Category Archives: pissoff

Relative of Thug Flaunts Her Own Depravity

[Originally a Facebook post.]

Mr. Colion Noir has a post up on the thug who was justifiably shot while trying to rob a store and do who knows what to the employees.

You angry, Ms. Relative? I’ll give you angry. Do yourself a favor and when your kin gets out on bail and/or finishes his sentence, keep him locked up in the basement where you can fulfill your own damn responsibility and give him the ‘help’ he needs. Better yet, join him down there in the dungeon and leave anything outside your own domicile to the adults.

I suggest that despicable woman from his family who was interviewed ought go live on a deserted island if she doesn’t like civil society. Coming to the aid of someone in distress is a time honored tradition. To suggest that the guy who fired the shots should have just left the store and let this guy do whatever he wanted to the employees shows what a low-life you are, Ms. Relative. Yes, the guy who shot him absolutely did have the right to shoot him. Not everyone would have had the stones to do that and not hightail it out of there. The thug held a gun to some employees’ heads. That is a credible threat. You initiate that kind of force, then you deserve whatever bad thing happens to you.

Yeah, he needed help, as the arrogant relative said, but unless you take that initiative and isolate him from the rest of society while getting him the help you say he needs, then expect individuals that he poses a threat to to deal with in a way that keeps them alive and healthy. You, as the family have the primary responsibility to get him that help. The public at large deserves to protect themselves and others around them from this thug as they see fit. He’s lucky to be alive and should be grateful to spend some time in the slammer. Message to families with sons like this: you let your son run loose like this when you know he needs help, then this is how he will be dealt with. Individuals will defend themselves and others and/or the State will put him away. Deal.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

Open Carry Chronicles, Issue #11

2012/09/18: Both Knitebane and I were carrying openly at Golden Corral in Garner and as soon as we paid and started heading to the dining room area, we were addressed by an employee who said (light-heartedly) that there were cameras that would be keeping an eye on us. He wished us a good visit and went on his away.

Note that this is an exemplary way for an employee of an establishment to address someone carrying a gun if addressed about the gun at all. We were approached and addressed in a friendly manner. He was essentially checking us out. Though, once again, criminals don’t typically carry their guns openly in $50 – 100 holsters, but rather in their hands, hoodies or clumsily stuffed in their waistbands, most certainly if you address a criminal about his gun (even indirectly as was done in this case), they are not going to be all that comfortable about it. Might even shoot you. It’s possible he was putting us on notice, but by merely addressing us openly he set his own mind at ease that we weren’t there to cause trouble. He wasn’t rude and he didn’t kick us out. Good on him.

Later that night, we were discussing OC holsters and my slight frustration in not finding that one, silver bullet holster for carrying both openly and concealed. An excellent point that PDB made in the beginning of his OC holster review is this:

…keep in mind that a mechanical lock is no substitute for remaining aware of your surroundings and being mentally and physically prepared to fight for your gun. A locking holster will not on its own defeat a gun takeaway attempt, but rather buy you some time to defeat the person trying to take your gun away.

Like many, I used to carry my gun in a Serpa holster. I no longer use the Serpa, but not due to the sometimes scathing criticism it gets for increasing the risk of an ND. I think it is a training issue that is far overblown, as even Mr. Grebner here acknowledges (language warning):

As he explains in the original video here:

This was due largely to the fact that he had just gotten through training with the 5.11 Thumbdrive holster with his Glock. If the Serpa is all you use and train with, then the risk reduces to the noise level, in my opinion. However, it’s certainly not for everyone. Particularly if you, for example, are reviewing several holsters to write about them as PDB is right now.

All that said, Brigid’s lockup experience a few years back as well as lots of other documented cases have convinced me not to use the holster for carrying any longer. In fact, even if I thought the risk of shooting myself while using the holster was greater, these occurrences of lockup, to me are an even greater risk. As I said in Stay Dangerous, a better way to see off a soldier than “Be Careful” is “Good Hunting.” That’s not to say that we throw safety out the window, and, sure, I know we are not at war. Yet. But it is just an acknowledgement that life is dangerous. Liberty is fraught with risks. It’s all about tradeoffs. I don’t mind a relatively insignificant (in my opinion) and relatively easy to mitigate risk of an ND. But I do mind a well documented risk of my defensive weapon being completely disabled with no way to mitigate it, as was demonstrated in Brigid’s case (i.e.: there was no conclusion as to what actually caused the lockup).

On the OC holster issue, I’ll be reading PDB’s review series, but the bottom line for me is that when you take these three things into account:

  • PDB’s statement about equipment not being a substitute for situational awareness and mental and physical preparedness,
  • Brigid’s comment in the post referenced above that “Anything mechanical can fail”,
  • and the Good Hunting / Survival mentality as opposed to Be Careful mentality

I’m beginning to believe that active retention is not an absolute necessity for carrying openly. I’ll remain open to persuasion, but for now, I just may be switching back to my Blackhawk CQC holster for carrying openly.

