In response to these incidents, most normal people would want additional means to protect themselves, especially in regards to the mass stabbing incident. Even more so when one considers previous mass casualty incidents like the one perpetrated by Omar Mateen in Tampa and the Tsnarniev brothers bombing and shooting in Boston. I say normal people for a reason, mainly because citizen control advocates (oops sorry- strike that) gun control advocates are most definitely not normal. Why would I say something like that?
As I have said before- I am glad you asked!
This week Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said during a press conference that the Democrat gun control bill would prevent attacks like the ones that happened this past week.
You read that correctly.
Gun control would prevent bombings and stabbings.
Now I do try to be fair minded and give people the benefit of the doubt, so I spent the entire afternoon pondering how a gun control measure would prevent people from making bombs out of pressure cookers and keep people from stabbing one another. I took literally hours of my time to contemplate Sen Reid’s statements and how they would prevent another bombing or stabbing (especially since the good guy with the gun shot the bad guy with the knife). I looked at it from every possible angle, stretching the boundaries of logic and suspending my disbelief and have come to a conclusion.
That conclusion is based on a principle laid out by Franciscan philosopher John Punch: Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. This translates into “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and is commonly referred to as Occam’s Razor. The core of the concept means that the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one.
My theory is that gun control advocates are bats**t insane and this is how I reached that conclusion:
There is no way curtailing firearms leads to preventing a bombing. There is no way curtailing firearms leads to preventing a bombing. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It’s not even an “Apples & Oranges” scenario. It’s an “Apples & Boeing 747” scenario.
Bombs are used in bombings, not guns. Knives are used in stabbings, not guns (unless you count bayonet charges and as far as I know the last bayonetting was during the Viet Nam war).
In spite of this indisputable fact, in spite of common sense, in spite of every single individual with more than a passing knowledge of the English language understanding that bombs are used for bombings and knives are used for stabbing, gun control advocates want you to believe that gun control will stop bombings and stabbings.
To take this a step further the mindless drones of Moms Demand Action, Everytown, and the rest of those who believe whatever Shannon Watts and her ilk are paid to say by Bloomberg, believe this as if it were Holy Writ from the God and/or Goddess of your choice. They think this is truth. They think gun control will stop bombings. They think gun control will stop stabbings. They hold this to be a Truth (capitalized purposely) with the same zealotry as an ISIS fighter believes it is perfectly OK to saw someone’s head off on YouTube with a dull AK bayonet.
Now there is a term in the dictionary that covers this very situation. That term is delude, and its derivative deluded. Delude is defined as taking action to impose a misleading belief upon someone; deceive; fool. The derivative deluded is defined as believing things that are not real or true. Now that is what the dictionary has to say about these people. More accurately, it is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about them.
I prefer a more modern, hip, and trendy source.
The Urban Dictionary defines people like Watts, Bloomberg and Ladd Everitt as Bulls**t Artists. A bulls**t artist is someone who lies/boasts incessantly, usually to comedic effect, intentional or accidental. You can’t get any closer to an accurate description of the gun control industry shills and financiers than that.
The Urban Dictionary even goes so far as to define what they say. Their statements are called diarrhetoric, which is sewage, typically disguised as informed discussion that is often used by politicians, lawyers, and big business interests instead of honest dialogue in order to control the weak-minded by convincing them to believe something demonstrably false. (I really REALLY like this term- you’ll see it again for sure).
Now we have definitions for the big whigs of the gun control industry. What about their followers? Well we have all heard the term before as it is used quite frequently. That term is “Sheep” which the Urban Dictionary defines as a group of people who lack the capacity for careful consideration, imagination, or individual thought, who then go with the groupthink and allow god awful trends and events to unfold and make us all miserable. Talk about hitting a nail on the head...
