Friday, September 5, 2014

Liberty Minded Rationalists



A while back, during the discussions on the MVT forum about possible ways to take meaningful action against the ISIS situation, there was a really great post that summed it all up quite nicely.
And in that post there was a comment that I think whacked the nail straight on the head in regards to the various "Left" or "Right" political groups;

" ...I think my opinions on the radical left, who are otherwise known as libtards, are fairly clear from my writings. However, I also object to the extreme right. Whether that be the extreme religious or political or religious/political types.....

.....The main problem with the ‘right’ in America is that it is always within inches of slipping over the edge into madness. There is sensible chat about rightful liberty, threats of tyranny, problems in the country, and then there is always a website or a commenter waiting in the wings to drag it all down with some madness. It’s the insane type of conspiracy theories. It’s the belief in any rumor thrown up on the net because it makes you feel good. I have followed those links, I have explored it, and therein lies the route to madness.
It is exactly that type of brainwashing on the right that discredits what those who support rightful liberty are fighting for. We are simply Americans, standing up against the madness of the radical left, and the destruction to our country and society that they have wrought....."

I've got to say, I totally agree, because I've seen and experienced it myself.
The problem always seems to come where there is a good intention, people form a group around that good intention, and then either they derail themselves by taking it TO far, or the maniacs show up and ruin everything.
Take the oft-bashed "prepper" movement. Solid idea, makes sense, and then you get the retards that showed up and ruined the whole thing. Ok, so they had a little shove off the cliff here and there, but you've got to admit there is some full retard going on in some of those circles, especially with the Alex Jones chemtrail types... Anyways, I'm not going to try and feebly expound further when you can go read the rest of the quoted post.
The overall point being, it's time for a new way for people who actually still have a few sane brain cells to identify themselves without being immediately thrown out because their part of a certain "group".
And while I'm sure in time this will get hijacked by the loons, Max has come up with a great idea- Rationalists;

RATIONALIST

Which stands for:
R eady
A rmed
T rained
I nformed
O rganized
N on-Conformist
A nti-extremist
L ibertarian
I nclusive
S ecure
T eam







I think the argument for using/adopting this term is pretty solid as well;



"....It’s not about who is reasonable or normal or right or whatever, it’s about who controls the narrative. Remember Alinsky? Yeah, now you are on the right track. The radical left control the narrative. Stop describing yourselves as preppers or whatever. That makes you a nut job....

.....Remember also that this term RATIONALIST is not designed to be exclusive or ‘othering’ – it is designed to be inclusive. If anyone asks why you do what you do, you explain you are a rationalist. They also consider themselves rationalists, so you are now both included with each other.

Q: Why do you store food? A: It’s an uncertain world, and I’m a rationalist.

Q: Are you one of those crazy preppers? A: No, I’m just a rationalist, I like to be ready for uncertain times. Seen the news lately?

Q: Are you a gun nut? A: No, I like to be able to defend my family. Tactical training is also fun and challenging – you should try it.

Q: Are you some kind of wing nut conspiracy theorist? A: not at all, I’m a rationalist. I don’t go in for crazy theories, but have you seen the news lately?..."


And if all else fails, "because fuck you that's why" is apparently also a perfectly acceptable answer to any particularly boneheaded questioning.

Read the rest HERE and HERE.
Apply liberally.




Thursday, August 14, 2014

Rifles, Armor, And Nonrestrictive Banning



The world is in great shape. ISIS running rampant, ebola popping up here there and everwhere, our own borders being overrun by god knows who, and meanwhile on the other side of town, we're back to the same old arguments....

"Catherine C. Blake, federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled.... that Maryland's ban on AR-15s and AK-47s "does not significantly [burden]" the Second Amendment.


Dear "Folks that still want to compromise on this issue: Told you so...."

Also, Rep. Mike Honda, (D-CA), has submitted a bill to the U.S. House that would prohibit the sale, use or possession of what he terms military-grade body armor.




Of course how exactly to stop possession of any but from lawr abahdin' sitisens... I'd love to know how this will work out for them.

