Yes. I am in the projected path of ZOMGANOTHERHURRYCAINE!!!!11!Eleventy!
(sigh)
Earlier this week we had a little rumbler come through. 5.8 on the "wreck-ter" scale. Where I come from, that barely stops conversation over dinner. Now we face a hurricane. Projected to be 75+mph winds when it hits the house. With rain.
(yawn)
That's like Santa Ana winds without the fire.
This is not the "End of the world as we know it" people. It is weather. It is natural phenomena. It happens every year. It is predictable. It is only a tragedy to those who are unprepared for it. And only then because the sob-story makes good camera-fodder for the talking heads at 6PM.
Get over it.
Oh, and if the Scat hits the air-movement device and the Free S**t Army wants some of mine? It would be better to ask politely for help than to try force. I still have Beauty and the Beast; and a half-decent rifle, too.
Pax,
Newbius
Showing posts with label Self-Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-Defense. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Protecting Life
(No, not abortion this time.)
I have heard many anti-gun-rights activists use the phrase "I just don't believe that it is worth killing someone for the cash on my pocket", or some similar sentiment.
The logic failure in the above sentence is this: That bargain has already been made by the person robbing you. To them, your life is immaterial. The contents of your pockets are only gain to them. The surest way to eliminate the risk of being caught is to eliminate the (probably only) witness to the crime, namely you.
Now, with this in mind, the bargain becomes instead: "Is your life worth your life?"
I do not believe that the cash in my pocket is worth killing for, but my life surely is. As are the lives of my family and friends. We have let the criminals and the politicians (but I repeat myself) frame the debate for far too long. It is time to get back to basic principles, and expose the true message to those who are being misled. Gun control is not about the guns. It is about the control, specifically of YOU the law-abiding person, not the criminal.
I choose to protect my life. I choose the most effective tool to do it with. The politicians may be dancing with the devil, but the patriot still remembers the tune. Guard your life and guard your liberty. Buy a gun and learn how to use it.
Pax,
Newbius
I have heard many anti-gun-rights activists use the phrase "I just don't believe that it is worth killing someone for the cash on my pocket", or some similar sentiment.
The logic failure in the above sentence is this: That bargain has already been made by the person robbing you. To them, your life is immaterial. The contents of your pockets are only gain to them. The surest way to eliminate the risk of being caught is to eliminate the (probably only) witness to the crime, namely you.
Now, with this in mind, the bargain becomes instead: "Is your life worth your life?"
I do not believe that the cash in my pocket is worth killing for, but my life surely is. As are the lives of my family and friends. We have let the criminals and the politicians (but I repeat myself) frame the debate for far too long. It is time to get back to basic principles, and expose the true message to those who are being misled. Gun control is not about the guns. It is about the control, specifically of YOU the law-abiding person, not the criminal.
I choose to protect my life. I choose the most effective tool to do it with. The politicians may be dancing with the devil, but the patriot still remembers the tune. Guard your life and guard your liberty. Buy a gun and learn how to use it.
Pax,
Newbius
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Defensive Gun Use in Utah
Jay_G at MArooned has the link (DGC #111).
This story is a tragedy, but not for the reasons many are stating. The dead choirboy (sorry, some comments at the news article site are calling him a "good man") was arrested earlier in the day on Domestic Violence charges. Meaning, he was abusing the woman (not his wife) that he was shacking with. The police haul him off to jail, and he is slapped with a 'no-contact' order.
In the world of good intentions, said choirboy would realize the error of his ways and go get a motel room for the night, removing himself from the premises. Also in the world of good intentions, everybody kisses and makes up and life goes on normally.
In the real world, thugs who beat up on women tend to take offense at being told by said women to go away. Even more so when the law gets involved. Then they get a mite peeved at the restraining order. Add a little gray-bar time, and the likelihood is that the thug is going to return to the scene and finish the lesson he was trying to teach when he got arrested the first time.
The gun-banner (fantasy) mindset is that good intentions matter, that children (I think that means anyone under 26 nowadays) should not be able to access their parents guns (nor know how to use them), and that the police will protect people since they are the 'only ones' who should have force of arms. Additionally, chivalry dictates that the strong thugs will never prey on the weaker women, and that once things go to the courts that the issue is resolved.
This tragic case has reality coming home to destroy the liberal gun-banner fantasies in a very concrete way. No restraining order will keep a criminal abuser away from his intended victim, as the act of abusing the victim is already a crime. The police will not protect you. Children should be properly trained about guns in the home, and when appropriate, taught how to use them effectively. Guns should be accessible to those same 'children' so that they can be used defensively. And, finally, thugs generally don't listen to reason, and criminal thugs do not obey the law. They usually only understand force.
