Uncategorized

Yesterday, I spoke about my problem with presumptive “no carry” in businesses. Here is one way I could accept it: acknowledge that choices have consequences.

Adopt a legal path for showing that prohibiting patrons from being armed contributed to the crime that followed. Disarm me through policy, and a business is then legally responsible for providing reasonable protection from crime on that property. That includes lockers for securing my weapon, and some means of protection from armed wolves looking to feed on disarmed sheep.

The legal system of no carry (posted or presumptive) allows a business owner to use the force of law to disarm its patrons while at the same time giving them a pass on legal liability when their policy allowed an armed criminal to prey on the unarmed patrons.

The effect of this allows an end run around my constitutional rights.

Parties unknown blew up the Georgia Guidestones at 4 am this morning.

A dozen or so protesters in Maryland block an Interstate highway to protest climate change. A few were arrested, as was this guy, who just wanted to get to the job he was required to go to as a condition of his parole:

Thanks to my governor, a dozen protesters don’t get to veto thousands who want to travel.

This is why I carry cans of pepper spray and tear gas grenades in my truck. Blocking traffic and refusing to allow people to pass is actual coercive force. In Florida, we don’t have to put up with that shit.

This is why I won’t buy an electric pickup (or any electric vehicle): the new electric F-150 only has a 100 mile range when towing.

Part of owning a vehicle of any type, what makes it such an American experience is that owning a vehicle is freedom. Freedom to go where you want. Electric vehicles with 300 miles or less of range take that from you, tethering you to a short distance from your home. The quintessential American road trip will cease to exist if electric cars become the norm. A part of America will die with the automobile.

This guy believes the leftist dogma so much that he wishes his mother would have gotten an abortion. Or does he?

It’s very troubling to me that my entire existence is because my mother didn’t have access to abortion. While it’s a cruel question to ask “Would you rather have been aborted?” The answer, for me, is yes. First of all because if I’d been aborted, I wouldn’t know. I wouldn’t exist. But also, it’s very hard to reconcile your own existence when it comes at the cost of someone else’s human rights.

Then he goes on to take the typical leftist position that anything you say with which they disagree is literally violence:

Children like me grew up in an environment where we’re told we were spared from abortion. We were propagandized into thinking abortion is wrong. I believe that is a form of violence. I don’t pretend to know what the answer is for this generation of children who are going to be a product of forced birth, but in my opinion, adoption isn’t it.

But wait a minute. Something isn’t right here.

My birth certificate has the name of my adoptive parents on it, so I knew nothing about my biological parents until I was a teenager, when I opened a box of paperwork which included non-identifying information about them. The paperwork said I’d been born to a 16-year-old girl.

Then he goes on to say:

When my birth mother had me, she already had four children. It was a bit of a mind f***. My mom had four kids? Why did she give me up?

After meeting my sister, I learned the information I’d had about my parents for all those years wasn’t true. In reality, my biological mother was separating from my alcoholic father and didn’t want a fifth child with him. I would have been conceived sometime before Roe v. Wade, so legal, safe abortion was not available for my mother.

I smell bullshit. A 16 year old girl, pregnant with her fifth child was getting a divorce from her alcoholic husband, so put the fifth child up for adoption because Roe v. Wade hadn’t happened yet? When confronted on this timeline discrepancy, he claims that his adoption documents aren’t accurate.

With a name, a city of residence, and a date of birth, it isn’t hard to look up someone’s history. So I dug into his past and into his social media:

• When he tells his story, he leaves out the part where he committed a felony and was placed in pre-trial diversion in a plea deal to avoid jail. He blames his addiction to drugs and alcohol for his crime.
• He blames all of his problems with drugs and alcohol on the fact that he was adopted.
• He openly supported a self avowed socialist who ran for St Pete city council.
• He claims that adoption is actually slavery, because “white women adopt minority children as a form of ownership” of other humans and they are actually racist.
• His social media is a parade of leftist talking points: COVID vaccines, anti-landlord diatribes, climate change. Then it changed to adoption. Ever since, nearly non stop about his addictions and adoption.
• His social media presence is only a year old.

IMO, he is a criminal bullshit artist, and not even a very good one.

When you want more of something, all you have to do is subsidize it. This woman makes $42,000 a year in food stamps and welfare for her 12 kids. On top of that, she got more than $30,000 in COVID money.

She actually thinks she is saving us money, though:

“I Googled it and it’s about $25,000 for a child to go to public school every year [from K-12.] It’s actually cheaper [for society] if I keep mine home,” she added.

Now she is a grandmother, so now she has bred a third (at least) generation of welfare recipients.

Twitter rando wants firearm registration, annual license to own and carry, insurance, and universal BG checks. Says he is OK with national reciprocity of CCW as long as each state gets to determine where and how you can carry.

I said no way. Registration is only used to facilitate confiscation and states would simply make everywhere off limits to CCW. I’m not falling for that, because the gun control side doesn’t deal in good faith.

I don’t need national CCW. SCOTUS just did that for me. It’s coming.

This was his response:

So what do you propose that would lower gun violence in America? I’ve tried to meat in the middle but you only get to “I won’t”. If you don’t have a reasonable suggestion and aren’t looking for one, what is your point?

My answer:

We don’t punish people for laws they haven’t broken. Gun control isn’t the answer. That is my point. We don’t have a gun problem, we have a mental health and criminal gang problem.

“Meet in the middle” isn’t you take some of my rights now, and return later to take more. That isn’t compromise. With compromise, both sides get something. If you get what you want, what do gun owners get? What are you willing to give up?

Him:

The thing we would both “get” is the security of knowing we can go out without being shot. I’m not trying to get anything besides that? What do you think the end game is?

I replied:

Stats don’t lie. If you aren’t a gang banger, drug dealer, or planning suicide your odds of being shot are less than dying in a fall involving ice-skates, skis, roller-skates or a skateboard.

The end game? Gun controllers want all guns illegal. That merely grants power to the strong over the weak. I refuse to be at the mercy of others.

As much as I dislike McConnell, it was his refusal to allow Obama’s replacement for Scalia that made the massive court victories of the past month possible.

A shout out to RBG is warranted as well. It was her desire to have her replacement named by the first woman President that gave us the second big move.

Lastly, I want to thank the Democrats for being so sure that HRC would beat Trump, they decided to stick to the extremist pick on the theory that HRC was going to ram through a leftist candidate to replace Scalia and swing the court to the left.

Thanks for giving us our Second Amendment rights back. Thanks for putting a leash on FedGov power, and thanks for giving up abortion.

You guys rock.

It seems like an extravagant waste of money to buy custom handguns for a team whose largest expected threat calls for heavier firepower.

Let’s say that you were having a medical emergency on-board an aircraft. Who would you rather have helping you: a paramedic, or a doctor?

You might be surprised. The doctor in this case was clearly over her head. I’ve done more with less. The vast majority of doctors are so specialized that they know little to nothing about medical emergencies. Imagine a doctor who can’t even take a blood pressure.