have characterized your arguments as weak and being made from ignorance.

As far as the “propaganda corps” badges…you can read the origin here.  I’ll summarize:  We are all the unorganized milita.  You are an attorney…look up the original citation.  Not in any way related to the NRA.  Rust may, in fact, be a shill for the NRA.  But the propaganda corps doesn’t prove that.  And calling him a wingnut is an ad-hominem.

7.  I received threatening emails and some very not nice comments from people.  I decided to shut down comments and delete because I felt that it was harassment.  That’s my choice.  When I am getting threatened, I choose to shut down and not post anymore comments form anyone and to delete comments.  I reserve that right.  It was also based on advice from the authorities.

You may or may not have received threatening emails, I have no way to know that.  You are certainly entitled to shut down comments on your blog.  I certainly have never threatened anyone, and that hasn’t been the behavior that I have exhibited from the vast and overwhelming majority of the pro-gun folks that I know.

If you felt the need to contact the authorities, perhaps you wouldn’t mind posting a copy of the complaint?

The bottom line is that i may not agree with your arguments, mostly because they are obviously canned,

See, here we go again with the ad-hominems.  In what way are they obviously canned?  If you disagree with my facts, then produce some of your own.  If you disagree with my reasoning, then attack that.

but you can score a lot of points with people by first asking them why they favor gun control and then not making fun of them because they place human life over an assault weapon.

Believe it or not, Catherine, I place much, much more value on human life than an assault weapon. If we could save a single human life by banning all guns, I would be the first one in line to turn them in. But the sad reality (not opinion, fact) is that is has never happened in the history of the world. Ever. This is the spirit embodied in Joe Huffman’s Just One Question. If you (or anyone, for that matter) can answer it, then I will be convinced.

I never want all guns banned.  My father and brother own / have owned guns. I would never want them taken away from them or anyone else, but I do not see the point of having assault weapons.

So you don’t want theirs taken away, but you want mine taken away? Am I missing something?

Catherine, you have sated many times that you have an opinion, and are entitled to it.  And I agree, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.  But, when you present an opinion based on emotion rather than reason, delete comments of people who disagree with you, and ignore facts that don’t fit your world view, you make your opinions look silly and bigoted.

Another QOTD

February 16, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Politics, Quote of the day 

…comes from Robb:

I’ve come to the rather nasty realization that I prefer actual terrorists to our own government. “Submit or die!” is comprehensible and defensible against. Failing to fight against that is a self correcting problem.  “Submit for your own good or we’ll make more laws to make you submit for your own good” is the exact opposite. Failing to fight against that just leads to more of the same.

I’ll put it another way…at least the terrorists are up front about the fact that they want to destroy America.  The leftys are sneaky about it.

Quote of the day

February 16, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Quote of the day 

Today’s quote of the day comes from Tam:

Mahomet on a motorscooter, we are living out Atlas Shrugged, except we have no Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart, just a bunch of Mouches and Boyles.

True, ‘dat. If you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, now would be a good time to familiarize yourself with what is coming.

Oh…and the whole “sitting down and coming up with a plan three days later” is a little creepy.

Never Forget

February 14, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Politics 

Mike and Breda are talking about the end of the Republic.  Chin up, folks.  It’s bad.  It’s really, really bad.  But it ain’t over until it’s over.  And it ain’t over yet.

Channel your rage at this abomination.  Two years from now, we are going to sweep the bastards from office.  And when there are the inevitable calls for “bi-partisanship”, remember this day.

We are in a war for the future of this country.  Make no mistake.  This.  Is. War.  We are deciding whether we are going to be a a nation of Sullys or Suleys. And like Mike, I do not consent.

Next Page »