Facebook wars

[Sandcut]

OK, I'm about fed up with all the anti-gun BS on social media, especially Facebook, lately. And since perception is reality, I've decided to not only respond to correct these BS posts, which are full of deliberately inaccurate information, but to go on the offensive I will not be apologetic for wanting to take responsibility for protecting my family. As such, I've decided to go on the offensive on FB and I recommend that anyone who participates on social media do the same.

Here's what I posted this evening. I already got one request to teach a woman from NY to shoot. If anyone is interested in sharing this to spread it, PM me and I'll send you my name and you can look it up.

Perhaps what we need to control the number of firearm related deaths in the US is a nationwide, comprehensive firearm education program that teaches kids how to safely handle firearms.
We trust kids enough to teach them sex education in schools, why not basic firearms safety? Is teaching them how to avoid accidentally taking a life less important than teaching them how to avoid accidentally creating a life? Studies have shown that comprehensive sex education courses have reduced unwanted teen pregnancies by 50%. Yet, when it comes to firearms, many in our nation rely on an abstinance-only approach toward guns despite the obvious evidence that this is an ineffective approach.
All I know is that teaching our children to approach an issue from a position of ignorance rather than a position of knowledge is negligent. If it saves the life of just one kid would it be worth it?
Take a kid shooting today!
Share if you agree.

Feel free to post your own social media campaigns.

[Yellowfin]

I quite agree. About two weeks ago I had posted the following:

It is gravely concerning to see some people in our country are at a moment of tragedy persuaded by short sighted thinking based on fear, ignorance, social bias, impaired reasoning, intellectual dishonesty, and poor moral grounding. Shockingly we see a lack of appreciation for the many blessings which so many worldwide desperately wish they had. So many insist on turning us over to be like everyone else, discarding our principles which have elevated us above the prosperity, achievements, and stature of any nation ever formed. Some of them say that we have invited upon ourselves horrific problems because we allow individuals to empower themselves with force that can be misused against others. What such thinking ignores, or at least diminishes, is the value of the very same which offers the ability to defend the very often abused minority or individuals--violent force by consensus is by far the greater abuser. Individual means to exert force in excess of one's own ordinary means is precisely the necessary tool to elevate the rights and security of people above the events of whatever place and time one should arrive upon. To be thus armed by means afforded by modern design is not a lack of respect for life, but very much because we respect it so much as to retain the best means of preserving it against that which we know historically has assailed it.

In even our own country, and also world history spanning a dozen millenia or so, over time there have been groups of people who have despicably chosen to abuse others they dislike personally, wanted to exploit economically, disagree with religiously or politically, or wanted to rob or pillage property thereof. They have done so by simple control of numbers and the lack of moral conscience to treat their fellow man with grace and fairness. Often that was even achieved under presumably lawful authority much the same (and occasionally worse) as it was under criminal action. Irish immigrants, the Native American tribes, Americans of African descent, Italian immigrants, Mexican and Chinese..the list is as varied as the times and places where subjugation by law, social exclusion, and brute force have occurred. However, largely we think of it as being comparitvely rare in the overall course of our experience. By comparison to the rest of the world over time and all of the places, yes, it is, and for two principle reasons: we are a nation founded on the very principles of individual liberty and the sanctity of human rights, and that as a necessary guarantee of that, we have Constitutional recognition of our fundamental and essential right to be able to prevail against threats from others who would take that away. That threat could be wearing a white pointy hood of a KKK outfit, a black mask, the uniform of a foreign army or a private security contractor, or even a uniform of authority we in every other circumstance otherwise respect. They could be coming to take your house or your business because someone's idea is that you own too much and it isn't fair that someone else has less, so the government should take it. They could be coming to your church because they don't think your religion should be allowed to meet because they consider it hateful. They could be coming to your house to force you to leave the neighborhood because someone of your skin color or the ideas you have doesn't suit the other people on your block.Exactly to whom the displeasure of public opinion or politics or the appetites of criminal predation shift their desire to disrupt, destroy, and devour changes upon mere whim of the times. They have the power of the majority in either case.

No amount of wishful thinking or "progress" changes that aspect of humanity. No utterance of "That won't happen here!" or "But we're better than that!" applies, as it already has happened and does happen, no matter what amount of "enlightenment" or "tolerance" and "diversity" you might believe in somehow shields us from basic sinful human nature.