But it is their mental state which concerns me. We all know the money men, 1% elitists, and their paid mouthpieces don’t believe the diarrhetoric (told you that you’d see it again) they spew. They proclaim good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns, from behind a Spartan phalanx of heavily armed goons. Their hypocrisy is legendary. They have elevated it to an art form which can be admired for its artistry, if not for its message… but I digress.
The Urban Dictionary describes their mental state just as accurately as it describes them, and those who tell them what to think, along with the message that those gun control leaders try to get across. It is a grand, eloquent, and most importantly scientifically accurate definition. That definition is bats**t, which is defined as a level of insanity that the word alone cannot justify (used as a prefix). Hence my theory that these people are bats**t insane.
Now, when one considers my theory that gun control advocates are bats**t insane, that the hypothesis I used to develop my theory confirms to the principle of Occam’s Razor, and that the hypothesis and the theory it was developed from is correct based on the scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of my hypotheses; one can confidently state that my theory can and will hold up to peer review and outside scrutiny.
- Mr. Decker
As articles, etc popped into my newsfeed this morning, I read a few, and also saw/read some comments on the link. These comments appalled me and got me thinking about something. Why is it when a tragedy occurs, we all automatically jump to a political stance, whether it be firearms, refugees, race, etc?
While I am a staunch supporter of the 2A, I am also a person, a mother, a wife. When did we as a society become so focused on our politics, that in the wake of tragedy we start shouting our beliefs before all details are out or bodies are cold, and families have been notified? Do I feel that gun free zones create victims? Yes. Am I going to start pushing my 2A rights and exclaiming how a gun or a non gun free zone would have prevented this. NO!
This fact, disgusts and appalls me. We can all be advocates for our individual or collective causes, but lets take a moment in the wake of these tragedies and show love, compassion, and solidarity. Bickering, fighting, and pushing our agendas does NOTHING to help the victims and the communities in which these tragedies happen. Start going out to the communities and helping them in whatever way they need. Post support for them, say a prayer, send out good vibes, whatever it is that you believe.
We need to stop the hate and the agenda pushing after any tragedy that occurs. We NEED to remember that there are real people who are affected by them and are in mourning or states of shock and trying to process what happened.
There is a time and a place for pushing our agenda(s). After a tragedy is NOT one of them.
We have detailed numerous instances of the sick and twisted behavior of gun control advocates here. From the Communications Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence stalking and harassing a pre-pubescent girl on Twitter (to the point of demanding alone time with her), to gun control advocate and CGSV fanboi Johnathan Romans telling people to shoot open carriers on sight, to Shannon Watts bemoaning the arrest of a white man who beat a black senior citizen because he didn’t think the black man should be allowed to carry a firearm, the litany of violent wishes and actions from the “peaceful and tolerant” gun control advocates is long and storied.
Nothing beats the latest s**t show to arise from Bloomberg’s pockets: “Betsy Riot”.
What exactly is a Betsy Riot (other than another Bloomberg astroturf “movement)?
It is a group that advocates acts of mass vandalism. Seriously. I’m not kidding. They openly advocate for the destruction of other’s property. These people have taken it upon themselves to break the law… to get the message across that we need more laws. Gun grabber logic at its finest right there.
Some examples have included destroying magazines they don’t like, vandalizing Starbucks restrooms, vandalizing a Field & Stream store, vandalizing merchandise in WalMart, vandalizing and destroying books and magazines they don’t like… they even vandalized a Veteran’s truck. A visit to their Facebook page shows these and hundreds more examples of criminal acts by this group.
Now as far as I know promoting vandalism is against Facebook’s Terms of Service. Here is what Facebook has to say about the topic:
Theft, Vandalism, or Fraud
We are trying to make the world a more open, connected, and ultimately better place. Organizing acts that harm others through theft, vandalism, or fraud is a violation of our terms.
Now what happens when one tries to report Betsy Riot, which not only organizes acts of vandalism but openly encourages this criminal behavior? Want to guess? If you’re reading this then you probably already know the answer.