Oh, wait- same as guns. It won't. Bad guys don't give a damn about some stupid piece of paper!

But apparently in fantasy land we can wave said papers at them like some magic talisman, and they'll just walk away since no-one is armed. 


Banning people from owning body armor is denying them the most basic, passive form of protection you can have. You don’t need to carry a gun or a knife or even a club (which apparently kills more folks than either of the previous)  to take advantage of it- you just wear it. Like a safety blanket. Much like some schools have invested in for the kiddies, in case… you know… some crazy person who gives no damns about committing murder, much less the piece of paper you’re frantically waving in his face as you beg him to stop blowing holes in people, decides to shoot the place up.
Explain to me again how that makes this Act any sort of “responsible”? 


And then you have an absolutely ridiculous ruling in Maryland stating that restricting and banning military pattern rifles does not constitute an infringement on the second amendment.
I mean really?
You just banned something. That equals an infringement.
It’s like telling people that restricting their use of the internet to the hours of 12 and 1 AM doesn’t infringe on their use of it. We’ll even call it the Responsible Internet Usage Act. 


Question of the day- why do people constantly feel they need a court to rule on something clearly stated in a document that does not give rights, but simply states which ones we have by simply existing as citizens of this country, that cannot ever be tampered with or restricted?
Why do we rely on political appointees to tell us how much freedom we can take advantage of?


Frankly, half of it is just a game- those in high offices such as the SCOTUS and their supporters  have suckered everyone into believing they can grant and regulate rights.
The other half of an unpleasant answer is that “most people don’t want true freedom- they simply desire a kinder master….”
But I digress.


The final absurd half of the story with these two bills is that they then make statements like this:


“…Blake said the Firearm Safety Act represented "the considered judgement" of Maryland legislature and Governor Martin O'Malley (D) and was an effort "to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the great power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines….”

“…There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,…”


Quick- help us pass this common sense law so we can get these weapons of war off our streets!

Really?



 

Tell me more about how banning something means you need more of it, given that you’ll no longer be in any danger of facing such threats per that magical piece of paper?
Hypocrites.


Saturday, August 9, 2014

Shields Up!

Picture borrowed from MVT

The long awaited MVT Shield thermal shelter is finally available.
See the link for availability, price, order info, and specs. 

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Raffle For Chris Kyle



So I haven't had time to post much which sucks, but I do plan to get back to it. Someday....
However, this was worth putting up.

Per the outcome of the Ventura Vs Kyle estate, American Snipers.org has taken it upon themselves to set up a raffle to help Kyle's family defuse some of the cost of the suit.

Needless to say, some seriously badass manufacturers have joined in and there is a pile of ridiculously awesome stuff being put up for it (details over the last week or so on A.S. Facebook page), to include guns, gear, and training classes. If anyone needs any incentive to join in....

Link here: Chris Kyle Raffle Page

Tickets are 10 bucks each.
Raffle ends January, Shot Show 2015

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Posting Update

A long overdue update on events here.
Frankly, there's a lot going on, the end result of which tends to drain the ol' "give a damn" meter.
Posting for the forseeable future is going to get sporadic (if you haven't already noticed...).

If you're still dropping by to check things out, thanks for your support!

Friday, June 27, 2014

Only In America....

....Do people who get themselves shot for attempting an armed robbery of  a Waffle House get to affect your right to legally arm yourself to defend against such  a situation....

This would be hilarious, if it was an SNL skit or such...

So the backstory- some wannabe thug and his pal decide to rob a Waffle House (sheer genius at work there...). They go in waving guns at folks, Thug #1 points his piece at the wrong guy, a CCW'er, and gets shot. Thug #2 gets 30 years.

Fast forward to present day- dear departed Thug #1's cousin says that legal concealed carriers need to jump through more hoops because somehow "...tougher regulations for the acquirement of concealed weapon permits may have prevented her cousin's death...." despite the fact that he had acquired his weapon illegally and then tried to rob and terrorize people with it.

Read the full report HERE

Suggested reading for the complainee:


I have nothing else to say.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Thought Of The Day







"Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him."
-Daniel Greenfield