You do, however, have the right to prevail against that action and live your life where and as you choose, by means of effective defense against sizeable threats. Whether it's one burglar with a baseball bat or ten people with burning torches (or crosses) and shotguns or two dozen or more with...well, shall we say more than that, the value of your human life and that of those you love, the basic essential human rights we have, the property which the fruits of your work and gifts of love from others bless us with, and the ability to pursue an abundant life with joy is all worth preserving against any force that would maliciously take it. It is because we have that ability that we do not see deprivation and harm more often than we do, or live lives under domination and repression which would not even allow us to see what we could have had--be it from one, ten, twenty, twenty thousand, or three hundred million imposing their will upon us.

Freedom not maintained or attainable by the individual is not freedom for long. It is only as good as the means by which one can assure it--not just in some post apocalyptic case of the world gone wrong, but in the world we live in now and always have since the dawn of civilization. We are not the exception to history in any other other way than we are the country of liberty and the country of individual rights which we the individual people hold and we the individual people secure, which has made us the most blessed nation on Earth ever.

Kinda strange that it didn't get a response from anyone disagreeing with it. My guess is that the anti gun people have too low of a reading comprehension level.

[Sandcut]

I quite agree. About two weeks ago I had posted the following: Kinda strange that it didn't get a response from anyone disagreeing with it. My guess is that the anti gun people have too low of a reading comprehension level.

Yeah. For all we hear about them wanting to "start a National debate", I have yet to see any opposition actually attempt to discuss.

Good post, BTW.

[Yellowfin]

Yeah. For all we hear about them wanting to "start a National debate", I have yet to see any opposition actually attempt to discuss.

Good post, BTW.

I actually did have a few people I otherwise regard as friends post on their own pages some fake compassion, "we must do something", acting all righteous to look good to their liberal colleagues repeating nonsense that did invite discussion, but they refuse to be honest about their real motives or openly admit that they're wrong when everything they say is disproven. From what I can tell it's all about projecting an image, towing the party line to be on the same side as academics and their profession (psychology), to be good little conformists with their peer group else risk being ostracized or something. My in-laws are absolutely terrible about it, doing the whole prissy ultra pacifist nonsense to make themselves feel like they're cool being on the same side as the entertainment and news media they worship and somehow morally righteous in substitute for acts of a real faith. In both cases the problem is identity politics, a cultural blockade we absolutely must break and destroy as much as we can.

[Jhaydeno]

Both well thought out and well written posts. I've gone on the offensive as well, after seeing so many BS posts calling for more gun control. I've found that the vast majority of discussions devolve into name calling absurdity by the left. They really have no valid facts or arguments to back a position.

In one discussion a friend of a mutual liberal acquaintance was proud of the fact that he had never even touched a gun, and no one in his or his wife's family owned one either. It was quite a holier than thou position. He went on to tell me he didn't care what the differences between guns were, even 10 rounds is too many, and people like me were responsible for all these murders. A completely ignorant ass&"!@ of the highest degree, and it was obvious to anyone reading the comments.

My final comment was of a similar vein: I offered to take any of my buddy's friends shooting if they were local and wanted to learn more. I'm sure that just torqued him to no end. I'm convinced more than ever that liberalism really is a disease in which the rational logic lobe of the brain disappears...

[normanvin]

Like anywhere else on the internet people seem to be compelled to respond weather they have something to say or even know what they are talking about.

I often cull people from my friends list or un follow them for a while. I also weed out pages that I have followed and gotten tired of the drama.

[bigandy1966]

Yeah. For all we hear about them wanting to "start a National debate", I have yet to see any opposition actually attempt to discuss.

Good post, BTW.

I applaud your efforts, however, the left has abandoned the field of polite conversation and now uses violence, fear and intimidation to silence the right.
They do not want a national debate, conversation or anything else that would give the pro gun , conservative , republican, hunter, fisherman, or anything even remotely right wing a platform for their views to be herd or considered by other rational minds.
Repeatedly I read about how the left wing faculty force a universities to shut down a speaking engagements from anyone who has opposing political views .
The only people who will read or agree with any POV from a pro gun person is another shooting sports enthusiasts.
Leftists don't want a debate, feelings trump facts and statistics, the constitution be damned unless they think they can twist it to align with their ideology
Remember when Anarchists and anti-establishment was the cool thing?

We have become the counter culture.