Organizing acts of vandalism isn’t a violation of the Terms of Service, despite the Terms of Service saying organizing acts of vandalism is against said Terms of Service.
As you are all aware, Facebook has been killing pro 2A pages right and left. I take that back, they have been killing off kid’s Airsoft pages, Veteran pages… they even killed off a cap gun collector page. None of those pages were doing anything that even remotely violated the Terms of Service. What they did do was rustle the jimmies of people who think that they have the right to decide how you should live your life.
Kids playing with toys? BAN THEM! People who grew up in the 70s who want to discuss 50 year old cap guns? BAN THEM! Combat Veterans who discuss hunting and shooting? BAN THEM! Anything the gun control lobby takes offense to is wiped from the Facebook servers, while groups like Betsy Riot are allowed to continue to promote the destruction of others property with impunity.
Now Facebook is a private business, and is free to remove whatever content they wish. The 1st Amendment doesn’t come into play as it is not a government agency stifling the expression of 2nd Amendment support (or the discussion of 50 year old toys for that matter). I do have one question for Zuckerberg and his radical progressive staff though.
Why even bother taking up server space with a detailed Terms of Service when the TOS means absolutely nothing?
Seriously. I ask the question with zero snark whatsoever.
Why not just come out and write a new TOS that states “Groups who fall in line with our political views can organize and advocate criminal behavior up to and including homicide, while groups who offend our delicate sensibilities will be removed with no explanation given”?
In all honesty it would not only clarify things for Facebook users but be a much more accurate representation of actual Facebook policy rather than be nothing more than meaningless fluff that has absolutely no bearing on whether a post or page will be removed. We know your TOS should be termed BS. You know your TOS should be termed BS. Why not be open and accurate?
In my line of work accuracy counts. Language needs to be very specific and the words used have definitive meaning. If I do not communicate my analysis and thoughts exactly, people’s lives are placed in jeopardy. Now obviously Facebook Terms of Service don’t have that kind of impact, however many people utilize Facebook as a primary means of communication with friends and family. Many people rely on it as a way to expand or maintain their business. In my opinion Facebook should be open and transparent and just let people know that their pages can be removed because someone on Facebook’s staff disagrees with their politics.
Doing so would also save a lot of time. When normal people report things like people advocating things such as vandalism, theft, assault, and homicide, they expect the post to be removed. They then get a response from Facebook that advocating killing people isn’t against the Terms of Service. In the interest of streamlining the Facebook experience, a clarified TOS that omits such advocacy is allowed so long as the actions are being directed against those whose opinions do not follow whatever pablum Salon spewed that week would go a long way to keep people from wasting their time with reporting those kinds of posts.
Heck it would even save ol’ Zuckerberg some money. The staff he has on the payroll whose job it is to review posts that are reported could be cut in half. Write some code so that if a report comes in from someone who has the words “Second Amendment”, “gun”, “Veteran”, “Warfighter”, “Constitution” and other terms which are an anathema to progressives on their page anywhere, it automatically generates a response that no action will be taken. Conversely if a report comes in from someone who has words like “Hillary”, “#gunsense”, “Moms Demand”, "#CocksNotGlocks" or any other progressive causes on their profile, it automatically bans & deletes the person/page reported.
Just trying to help here Zuck…. you should hire me as a cost cutting consultant... this one is free though. Just because I like you.
- Mr. Decker
Hello to all the 1MMAGC supporters out there! I once again apologize for not having written more, but I have been out of the country somewhere and the internet connections we do get are sketchy at best. One of the things I determined to complete when I got back was to get a civilian concealed handgun permit. As a retired law enforcement officer, I can carry nationwide on my badge and ID under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (often referred to as HR218), but I wanted a civilian permit as well in the event I was unable to make a yearly qualification stateside. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
My trip back home brought me into Ft. MacDill, so my choice was to get my permit through Florida. In addition to walking off the plane and into the class, Florida has quite a reciprocity list so choosing FL was a total no-brainer. I made arrangements to attend a class taught by an NRA certified instructor at a local gun shop and range.