In the practical sense, if you conceal with an OWB, then your concealment garment will slow down your draw. With IWB, it can be even more of an impediment because it’s often a tighter gripping holster so the simple act of pulling it out of the holster is slower. Carrying openly in an active retention holster means you have to release the retention before drawing, also slowing down your draw. So it’s hard to argue that any option is less of an impediment to a fast draw than carrying openly with only passive retention, with heightened situational awareness and preparedness.

Besides, I don’t just carry openly for practical defensive reasons. I also carry for political activism reasons. And I really don’t care what Pincus or Yeager think of that. I go by the positive results I’ve had in that area, not by the opinion of some tacticool instructors with big egos or a penchant for putting cameramen literally in the line of fire unnecessarily and then doubling down on stupid and defending it. I am not your ambassador and will not be until you send me a fat honkin’ check every month for my services.

Others are welcome to comment.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends

A Gun Is Not An Argument

While reading a few entries from Kevin over the past few days, I happened across an entry from 2004 where he lays out some history of arms in general and how the appearance of firearms changed everything. It was the first time in history where any individual right could be enforced by the individual himself.

More recently, Kevin also points to an episode of Bill Whittle’s “Stratosphere Lounge” where he talks about gun control and brings up the same point about history, that before guns, it was a brutal world for those who didn’t train, in pretty much all cases, all of their lives for combat. The gun, in essence, leveled the playing field.

Bill makes an excellent point that I had heard from a former coworker several years ago, but on the topic of the freedom to fly (as in actually piloting, as he had his pilot’s license). Both Bill and my former coworker made the point that we can argue until we are blue in the face about the benefits of private gun ownership, and hem and haw when our anti-liberty / pro-next-Holocaust enemies say things like “the sole purpose of a [evil gun of choice today] is to kill large numbers of people.” Why do we wimp out of the conversation and try to say, “no, no, guns have many other uses…”? Yeah, you can say, a) intent is not transferable, b) guns have many other uses, c) the intent is to stop the attack, but that unfortunately is most often not possible without killing the attacker, or d) any other myriad arguments about how, oh, no, guns really aren’t for killing.


I want something designed to kill large numbers of people, to use as I see fit. Oh, does that sound monsterous to you? What, pray tell, makes you think that what “I see fit” isn’t going to be morally correct? The authors of our founding documents believed I could be trusted with the power of life and death in my hands. And I’m not just talking about the 2nd Amendment. Read the Federalist Papers. And this from Tenche Cox: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia? [A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

When the EBT cards don’t poop cash anymore; when the flat screen TVs don’t get fixed in Section 8 housing; and when the marauding mobs of moochers gather and start invading formerly quiet neighborhoods and throwing Molotov cocktails because they are not getting what’s due them in their 75 IQ brains, I want to be able to stop them before they burn my house down and my neighbors’ houses because I’m one of the 1% (and, no, I’m not, but you think that will matter when they see my reasonably medium sized house and nice, (if not 12 year old), car?) at the entrance to my street before they make it to my house. That would be legitimate self-defense, my friends. And the most efficient machine possible is my moral right in that, or any other situation where I would be in mortal danger.

Why do we wimp out so? Face it: what the invention of firearms did was forceably remove the monopoly of violence from the state. It didn’t not ask the state’s consent. It did not assuage the state official or the thug trained in a lifetime of violence (but I repeat myself) by saying, “oh, don’t worry, we won’t use our guns to kill you, even if you decide our proper fate is to be inserted into gas chambers or brick ovens.” It WRENCHED control of armed combat from a select few and placed into the hands of every individual with only a small amount of training. In relative terms, the firearm is easy to make, easy to learn to shoot accurately, and easy to deploy. There was no putting that genie back in the bottle. No matter what legislation was passed nor decrees issued. And before the firearm’s appearance, life was Hell on earth for anyone who did not train constantly for combat. The gun forced anyone who wanted someone else to do his bidding to reason with him.

We can engage in all the arguments we want. And, yes, many are useful to prevent the jack booted thugs who would like to disarm us from making life difficult for us by passing their new law of the day that somehow morally legitimatizes their murderous actions when we dare commit acts of freedom in defiance of those laws.

But the bottom line is that theories of rights, though interesting, do not matter here. The benefits of gun ownership do not matter either. Nor do constitutional matters and the history surrounding the construction of the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other documents of our founding generation.

All that matters is that our answer is, “No.”


Now it is for the anti-liberty / pro-next-Holocaust army to decide what that means. Take it to heart. Don’t do anything stupid. Because we mean it.

It is not a criminal threat to tell someone to stop the violence they are doing or planning or there will be violent resistance. How much blood do you want on your own hands? Because you will have to kill us, or try, because we can shoot back, in order to disarm us or even make it even the slightest bit more difficult to acquire the means of resistance to force.


Think on that for a while.

In the words of Ayn Rand, “A gun is not argument.”

