Home

Details

https://www.facebook.com/LiberalTruth78/posts/10201483181143150?comment_id=62873667

Ah, yes.  "Liberal" "Truth."  The kind that doesn't need fact checked, because when several of us did so, our posts were deleted.  Because liberals love truth and support accurate statements.

Assuming the above post will be deleted shortly, to protect its honesty from my alleged hatred, it's a picture of a little girl, captioned: "If you think giving me a gun is teaching me responsibility, someone needs to teach you about responsibility."

The hilarious thing is they deleted posts that showed the original image that caused the butthurt. http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/allpink4803.jpg.html

But this comment jumped out at me, so I feel compelled to immortalize the woman:

Breann Louise Hall This looks like my kid. If i gave my kid a gun, she would shoot me.

February 7 at 12:11pm · 6

And 6 people agree with her, so there are at least 7 people who think their kids would shoot them if given a gun.

Breann Louise Hall has a degree in socio-anthropology and claims to be a mediocre author and poet.  Oh, and is big into supporting slut culture.

I find a poster she likes that equates Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks with Angela Davis and Assata Shakur as 'not well-behaved women'.
I know of Davis, but had to look up Shakur:
"In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulted Trooper James Harper.[5] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[5] Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other alleged criminal incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.[6] In 2013, the FBI announced it had made Shakur the first woman on its list of most wanted terrorists.[7]"

Fascinating.  I'm a best-selling author, and my kids have never tried nor expressed an interest in killing me, despite access to firearms, kitchen knives, flammable liquids in the shop, and heavy exercise equipment in the gym.  I guess I'm not only a better writer, I'm a better parent, since I haven't raised kids who are incompetent, amoral or psychopathic or who worship terrorists. That may be because I figured parent culture was a more important pursuit than slut culture and endorsing terrorism, once I was a parent.  Liberalism is starting to scare me, if that's their default and publicly admitted outcome.

This explains why they don't understand responsibility.  See, FIRST comes the responsibility, THEN comes the gun.  I realize that's a large intellectual leap for a "liberal," so I'll elaborate further:

My daughter started shooting at age 4: 

At age 7, I dropped $1000ish in materials and parts to build her that pink AR carbine, and have since added about $1000 in accessories, because I believe in having quality tools.  Her favorite guns are a 1916 Smith & Wesson in .45 Long Colt and an Astra .44 Magnum.  She's proficient with both.

In those 12 years, she's never once proposed or attempted to kill me, nor been so incompetent as to do so by accident, nor even have a negligent discharge.  So I guess she meets their standards of responsibility.

Oh, yes, she also has $1000ish worth of harp that she half paid for, a couple of thousand bucks' worth of Luna and Schecter guitars we bought for her, a couple thousand more bucks' worth of keyboard, signal processor, amplifiers, and various small instruments, as well as lessons, because like the ancient Greeks, I believe a warrior should also be a scholar and an artist.  She maintains excellent grades, pursues athletics on occasion, and also has an interest in painting and writing. She's more than a mediocre writer, in my professional opinion (apart from my biased opinion.  I've seen much worse writing from adults twice her age).

Of course, the Rolling Stoner article that referenced her missed all this, too, because being good "liberals," they didn't need to actually talk to a woman to know all about her failures. They just mansplained away.  They even rose to the hysteria of insisting the gun lobby is "desperate" to get her money, when in fact, she's appeared in promotions and ads in several shooting magazines.  To be precise, lots of firearm and accessory manufacturers are desperate to throw money at her for endorsement.

This is like pointing at Alex Lifeson as a bad example of the dangers of an obsession with guitars, or using Sage Kotsenburg to claim snowboarding will ruin your life.

So, yeah, my daughter's an honor student, musician, artist, experienced in household tasks including cooking and budgeting, a reasonably good martial artist, an actress with professional TV credits, is socially conscious, supports marriage equality and reproductive choice, understands the economics of recycling and logistics, and is exploring college programs.

Sadly, she probably won't be getting a degree in socio-anthropology or slut studies, because we ruined her life with guns.

If only liberalism could have saved her.

Details

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/25301892-418/school-officials-are-no-fans-of-gun-ban-signs.html

This is one of those articles where the quotes are just too silly-looking to not be suspect. So I made some polite inquiries. I've only heard back from one administrator.  Our exchange is below, correspondent's comments in bold:

Article quote:

“One of my biggest concerns as a principal is safety and security,” Tinley Park High School Principal Theresa Nolan said. “It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, ‘Hey, folks, leave your guns at home.’ ”

Nolan said she is not opposed to posting it, she’s just worried that not enough people are aware of what it means and could misinterpret the new signage.
“I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past,” she said. In her 22 years with Bremen Community High School District 228, she said, “I have no knowledge of guns ever being in this building.”
Nolan, and others, take issue with the sticker’s design.
“I would have appreciated something more subtle, yet still recognizable — a logo, perhaps, not a gun,” she said.
My inquiry:
What logo would you use to represent a gun that wasn't a gun?
Why would the presence of guns in the past, if no harm was caused, be distressful to anyone now?

