Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 792, October 12, 2014

Rabid Crapweasel!

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Gun Rant for 10-12-2014
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Anybody forget how I tend to start these off? I didn't think so. So here she comes, Mama Liberty! (in Burt Park's voice) [Link] This week, she discusses guns (shocker), retention of same, and what to do if you ARE disarmed anyway.

The anti-gun people often tell us that a criminal would simply take a gun away from you and, probably, use it to kill you instead.

OK, it could certainly happen, and probably does sometimes. We read often enough about victims who manage to take the criminal's gun and use it against him or her. It's a possibility either way. Is it the most likely outcome of using a gun in self defense? Does that make it pointless to have a gun in the first place? Of course not.

But let's just take it a little farther and think about what might happen in that situation. Are you all done defending yourself then? Should you just curl up and let the criminal attacker do whatever they please to you and any others around you?

Do I really need to tell you what to do next? I didn't think so. So go do it!

I e-mail the rant to a select group of people (you all know who you are) some of whom have taken exception to my writings about Islamic terrorists in several of my rants, culminating in last week's rant, where I pissed off quite a few of them, friends and enemies. Several took the time to let me know they weren't happy. I sent them all this response—(If you read TLE, you might get this response twice—it most likely will appear in either letters to the editor or as an article [ It was going to appear, but why print it twice, eh?—Editor ]) In addition, it is published several places where comments on this specific part have not all been complimentary, and I feel I ought to extend to you, dear readers who aren't blessed by e-mails of this missive, the same response. So here it is.

I've been pissing off friends AND enemies with my stance on this subject, and so, I shall make one last attempt to make myself clear to those whose opinions I value (the friends). Any enemies on this mailing list PLEASE inform me so that I may remove you from it.

I'm going to start at the very beginning, and work through to the end, so bear with me.

I lost my religion a loooong time ago, when it became clear to me that not only were ALL Christian religious leaders hypocrites (because none of them follow the tenets of their own faiths, in which I happen to be quite well educated), but because ALL of it stems from fairy tales told by Neolithic goatherds to explain life, the universe, and everything. And ALL religions I have studied require one to suspend your intellect, ignore evidence, and take those fairy tales "on faith". As the late great Robert A. Heinlein said, "A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both." I prefer reason. Now, to Islam.

As I have oft repeated, there is much to admire in any faith, Islam no less than any other. Islam's rules on hospitality and charity, for instance, are admirable. It's a shame their staunchest "supporters" do not practice either, but see my comment about why Christianity and I parted ways.......... ANY Muslim, as an individual, is most likely a nice enough person. As with all of us, they each have their flaws, and their strengths. When you get to flaws, however, is when I find a major problem with Islam as a whole. Read the Old Testament. It's full of vile shit—dashing babies brains out, angels slaughtering all male children in certain areas, God demanding his faithful to sacrifice their children to him, torturing a faithful man to see if he can beak his faith. But by and large, Christianity and Judaism have forsaken these things as no longer acceptable. Christian zealots who advocate ANY return to Old Testament treatment of non-believers are immediately and vociferously denied by their co-religionists, who loudly assert that "The Westboro Bible Baptist Church (to use one recent example) does not represent all Christians." And, in fact, the Baptist Conference has removed them from the rolls, from what I understand. What all this is leading to is that, generally speaking, the Judeo-Christian faiths have, by and large, grown up to the point they no longer support "Christian" ideas such as the Inquisition, the Auto da Fe, and conversion by the sword. Islam has not.

NO—I am not painting Islam with a broad brush. I am, reluctantly, pointing out a fact. When a fanatic Muslim decides it is time to behead an infidel for Allah, does most of Islam rise up and denounce his actions? Sadly, no. When 19 brave young Jihadi heroes fly airplanes into 3 buildings and a corn field, does most of Islam cry out in horror, and offer to help us in our hour if sorrow? No, sadly. Instead, they dance in the streets all over the world, celebrating the "victory" over the "Great Satan". When a Muslim "cleric" sentences a rape victim to being stoned to death for adultery (after all, she DID have sex with a man who was not her husband, who cares if she WANTED to or not), does the village refuse to allow the sentence to be carried out? Sadly, no. They pick up rocks and report to the field. And last, but certainly not least, when Muslim "clerics" proclaim fatwahs against infidels, or announce that they want to force all the world into Allah's tender care whether we wish to go there or not, does most of Islam deny this goal, and support our right to NOT believe as we so choose, to live our own faiths or lack thereof in peace and happiness? Again, sadly, they do not. Republicans insist that That jackass in the WhiteHouse is a closet Muslim. A lot of evidence supports that at one time he was, I cannot say what he is now, and I do not care. I don't want to bomb the shit out of Iraq and Syria to "stop" ISIS/ISIL/ Whatever the hell they call themselves now. And I'll be honest—as long as they are killing each other for not being the correct flavor of Islam, I don't really give a shit what they do to each other—it's a family fight among Muslim Hillbillies. WHEN, however, they come across the pond, and begin to try their crap here, I'm not going to be so mellow.