That a 17-year-old girl had to end this encounter with a gun speaks volumes about the situation. That she did so shows remarkable courage. The fact that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life is the real tragedy.
It is a terrible thing to have to take another's life, even in self-defense. Contrary to the media narrative (and Brady-VPC-Joyce spin), most gun owners recognize this. None of us are looking for a fight. But, to those who say that my 'stuff' is not worth my life I reply: "to the thug who wants to take it, it is". Therefore, I should be willing to meet that threat with a willingness to, and the ability to, return the same sentiment. In copper-jacketed lead, if required. God willing, I will never have to.
Pax,
Newbius
This story is a tragedy, but not for the reasons many are stating. The dead choirboy (sorry, some comments at the news article site are calling him a "good man") was arrested earlier in the day on Domestic Violence charges. Meaning, he was abusing the woman (not his wife) that he was shacking with. The police haul him off to jail, and he is slapped with a 'no-contact' order.
In the world of good intentions, said choirboy would realize the error of his ways and go get a motel room for the night, removing himself from the premises. Also in the world of good intentions, everybody kisses and makes up and life goes on normally.
In the real world, thugs who beat up on women tend to take offense at being told by said women to go away. Even more so when the law gets involved. Then they get a mite peeved at the restraining order. Add a little gray-bar time, and the likelihood is that the thug is going to return to the scene and finish the lesson he was trying to teach when he got arrested the first time.
The gun-banner (fantasy) mindset is that good intentions matter, that children (I think that means anyone under 26 nowadays) should not be able to access their parents guns (nor know how to use them), and that the police will protect people since they are the 'only ones' who should have force of arms. Additionally, chivalry dictates that the strong thugs will never prey on the weaker women, and that once things go to the courts that the issue is resolved.
This tragic case has reality coming home to destroy the liberal gun-banner fantasies in a very concrete way. No restraining order will keep a criminal abuser away from his intended victim, as the act of abusing the victim is already a crime. The police will not protect you. Children should be properly trained about guns in the home, and when appropriate, taught how to use them effectively. Guns should be accessible to those same 'children' so that they can be used defensively. And, finally, thugs generally don't listen to reason, and criminal thugs do not obey the law. They usually only understand force.
That a 17-year-old girl had to end this encounter with a gun speaks volumes about the situation. That she did so shows remarkable courage. The fact that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life is the real tragedy.
It is a terrible thing to have to take another's life, even in self-defense. Contrary to the media narrative (and Brady-VPC-Joyce spin), most gun owners recognize this. None of us are looking for a fight. But, to those who say that my 'stuff' is not worth my life I reply: "to the thug who wants to take it, it is". Therefore, I should be willing to meet that threat with a willingness to, and the ability to, return the same sentiment. In copper-jacketed lead, if required. God willing, I will never have to.
Pax,
Newbius
Thursday, July 29, 2010
If you are not angry about this, you are not thinking
The DC government is being sued by surviving members of a family that was murdered while the police cowered outside.
The murdered family did not have a gun inside the house.
Legal possession of a functioning gun in DC is made difficult (it was formerly a prosecutable crime) by labyrinthine lawsinfringing regulating acquisition, transport, storage, and usage (keeping and bearing) of arms in DC. Until the Heller case (and now McDonald), the laws prevented the people from owning functioning tools of defense in DC. The tools are were outlawed, whereas now they are just damned-near impossible to legally obtain for someone without considerable means.
Under existing case law, the District is immune from liability and has no duty to protect an individual citizen from crime (even when the crime is ongoing and the police are on-scene). Current jurisprudence on this matter will likely cause the case to get tossed based upon stare decisis grounds.
This situation is an outrage. The honest, law-abiding citizen cannot reasonably get a gun because the government heavily regulates purchase and possession. Yet, the very same government is immune from liability arising from the consequences of their prohibitions and proscriptions against the citizen's access to these tools. Without the proper "papers please", the citizen is a de facto criminal for acquiring the ability to do what the state refuses to do and cannot be held liable for if they refuse.
Question: At what point do the citizens take the responsibility for self-defense seriously and begin the process oftarring and feathering voting out the scum-sucking political class who have put these poor people into this situation in the first place?
The criminal boyfriend was not deterred by the law. Only the law-abiding were harmed. $60 million is not sufficient penalty to ease this family's suffering. Justice would place every politician, bureaucrat, and policeman who supported these asinine laws on the docket for accessory to murder.
Restore the Second Amendment rights to the people, or the people will do the restoration themselves. At this juncture, it is only a matter of time...
Newbius
|||
The murdered family did not have a gun inside the house.