Hi Mike,

I appreciate the question…The logo created is to inform those who have undergone the training and licensing protocols to carry a concealed weapon that they are not allowed to carry on this premises.  The onus for knowing where you “can” and “can’t” carry is placed upon the individual who has undergone the training.  To our general public, who has not undergone the training and is not familiar with the logo or legislation, may associate that we are simply reminding the general public that guns are not allowed in our building, as if that is a necessary reminder.

Anyone who works in a school these days, especially in my role where I am the one responsible for everyone’s safety and security, seeing a “no guns allowed” sticker on our entryways is just awkward.  My attempt was to educate the public as to why these stickers will be displayed.  I was not passing judgment on the legislation, nor am I ignorant enough to believe it will deter someone with criminal intent.

With that being said, if there was a logo that represented the Concealed Carry Legislation with the red circle and slash , or, an acronym with the circle and slash, or even just verbiage that stated “ NO Concealed Carry Allowed” it would remove the image of the gun from our entryway doors.  Again, I am not opposed to the posting of it, but if the sticker serves as a reminder to those who are trained to look for it, then  I felt that the community members who did not have training deserved to know why we are posing signage that represent, “No Guns Allowed.”

Again,  I appreciate the question….and although I know I have touched a nerve, my intention was to make people aware of the legislation and it’s concurrent signage.

If I you have any other questions, please let me know.

Theresa

If it won't have any effect on criminals, what is the point?  Non-criminals are not a threat. (I realize you are not responsible for the law.)

The first part remains: What logo would serve in this capacity that would not have a picture of a gun?  What would represent a gun without being a gun?
Which leads to another question, of why is a generic image on a sticker so disturbing?  As a parallel, would we attempt to teach sex ed without representations of organs and birth control devices?

Thanks
Mike

I agree with you on the first part….I don’t have input in that.

I think it could be as simple as NO CONCEALED CARRY ALLOWED.  Or an appropriate acronym with the red circle and slash.  Those who are trained and licensed would know what to look for.  And eventually the rest of the community will be aware as well.  I am not saying those are the greatest examples, as there are far better advertising or marketing specialists that could come up with something better.

The purpose of my part in the article spoke to the fact to clarity what the stickers looked like and why we were posting them.  Anytime guns and school are associated with one another, a certain panic ensues. .   I never stated an opinion about the legislation…. I was simply trying to get ahead of the curve of public panic and assumption.

 Theresa

Thank you. That's very informative.  I understand your position.
I always assume (based on my own experiences) that a news article contains cherry picked quotes out of context.
Do you mind if I reference the dichotomy between statement and media presentation as an example?

Thanks
Mike
[NOTE:  in fact, teaching about no-carry zones is part of the IL CCW training]

I actually would appreciate it!  It’s interesting, because I thought I’d have more of a feverish response for NOT advertising why the signs were being posted!  And I don’t mind answering the questions.  I appreciate that you asked.

I see that you are an author, and have some significant experiences to share….congratulations and best of luck to you. 

Theresa

I checked out your Wikipedia page.  It’s quite impressive.  But that is why I give you the credit for sending me an email asking for more information.  For the most part, I was just called names that high school students use!

 Again….thanks for reaching out.

 Theresa

So, what I'm taking away from this, is the school isn't responsible for the frantic panic of IL legislators (obviously), and the principal is stuck in the middle between CCW activists, and "ZOMG GUNS ARE BAD MKAY?" parents, and trying to find a way to remain neutral.

So at least as far as this school is concerned, there's no hostility, just frazzlement, and really, namecalling and profanity doesn't help our, or any cause, eh?

Let's help IL join the rest of the states in CCW by being civilized and mature.

Details

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/students-at-womens-college-upset-at-nearly-nude-statue-of-a-man/

A statue of a man in underwear, outside on the grounds.

From the article:

Others at the exclusive 2,400 student all-female private liberal arts institution are not buying any defense of the work.

Please, tell us all about the suffering and and repression you experienced in the The Hamptons.

“While it appears that this statue of a nearly naked, older white man with outstretched arms is an art installation, it does not provide our community with any of the value that art is traditionally intended to add,” wrote student Zoe Magid in the Change.org petition. The statue had “become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community,” reads Magid’s petition.