You may rest assured that I won't be leading mosque burnings, or so-called hate crimes against Muslims. You may ALSO rest assured that I will not tolerate ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to forcibly convert anyone around me. I will HAPPILY invite any religionist into my home to discuss their faith, and I will be respectful of them as long as THEY remain respectful of me. I will not tell them their faith is something that makes me laugh, I will not waste my time trying to show them how ridiculous I find their basic tenets. And I will not try to make them into atheists. I don't give a shit about their souls, and I do not choose to have mine saved. And, last but not least, I will fight to the death ANY attempt to force any conversions on me or mine, or to force me to become Dhimmi, and to pay jizyah. (look the terms up, they are interesting, to say the least) There is, currently, a very small, but very active, attempt going on to subvert the Constitution by using the Constitution to protect their activities. Fine, speech is actually free. Actions to enforce your version of right, however, is NOT. If this doesn't help you, there's not much left I can do.

A very good friend of mine, known colloquially as Tony From The Right, sent me this link. It is the FBI's unclassified report on all the active shooter (aka Mass Shooters) in the US from 2000 to 2013. It contains a lot of excellent information and statistics, without any bias I can find in either direction. It's Just the facts, Ma'am. It is very hard to block quote from this report, so grab a cuppa joe, kick back, and start reading. It's fascinating. As Tony pointed out, it does NOT deal with the topic of gun free zones, where 24% of all active shooter events took place. Tony was concerned it might be deliberate. I don't—I feel that the FBI doesn't really care about that, so they just ignored it. All the report is dealing with is active shooters, and how the incidents went down. I'll have to read the whole thing a few times to truly absorb it all, so I might have overlooked something Tony saw. People—links like this are really important—send them to me if you can. (Thanks, Tony!)

I don't like the photo that accompanies this article, but the article itself is spot on. It's a shame more women do not do this. [Link]

According to a local Fox affiliate, a woman who had been dealing with a stalker for months finally gained the upper hand recently when he forced his way into her apartment.

Reports indicate the unnamed woman had complained to authorities and in social media posts about the unwanted contact and increasingly invasive actions of 22-year-old Douglas Jackson, a man she had a short relationship with in the past.

Want to know where it goes from here? Read the linked article.

These two articles go hand in hand. [Link] [Link] Like it or not, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Laws to the contrary do not change this. As an operator of as gun shop for a few years, I was told by the government to discriminate against people—If a person tripped my suspicion meter, I was not only allowed to refuse them service, I was required to. EVEN if they passed the NICS check. so discrimination IS legal and a business owner's right. Of course, posting a sign "No Negroes Allowed" is not going to fly anywhere, it should be the owner's right to do so. And the townsfolk's right to bankrupt him by refusing to shop there. And, like it or not, a maker of wedding cakes has the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage if they so desire.

Christian bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein just wanted to make a go out of their Oregon-based business. However, they weren't willing to compromise their beliefs for the sake of making a buck. When a lesbian couple approached them in 2013 to ask for a wedding cake, they politely declined. That's when the you-know-what hit the fan. Feeling discriminated against, the lesbian couple — Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman — filed an official complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Oregon officials naturally ruled in their favor.

As a result of the "violation," the Kleins may have to pay exorbitant fines to the state. They have already lost their physical business location due to the furor created by gay right advocates. Now the Kleins operate their business out of their home.

Let's be clear. If the Kleins are experiencing a severe downturn in their business because customers are voluntarily boycotting the store, that's the nature of free speech and free market capitalism. You have the right to say what you want in this country, but customers can choose what they do with their spending dollar. If the Kleins want to complain about how they've been treated by the community, that's a separate issue and one I'm not particularly interested in.

What is much more interesting is whether anti-discrimination laws that force business owners to serve everyone equally are really Constitutional. We've already seen from the Supreme Court's controversial Hobby Lobby decision that federal law can't force an owner to betray their own religion. Perhaps it's time to draw the natural conclusion that this should also apply to couples unwilling to bake cakes for lesbian weddings.

As pointed out, the bakery closed because of a boycott—perfectly acceptable. But the fines they face are not. And this scene has been repeated several times across the country—where a person's religious views are forcibly violated by the government—the very government that is supposed to protect their right to those views. Views specifically protected by the 1st Amendment. The same Amendment that protects hate speech. YES, you have a right to spew racial epithets, to denounce a persons sexual or religious practices, to say nasty things about people. As long as you do not lie about them (libel) it is your right.

There was a time when to be a liberal, you had to believe in concepts like free speech. In fact, that was one of their primary platforms. Nowadays, it seems that the First Amendment, like the Second, has fallen afoul of the liberal plan for a totalitarian, socialist America. According to a new poll from YouGov, 51% of those respondents who identify as Democrat support creating laws making hate speech illegal.

This really takes the cake. For several years, conservatives have warned that loony left-wingers had hijacked the mainstream Democratic Party. Now, it appears that may not be the case; this kind of craziness extends to the rank-and-file voters as well. Perhaps it is an inevitable consequence of this "social justice warrior" phenomenon that is sweeping the Internet, turning formerly-apolitical sites into hotbeds for some of the nuttiest ideas you've ever seen in your life.