Legal possession of a functioning gun in DC is made difficult (it was formerly a prosecutable crime) by labyrinthine laws
Under existing case law, the District is immune from liability and has no duty to protect an individual citizen from crime (even when the crime is ongoing and the police are on-scene). Current jurisprudence on this matter will likely cause the case to get tossed based upon stare decisis grounds.
This situation is an outrage. The honest, law-abiding citizen cannot reasonably get a gun because the government heavily regulates purchase and possession. Yet, the very same government is immune from liability arising from the consequences of their prohibitions and proscriptions against the citizen's access to these tools. Without the proper "papers please", the citizen is a de facto criminal for acquiring the ability to do what the state refuses to do and cannot be held liable for if they refuse.
Question: At what point do the citizens take the responsibility for self-defense seriously and begin the process of
The criminal boyfriend was not deterred by the law. Only the law-abiding were harmed. $60 million is not sufficient penalty to ease this family's suffering. Justice would place every politician, bureaucrat, and policeman who supported these asinine laws on the docket for accessory to murder.
Restore the Second Amendment rights to the people, or the people will do the restoration themselves. At this juncture, it is only a matter of time...
Newbius
|||
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Still no supply
Still no supply
Every day I stop into the local Wal-Mart to see if their supply of ammunition has improved. Sadly, it has not. Instead, a sign appeared recently which likely shows the true state of affairs in the industry. Namely, that we are still experiencing extremely tight supply, and now rationing is being imposed.
Rationing is a reasonable response from a seller's point of view, if your goal is to spread available supplies to a wider audience. From a Liberty perspective though, rationing ignores the truth that those who are prepared and can pay for an item or service should be able to reap the reward of their preparation.
Please think about rationing of goods and services for a moment. Whenever there is scarcity of a good or service, whether through true market forces or artificial interference into a market, the laws of supply and demand should allow the price of an item to rise until the new market value is established and market forces are once again in equilibrium. Whenever rationing is imposed, the market is distorted because the value of the good or service is never allowed to establish itself. Thus, competition is stifled and scarcity will continue.
If we apply this thought to the Mortgage market, or to Health care, or to Automobile manufacturing, we can see that whenever undue outside influence (IE, not market forces) are brought into the equation, the natural market adjustments of supply and demand are disrupted.
In the Mortgage market, an outside agent (FNMA and FHLMC-acting on behalf of the US Government and under the cover of the Community reinvestment Act) forced lenders to make loans which were not sound, at prices far below the true risk that they represented to the lenders. Lenders responded by figuring out a way to shift that risk to others in the form of diluted shares of the risk, spread about many different security vehicles. The investors of these securities were never the wiser, until the house of cards collapsed.
In the Health Care industry, we see an outside agent (The US Government, acting through the FDA, Medicare, and insurance regulations; and the AMA acting as a trade guild to limit entry to the market by additional providers) causing distortions in the provision of health care by constraining product development, limiting access, and forcing companies to forgo profits by capping fees, after requiring that the service providers give care to people who are unable to pay for the services. Combine these forces with rampant tort exposure from an out of control legal system and you have a situation where the care is either going to get very expensive (rational market reaction in a free market), or care will get rationed (the case today). Government created the same problem that they are about to "solve", through nationalization of an industry that they crippled through regulation and legal extortion.
The Auto industry: General Motors' demise and takeover, at the hands of the very people who enabled the cause of their destruction, was inevitable. The US Federal Government leviathan rigged the system in favor of the UAW and SEIU, siding with the workers almost every time that a labor dispute went to mediation and in at least one case that went to the Supreme Court. The UAW and SEIU are wonderful examples of looter organizations sucking a company dry through legalized extortion and wage-benefit concessions. Shame on GM, Ford, and Chrysler for signing those suicide pacts, but a great deal of the problem rests at the feet of the enablers in the Labor Department and the Congress.
If you value your life and liberty, learn the lesson that the looters have shown us so far with these three major industries. It is not a matter of if, rather of when, they come for your industry or company next. The leviathan is all about aggrandizing power unto itself now, and is doing so nakedly, openly, and without any pretense any longer. If you have not prepared yourself or family for survival in the event of a natural disaster, you need to do so NOW. The system is no longer going to come to your aid. You need to be prepared to take care of yourself and your family when services are disrupted. And, if the services are disrupted due to man-made events, then you need to be prepared for that too.
There are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. Take action now.
Pax,
Newbius
|||
Every day I stop into the local Wal-Mart to see if their supply of ammunition has improved. Sadly, it has not. Instead, a sign appeared recently which likely shows the true state of affairs in the industry. Namely, that we are still experiencing extremely tight supply, and now rationing is being imposed.
Rationing is a reasonable response from a seller's point of view, if your goal is to spread available supplies to a wider audience. From a Liberty perspective though, rationing ignores the truth that those who are prepared and can pay for an item or service should be able to reap the reward of their preparation.