[Sandcut]

I applaud your efforts, however, the left has abandoned the field of polite conversation and now uses violence, fear and intimidation to silence the right.
They do not want a national debate, conversation or anything else that would give the pro gun , conservative , republican, hunter, fisherman, or anything even remotely right wing a platform for their views to be herd or considered by other rational minds.
Repeatedly I read about how the left wing faculty force a universities to shut down a speaking engagements from anyone who has opposing political views .
The only people who will read or agree with any POV from a pro gun person is another shooting sports enthusiasts.
Leftists don't want a debate, feelings trump facts and statistics, the constitution be damned unless they think they can twist it to align with their ideology
Remember when Anarchists and anti-establishment was the cool thing?

We have become the counter culture.

As I've said before. I don't post to change tue mind of the person with which I'm disagreeing. I'm posting to change the mind of the fence-sitter who is reading and not getting involved. If the only perspective that fence-sitters get is anti, that is all they will ever know. And that is unacceptable.

[Sandcut]

Can't wait to see the responses to this.

"WOW! 22,000 angry gun owners protested in Richmond, VA today and there wasn't even one arrest. Whoodathunk??!! The way the media portrays us, you'd have expected it to have been another Babi Yar.

Perhaps it isn't "lawful gun owners" who are the problem. Perhaps we already know the origin of the problem, but we're all too politically correct to admit it. ( I'll give you a hint since you're probably reaching for the low hanging fruit, it has nothing to do with race.) "


ETA: Thanks to all who went south today!!! Wish my health was steady enough to have travelled. As a minimum, I could have been a travelling aid statiin in the event things got ugly.

[Sandcut]

And, while we're at it. My SIL wrote something snarky about Republicans "rolling back" school lunch nutrition standards.

To which I said:

"Well, having had to feed kids in school through the last Administration and into this administration, here's a couple thoughts on the topic.

Seeing as most kids have a maximum of 30 minutes/day during which to eat lunch, the first order of business for a school cafeteria is to feed the kids something that they will actually eat. The cafeteria's role is to fuel the furnaces while they are at school, so that the kids are focusing on schoolwork and not how hungry they are. Having voted for Obama, I was incredibly disturbed by the changes that were made to the school lunch program. Namely, the use of whole grain breads and pastas. Now I'm a firm supporter of feeding nutritious, whole grain food to kids. But, having said that, according to both of our kids, the nutritional experiment that.was conducted at that time was an epic failure. Pizza day, which was formerly the "bring extra money for extra slices day", was a bust. Although the kids getting lunches were not allowed to NOT get pizza (aka, they were forced to take a piece) little kf it was eaten and it ended up in the trash. The same thing ocurred on spaghetti day. I'm sorry, but as much as I love a good, multi-grain bread, whole grain pasta is just nasty. As such, according to the Law of Unintended Consequences (and the fact that kids can purchase "flex" items from the cafeteria), the kids would trash their "mandatedly nutritional meals" and would literally buy five or six bags of chips and two Gatorades and that would be their lunch.

The point being, although it is noble to want to ensure that kids arenexposed to new foods and possibly to foods of higher nutritional ingredients than they get at home, school is not where kids should be experimented on for grand social experiments. Good old, ol' fashioned white bread and bleached wheat pasta may not be the pinnacle of nutritional dining. But it is a hell of a lot more nutritious than a half a dozen bags of Sun Chips (although I do love them) and a day's caloric intake of empty carbs from Gatorade. Don't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough".

Secondly, the mandate to only serve 2° or skim milk should also be removed. If a kid is used to drinking whole milk, how isforcimg them to drink water (which has to be purchased independent from the meal at a daily expense) more nutritional? This is another example of unintended consequences. Just because some kids are sloth and obese, we are going to take whole milk away from the athletic kids (who arguably require the additional protein and fat BECAUSE they are active).

As for fresh fruits and vegies being offered, I'm all.for it. BUT!!!!! It needs to be added supplementally to a menu that the kids will actually eat. Schools should be given additional, supplemental funds for offerimg fresh fruits and vegetables in ADDITION to and NOT in replacement of regular foods the kids will eat. In this manner, if the kids actually want to eat broccoli (Maddie's favorite veggie), they can grab some. If they don't want it that day, they aren't missing out on a menu item. Pay the school District after-the-fact for the number kf days documented having served these items. Win-win all around. Fresh fruits and veggies are expensive, especially depending on season, and perishable. Which means a LOT goes to waste even without the kids. And, since most schools use a middle man food service contractor for meals, the profit markup on produce is absurd. There's no sense just payimg for it just to toss it in the trash because "kkds should be (forced) exposed to new foods".

Just feed them and keep them happy and full."


And, oddly, she nor any of her snarky, NJ/Philly friends had any response to this.

Perhaps it's easier to be snarky and morally superior than it is to actually think through an issue.