While no one wants to hear a rant full of racial slurs, it is the right of the ranter to spew forth. I care not for what you have to say, Sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. (Don't bother to say it—I know Voltaire never said it—he should have, and I do say it)

One finds the logic of this article impeccable—so of COURSE the left despises it's message. [Link] Of course, common sense NEVER trumps liberal ideology.

Some so called feminists on Twitter claimed that women's self defense enables rape culture. Rather than teaching women to defend themselves, they said we should simply teach men not to rape. We only need to tell predators "Don't hurt others" rather than teaching women to be aware, avoid trouble when they can, and to defend themselves when they must. Some so-called feminists went further and claimed that refusing to be a victim "enables rape culture" and so promotes sexual assault. I disagree. Preparation does not cause violence.

Locking your front door does not enable burglary culture

I understand the attraction of utopian fantasies. Claiming you're against rape by choosing to be vulnerable is a fantasy virtue with strong emotional rewards. It is a Tinkerbelle ideology of crime prevention, and a perfect meme for our age of hash-tag activism. The so called anti-rape culture clams to stop an attacker if we all think "be nice" real hard. The so called anti-rape culture claims our nice thoughts will somehow stop assault, rape and murder. That style of feel-good activism is enough for some people. The feel-good emotions of the anti-rape fantasy sell on campus and academia. Reality is not that pretty.

As Rob repeats throughout the article, common sense safety measures do NOT enable bad activities—seatbelts do no enable car crashes, earthquake straps do not enable earthquakes, and learning to shoot, and how to defend yourself does not enable rape. As anyone with even two braincells to rub together can figure out.

Apparently, the law prohibits you from preventing spying over your property EVEN if the spy isn't the government!!! [Link] Yes, a man, flying a drone helicopter over his neighbor's property TO TAKE PICTURES OF SAID PROPERTY, called the police when said neighbor shot the drone down with a shotgun. For the gun-ignorant here, shotguns fired into the air do not pose a huge danger to the surrounding area—the falling shot will feel like a handful of sand or light gravel tossed into the air falling on you. But in NJ, defending your privacy is a no-no.

(BizPacReview) — A New Jersey man was arrested on charges that he fired at his neighbor's remote control drone with a shotgun.

The incident happened last week, when a resident called the Lower Township Police Department claiming that his remote-control helicopter had been shot down, CBS reported. After picking up the drone, he found holes in it.

Authorities said the resident was using his remote control helicopter to take pictures of his friend's home. While taking the aerial shots, the resident said he heard multiple gunshots and instantly lost control of the drone, according to CBS.

Police later arrested Russell J. Percenti, 32, on charges of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and criminal mischief and confiscated his gun.

I am SOOOO glad I escaped from New Jersey in a balloon during the Reagan presidency.........

Ahhh, the ever stupid "Zero Tolerance Policy" rears it's ugly head once again. [Link] We have the asinine calling the Gestapo because a teacher wears a pirate costume on "Talk Like A Pirate Day", complete with plastic sword. First, the asinine idiot calls a plastic pirate sword a gun. (Huh?) Then, the Gestapo lock down 4 damn schools because of the imaginary gun.

Four North Carolina schools were recently placed on lock-down by police, after a "suspicious person" was seen entering Richlands Elementary School on September 19th.

An initial investigation turned up empty handed, but two weeks later the police announced that they solved the mystery behind the suspicious person at the school.

The "suspicious person" that caused the lock down was not actually an intruder, but was one of the school's teachers, who had decided to celebrate "talk like a pirate day", by dressing up for students.

A school representative explained to local reporters that the district has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to reports of suspicious people.

"We have this new psy lock system, there was an immediate lockdown done of the school and check in with all the teachers to make sure to make sure everybody was safe and secure. Law enforcement of course came to the scene," Suzie Ulbrich, a spokesperson for Onslow Co. Schools said.

The staff member, whose name has not yet been revealed by police, was allegedly wearing a full pirate costume, complete with a pirate hat and a plastic sword. Another member of the staff who was not in on the joke was apparently threatened by the teacher's costume, and notified the school office, who then called police.

According to multiple reports, the staff member was under the impression that the person was carrying a gun, not a plastic sword.

I'm still flabbergasted over the entire thing. Zero Tolerance Policy? No. Zero Brain Policy? You Betcha!

Don't cry, even though the rant is almost over, we still have the Quote of the Week to do!

"Since the criminals, being criminals, are NOT going to obey bans, the law-abiding citizen MUST have the ability to fight fire with firepower." Neale Osborn, January 27, 2011

"I know not what course Y'all might take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Die, Motherfucker DIE!!" Neale Osborn and A.X. Perez, November, 2010

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."—Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

Bye, Y'all. Gotta ship this'un to th' editor!

Was that worth reading?
Then the author suggests
Pay TLE's Editor

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press