The next day I show up bright and early, I’m the first person there, and get ushered in the back and take my seat. This is where the surprise comes in.
As additional students come in over the course of the next half hour, I come to realize I am in the minority as a middle aged white guy. The anti-gunners and citizen control crowd all like to paint gun owners as… well… me. Middle aged white guys. That stereotype may have been true 20 years ago, but now the demographics are shifting.
We had 32 people in the class. Seven were white guys and of those seven, only 3 were middle aged. Less than 10% of the class was comprised of what the gun grabbers say are typical gun owners. The rest were made up of young people, senior citizens, minorities and women. There was a young black husband and wife getting their carry permit together. There was an old blue haired grandma. There were people from every possible walk of life sitting in that classroom. Every demographic was present from college kids to senior citizens with about half the class being women.
After the day’s class was over, I approached the instructor and asked him if this was the typical demographic makeup of classes he had been teaching. This led into some rather serious discussion on minority and female empowerment, self reliance and a rejection of the notion that the most basic right we possess, the right to defend ourselves against aggression, should be reserved for those who are rich, powerful or famous. What I would love for everyone to know is that those views were being expressed by demographic groups typically not associated with firearm ownership and carriage.
What he had observed over the past few years was a shift of class participation from white males to minorities and females. Many of these people were first time gun owners (such as the blue haired grandma and her new-to-her Ruger SP-101 in .32 H&R Mag). His general view was that minorities and females are realizing that the gun control apparatus has been lying to them, and that the responsibility for their life, and the lives of their loved ones, rests in their own hands. Having made several new acquaintances during the class, and having exchanged the requisite business cards, and being a quasi-journalist, I decided to do some impromptu interviewing after supper.
As I reached out to classmates and asked them why they decided to take the class and to carry a firearm on a regular basis, the view of the instructor was verified. Almost to a person they hit on the same points that I have made as a 2A advocate. Their answers are familiar to anyone involved in the shooting sports:
It takes the police forever to show up.
The police don’t respond to my neighborhood because it is poor.
I live in a minority community and the police get there when they feel like it.
I don’t want to wait for someone to come help me- I can help myself.
I am a woman living alone- I am a target for an attacker.
I work late nights and walk home in the dark.
I was a victim once and will never allow it to happen again.
All of these are perfectly valid reasons to empower yourself. What I take heart from is that those giving those answers are a demographic the gun control industry has typically thought of as “theirs”. They have sought to ensure vulnerable populations remain defenseless, thereby ensuring new victims to point to in order to advance their elitist agenda. Their desires cannot be accomplished with an empowered population refusing to lay down and become victims. Their answer to aggression and violence is for people to pee on themselves, to hope that their attacker doesn’t kill them in the (average) 11 minutes it takes police to respond, to end the attack by asking their assailant to pet little fluffy bunnies or some other inane concept.
They need fresh bodies… plain and simple… and the people in my class, just like the thousands upon thousands in every CCW/CCH class across the country are telling the gun control industry that the body they need to advance their agenda won’t be theirs.
Seeing people step up and say “It won’t be me” is the beginning of the end for the gun control industry’s message. These are people sick and tired of being told “Good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns” by a multi-millionaire that lives in a gated community speaking from behind a phalanx of heavily armed security. They are tired of “Gun Free Zones” that turn into killing fields because some ivory tower NY billionaire insists a sign on a wall will stop a madman bent on committing the ultimate crime against another human being. They are tired of hearing that an inanimate hunk of metal is to blame for the evil that lies within the hearts of some. More and more people nationwide are seeing, with crystal clarity, that the gun control industry is built on the equivalent of unicorns frolicking on rainbows, that their entire premise is pure 100% USDA Prime bovine scatological products.
I for one am glad.
- Mr. Decker
Blog posts are original content written by 1MMAGC moms and dads.