September 3, 2017

"The List"

It put a sour, and somewhat angry feeling in my gut when I read Concealed Carry Magazine for July/August 2017. On page 16 the magazine details an armed robbery where two 16 year olds held a Domino's Pizza delivery driver at gunpoint. After the robbers fired a warning shot the driver pulled his own weapon and fired at the immediate threat. The kid died immediately in the street. It's always regrettable when these things happen.

As someone who still has empathy left I would make sure that my employees are OK and offer any assistance that I can. Instead, Domino's Pizza suspended the driver and will likely fire him. In retaliation I will never give Domino's Pizza another cent of my money. I will send them a receipt of a large order from a major competitor and indicate why I chose not to buy my pizza pies from Dominos. It is absolutely disgraceful and un-American to punish someone for protecting their life, insinuating that they be a victim.

So let's start a boycott list. I realize the argument 'you will not make a difference in the grand scheme of things'. This is very much true. However- I have the freedom to reject and boycott companies of my choosing for being un-American. Let's list them off, shall we? In no particular order:















1) Autozone
Reason: Fired employee who drew legal gun to protect his life
Citation: not available
















2) Domino's Pizza
Reason: Suspended a delivery driver who drew legal gun to protect his life.
Citation: Concealed Carry Magazine- July/August 2017. pp 16.
















3) Springfield Armory
Reason: Donation to anti-gun Illinois politicians; Support of anti-gun bills













3) Rock River Arms Inc.
Reason: Donation to anti-gun Illinois politicians; Support of anti-gun bills


 4) Buffalo Wild Wings
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy.















5) Panera Bread/JAB Holding Company
 Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy.









 



 
6) Einstein Bros. Bagels/JAB Holding Company
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy.













 

7) Peet's Coffee/JAB Holding Company
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 








8) Krispy Kreme Doughnuts/JAB Holding Company
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 











9) Chilli's/Brinker International
Reasos: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 






10) Maggiano's Little Italy
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 












11) AMC Theaters
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 













12) Cinemark TheatersReason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 
















13) California Pizza Kitchen
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 












14)  Chuck E. Cheese'sReason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. 


















15) Jack in the Box
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy. Refuses to protect employees after armed robberies.









16) Hooters
Reason: Bans all firearms on premises. See company policy.

August 29, 2017

Everytown is Wrong.... Again (Part 1)



It does not really matter what they call themselves- Everytown has had it wrong from the beginning. Everytown continues to be wrong now. In a Guns.com article published yesterday on August 28, the anti-rights group made the following loaded statement (no pun intended):

“In a matter of seconds, the gunman went from legally openly carrying, to breaking the law & shooting in the direction of a group of people,” the gun control group wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. “Fortunately, no one was struck by a bullet, but this incident underscores the purpose of open carry: to intimidate, terrorize & silence.”

They argue that this incident highlights what they have been saying all along on the carriage of firearms. In this particular case- a ban on "open-carry". Open Carry, a correct term- is the lawful carry of a firearm where it is visible to others. 

The first problem with their statement is the loaded use of the term 'gunman'. It insinuates that the man is guilty of a crime before he is convicted by a court. They openly talk about guns being used to 'fear' and 'intimidate', but their carefully crafted choice of vocabulary results in the same goal. Do people use guns to instill 'fear' and 'intimidate'? yes. I would not doubt that for a second. Just because some people are afraid of an inanimate object does not mean that we can ban or unduly restrict a Constitutional right. 

The second problem with their statement is that they say 'and shooting in the direction of a group of people'. Not necessarily. Again- people and organizations can be incredibly crafty in selecting their language. All we have to do is think critically. If a flamethrower is being utilized in the direction of the protestor then I can assume that said protestor fired his weapon in self-defense with people near the aggressor. I was not there. No picture will accurately tell the entire story because it is a snapshot in time. A properly recorded video might tell some of the story. The group of people was in the way, yes. But who is to say he was shooting at the group of people? I don't buy Everytown's word as truth. That doesn't mean that the man is innocent- but it does mean that I will not trust the words of a 'loaded' group.

Even the third statement we disagree on- again because they carefully crafted their statement in order to meet their agenda. 'Fortunately no one was struck by the bullet'. This statement declares a certain attitude that the man was wrong from the beginning to fire the weapon- which, in truth may have been justified or unjustified. I don't know if he was justified because I did not witness the act. Would I be relieved that 'no one else other than the agressor(s) were struck by a bullet? yes. But study the wording VERY carefully. 

They wrap up the statement by saying that 'this underscores the purpose of open carry: to intimidate, terrorize and silence'. That is a fallacy on many fronts and is the main crux of the bullshit in the statement. Let's start with the fallacy of generalizations. Accusing open-carry, and by proxy open-carriers of wanting to do nothing but what they stated is not necessarily true. Some may open carry for other reasons and some may open carry exclusively for the stated reasons, or a mixture of the both.

There is one last thing we need to look at: and it involves perspective. What exactly is the 'purpose' that Everytown is stating? Is the open-carrier (by proxy) intimidating, terrorizing and silencing people with the firearm, or do people who see the gun feel 'intimidated, terrorized and silenced'? they are two very different things- but Everytown would argue that both are correct. I say that on a hunch- I am not a member of that awful organization but I have an idea of how they think and operate.

Even the first perspective requires a look. How is the person 'intimidating, terrorizing and silencing' people? They could make threats with the weapon present, threaten the lives of others, egg people into confrontation and an argument. Personally I believe that Everytown believes the second perspective is more true than the first. By the mere presence of a firearm people feel intimidated, terrorized and silenced. When that 'presence' is combined with shouting, screaming or even threats it can seem like intimidation, terror and 'being silenced'.

Except for one thing. The truth. I am not saying I support one side over the other in the massive protest that occured: I am saying that any group that isn't looking for peace and following the words of Martin Luther King Jr are both wrong. Let us look at the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution:

'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. '

It means that no government can prevent or unduly restrict the right to keep and bear arms. When Everytown calls for a ban on open carry they directly oppose the rights we all have. In many states making threats is a crime. If that occurs you need to call the police and report it- and more intelligently walk away from the situation. Herein lies the argument that people are 'silenced' because others exercise their Constitutional rights. I don't know about you, but in a crowd of hundreds or even thousands of screaming people it can be very easy to be silenced- or even unheard. After all- the police did not hear the gunshot because of the screaming crowds of people. Speak your piece- but with a bunch of raving lunatics looking to pick a fight it will be hard to get your point across.

My ultimate argument, and point- is this. We cannot remove a right of the people to keep and bear arms because some people are afraid of an inanimate object, or because someone they fear is carrying that inanimate object, which they also might fear. When protests start to become unruly and eventually violent you need to walk away from the situation. An unruly protest is not a good place to voice your idea or beliefs- save them for another time when men and women can compose themselves and not act like complete animals.

Invite the people you apparently hate to a forum and discuss your ideas. I doubt people can remain that composed however.

My suggestion follows along the lines of Martin Luther King Jr. Don't give in to hate, don't resort to violence but do show solidarity against issues you believe are morally wrong. King Jr. was a reverend; a man of peace (not a pacifist) who believed non-violence was the answer. He was right- and the whole country either forgot that or purposefully ignore it.

Also, what is with the old man having his Johnson covered by a flower? (see picture).