[Citation needed]  That's a fairly authoritarian statement there. What are your credentials or qualifications to stand in judgment? As far as "Triggering," yes, that's a real issue. But guess what?  There are ACTUAL MEN in the real world.  Someday, you'll have to interact with them.  And while there's a legal term "Statutory rape," let me reassure you it has nothing to do with statues becoming incubi and molesting rich college chicks.

“I go to a women’s college so that I’m part of an inclusive and supportive community, not one that supports male artists and statues of naked men instead of women,” wrote student Raeesah Kabir on the Davis Museum Facebook page.

"Inclusive."  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, did you fail 3rd grade English? "Inclusive.  To include, encompass."  What you want is "Exclusive.  To exclude, ostracize."  So, real colleges are supposed to embrace the artistic, literary and verbal diarrhea of types like you, but you should be exempt from returning the favor?  How about, "No"? Does "No" work for you?  No?  Tough shit.  To be fair, the college is described as "Exclusive."  I guess she forgot to read the pamphlet.  If she can read.  I'll be fair.  I'll assume basic literacy is required for a degree in Haberdashery Studies.

“I think art’s intention is to confront, but not assault, and people can see this as assaulting,” Wellesley senior Annie Wang told the Boston Globe.

Actually, you don't think, and that's the first part of the problem.  But I notice how you couch it.  "People can see this as assaulting."  So, you don't personally, but others MIGHT. What if others MIGHT view unburqa'd women as assaulting?  Or do only your opinions matter?

“Wellesley is a place where we’re supposed to feel safe. I think place and a context matters, and I don’t think this is the place to put it.”

So, you're afraid of a completely inanimate object?  Does Mumsy still check under your bed for monsters before you go to sleep?  Grow up.

Others defended the work. “I find it disturbing, but in a good way,” Wellesley English professor Sarah Wall-Randell told the Globe. “I think it’s meant to be off-putting – it’s a schlumpy guy in underpants in an all-women environment.”

Well, good. At least one of their professors has a brain.  But it doesn't seem her intellect is rubbing off on the spoiled white upper middle class princesses in their imagined victimhood.

Matelli described his artistic philosophy ahead of the controversy. “I’m fascinated with that moment when you become aware of a perceptual shift in your environment, so what was a seemingly real-life experience becomes a complicated art experience. That approach to art is really powerful.”

I get it.  He has, in fact, drawn attention to their plight.  Perhaps they should go back home and stay out of the real world until they're ready to handle it.  

Details

Okay, I have to respond to this horseshit:

http://io9.com/the-best-entry-level-science-fiction-books-to-convert-1510802842

"To get your friends into SF, show them a whole bunch of shit that no one gives a crap about, along with a few classics that aren't really good for neophytes, and some hysteria-inducing leftism. And if that doesn't work, go with a 2nd previous generation's failed attempt at literary greatness."

I'd like to destroy the prejudicial notion that the entire future is leftist, and that this is normal, desirable and believable.

Near as I can tell, not a single "expert" they asked is within a standard deviation of center, and they're all on the left.  The only one with reasonably good recommendations was John Scalzi.  When he's your moderate, you may have a bit of a bias.

Heinlein's YA? Neal Stephenson? Lois Bujold? Larry Niven? Sci fi with, you know, actual science? Drake for any veterans.  Hell, Ben Bova has lots of very good near future SF.  Mercedes Lackey is both liberal (since that obviously matters to them) and a good writer, with some decent present-day urban fantasy.

I've read close to 10K SF books and written a few, and I've never even heard of most of those choices. That by itself proves nothing, except that they're not recommending anything anyone center, conservative or libertarian is going to be interested in, which is 75% of the population.

And I had to explain to some enlightened, outraged "liberal" in comments about Heinlein's _Friday_.  "It starts off with the character being gangraped and she shrugs it off like it's no big deal!  Disgusting!"

Why is it necessary for me to explain this to people?:

To Dayman: I'm amazed at how many SF readers don't get Friday.

Quite obviously, as is stressed throughout the book, the character does not think of herself as human. She's in a world where she is reminded every day that her status is beneath everyone else, she can never be what they are, even though she IS fully human.

She has been taught to completely suppress everything about herself. Her very expensive membership in a line family that considers her only a source of money is more of the same. (And even her racial background is bothersome to them.)

The character spends a book learning HOW TO BE HUMAN and to love and be loved.

That so many readers don't get it is a tragedy.

And that so-many so-called "liberals" don't get it just exposes modern liberalism for the complete sham it is. They don't actually see prejudice or POV, they only see the color or group affiliation they've been taught to look down on as "oppressed."  They're clueless about the concept itself, however.

This is why literary SF will continue to grasp at relevance and market share.

  1. I Met One Of Those People
  2. LTC Bob Bateman: Less Manly Than a Little Girl

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home