Please think about rationing of goods and services for a moment. Whenever there is scarcity of a good or service, whether through true market forces or artificial interference into a market, the laws of supply and demand should allow the price of an item to rise until the new market value is established and market forces are once again in equilibrium. Whenever rationing is imposed, the market is distorted because the value of the good or service is never allowed to establish itself. Thus, competition is stifled and scarcity will continue.
If we apply this thought to the Mortgage market, or to Health care, or to Automobile manufacturing, we can see that whenever undue outside influence (IE, not market forces) are brought into the equation, the natural market adjustments of supply and demand are disrupted.
In the Mortgage market, an outside agent (FNMA and FHLMC-acting on behalf of the US Government and under the cover of the Community reinvestment Act) forced lenders to make loans which were not sound, at prices far below the true risk that they represented to the lenders. Lenders responded by figuring out a way to shift that risk to others in the form of diluted shares of the risk, spread about many different security vehicles. The investors of these securities were never the wiser, until the house of cards collapsed.
In the Health Care industry, we see an outside agent (The US Government, acting through the FDA, Medicare, and insurance regulations; and the AMA acting as a trade guild to limit entry to the market by additional providers) causing distortions in the provision of health care by constraining product development, limiting access, and forcing companies to forgo profits by capping fees, after requiring that the service providers give care to people who are unable to pay for the services. Combine these forces with rampant tort exposure from an out of control legal system and you have a situation where the care is either going to get very expensive (rational market reaction in a free market), or care will get rationed (the case today). Government created the same problem that they are about to "solve", through nationalization of an industry that they crippled through regulation and legal extortion.
The Auto industry: General Motors' demise and takeover, at the hands of the very people who enabled the cause of their destruction, was inevitable. The US Federal Government leviathan rigged the system in favor of the UAW and SEIU, siding with the workers almost every time that a labor dispute went to mediation and in at least one case that went to the Supreme Court. The UAW and SEIU are wonderful examples of looter organizations sucking a company dry through legalized extortion and wage-benefit concessions. Shame on GM, Ford, and Chrysler for signing those suicide pacts, but a great deal of the problem rests at the feet of the enablers in the Labor Department and the Congress.
If you value your life and liberty, learn the lesson that the looters have shown us so far with these three major industries. It is not a matter of if, rather of when, they come for your industry or company next. The leviathan is all about aggrandizing power unto itself now, and is doing so nakedly, openly, and without any pretense any longer. If you have not prepared yourself or family for survival in the event of a natural disaster, you need to do so NOW. The system is no longer going to come to your aid. You need to be prepared to take care of yourself and your family when services are disrupted. And, if the services are disrupted due to man-made events, then you need to be prepared for that too.
There are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. Take action now.
Pax,
Newbius
|||
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Miami Burger King Shooting
Breaking news from Miami today. A legally-armed customer at a Burger King prevents a robbery, kills the bad guy and sustains some wounds himself in the exchange of gunfire.
Lesson One: It pays to train. If you carry it, TRAIN WITH IT! The CWP Holder killed the thug, but sustained gunshot wounds himself. I suspect that (and cannot prove, hence I am speculating) the armed citizen was a bit more proficient with his weapon than the robber was.
Lesson Two: See lesson one, add additional training in close quarters combat to reduce the chance that you will wind up in the hospital too.
Lesson Three: ALWAYS be at least Condition Yellow when going about your daily business. You never know when or if you may be called upon to intervene for your own safety.
Lesson Four: Leave it to Google News and CBS to describe the would-be Robber as a victim. This link is to the CBS4 story page, but is shown on the Google News Search page as "Victim Dies In Miami Burger King Shooting". Media Bias is still alive and well...even in Florida.
The two newspaper links on the same search page showed just the facts. Just as it should be.
Pax,
Newbius
Lesson One: It pays to train. If you carry it, TRAIN WITH IT! The CWP Holder killed the thug, but sustained gunshot wounds himself. I suspect that (and cannot prove, hence I am speculating) the armed citizen was a bit more proficient with his weapon than the robber was.
Lesson Two: See lesson one, add additional training in close quarters combat to reduce the chance that you will wind up in the hospital too.
Lesson Three: ALWAYS be at least Condition Yellow when going about your daily business. You never know when or if you may be called upon to intervene for your own safety.
Lesson Four: Leave it to Google News and CBS to describe the would-be Robber as a victim. This link is to the CBS4 story page, but is shown on the Google News Search page as "Victim Dies In Miami Burger King Shooting". Media Bias is still alive and well...even in Florida.
The two newspaper links on the same search page showed just the facts. Just as it should be.
Pax,
Newbius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)