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

See? The Mask Isn’t Even Slipping; It’s Gone

As an update to my previous post, from Joe again, quoting “Kiki”:

Just shoot yourself. The modern man doesn’t need to hunt, he has all he wants and can obtain anything without hunting or any other stupid sick barbaric medieval method. What the fuck do you know about nature? You’re just talking shit to give a “logical” explanation why you hunt, it’s all bullshit ! Cut the crap with the nice, civilized outspoken person, ’cause you’re not ! You deserve to be considered trash, you an hypocrite, people like you don’t need respect, you deserve all the swears in the world because you understand just one law, the fist in the jaw law ! Any anti-hunting or animal right argument isn’t ever good for you, you just know that one thing, that you’re the center of the world and for that you’re nothing,you’re just a waste of oxygen !

The blog post that Joe points to indicates that some of the commenters on this Facebook group are Americans. I beg to differ. They may reside within the same borders, speak the same language, and be allowed to vote in elections (well, yeah, I know that’s not saying much even regarding whether or not someone is living, but I digress), but being American implies adopting certain principles. Principles of the same cloth of our founding generation. These are occupiers within our borders who wish to fundamentally transform us into another socialist hell-hole.

Regarding “Kiki,” above, I don’t know if she is a vegan, but I believe vegans are wrong on principle (and as a side note, they are going to have a much harder time surviving The Big Die Off than meat eaters), but they are the only ones who even come close to having a coherent argument against hunting. They are still wrong, on many levels that I won’t go into at this time, but they are at least consistent. Any non-vegan who complains about hunting, but will eat grocery store bought meat has got to be mentally ill. As Joe points out, it’s as if they think slaughtering practices are somehow more humane than hunting.

And for anyone trying to be civil and actually have an intelligent conversation with them, can you see how pointless it is? Even when we try to engage in civil discourse it’s not taken as such, so why bother? In the end, their aim is still to see us dead. You don’t negotiate with the tyrant. Their arguments deserve only to be mocked.

But all of them, vegans and non-vegans alike, these anti-hunters seem to have a habit these days of revealing their murderous fantasies against humans. No compunction about committing genocidal acts. They need to be defeated, absolutely crushed politically. If they want their collectivist utopias, they can take one way flights to Cuba. I guess the best thing we have going for us is that they, almost to a person, hate guns. So when we win, with the exception of the true believers we can at least be sure that the noise we hear in the background will only be gilded threats. But sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again, so we will be on guard. This is WAR. We will treat it as such.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

QotD: Joe Huffman

In line with my answer of No, Joe, in quoting someone else adds this:

They view the private possession of guns as evil. There is no negotiating with people that “think” like that. If they cannot even discuss the costs of gun control there is no point in even talking with them. They must be politically destroyed.

Several weeks ago I had a private message exchange on fakebook with a relative who is decidedly on the left. The specific discussion was about Monsanto, but that’s not really relevant. This person was lamenting that the two of us used to have lively, friendly discussions about all kinds of topics.

Oh, and before I forget, a little background on what happened. This person had sent a friend request to me some time last year. I knew her position on many things and that she was firmly on the “other” side of probably every issue you could think of. But I reluctantly accepted. After finally getting fed up with her ignoring every single one of my responses to her posts, I “unfriended” her with a note that I didn’t see much point in just letting her broadcast to me, but not being willing to engage in an actual debate. So then, months later, the private discussion started, triggered by a Monsanto post.

One comment she made was to the effect of “why not meet on where we agree and worked together from there?” I told her, much like Billy Beck said, that I will meet her at her premises. And I added this: “You are not going to create Heaven on Earth. And as long as people attempt that, I, believing that they will create Hell on Earth in the process, will be part of the roadblock to those attempts.” And, “You want to support, enhance, and encourage people in the areas you believe they agree on? More power to you. But I will fight you at every turn should you wish to use the power of a government gun in my face to do so.”

I haven’t heard from her since.

My message to the antis, the progressives regressives is this: we will not work with you. We will not compromise. Mass slaughter by government is not an aberration of progressivism, — which is just another name for collectivism, totalitarianism, socialism, communism, fascism, all of them being just slightly different flavors of each other — it is a feature. You have Sowell’s unconstrained view, which we do not hold. There will be no perfecting of mankind on this Earth, no new soviet man, no matter how many of your false messiahs you throw at it. There are surely true believers among you who do not believe they will be here to live in the perfect world they trying to create. And those are the ones we consider the most dangerous, but we consider all of you a mortal threat to human liberty. This is the message of an anti-progressive coalition:

We are not interested in dialogue with you. We are only interested in defeating you, crushing you, politically. We are Americans. As the founding generation envisioned. We don’t know what you are.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

Open Carry Chronicles, Issue #9

In reference to a recent comment by someone who is pro- gun control people control next-Holocaust, who shall remain nameless, discussed at Sean’s place, I present to you…

2012/07/31: While chatting outside IHOP after it closed, the last customer mosey’s on out to her car with her companion and upon seeing what’s on my hip says, “I feel safe,” and, actually doesn’t run away screaming seeking cover. Go figure.

Yet, you-know-who-who-shall-remain-nameless says, “People don’t like seeing openly carried guns in public places.”

So piss off. I carry a gun. Usually openly. Get over it. You are a liar.

Update: Forgot to add: BFY.

Update 2: Stay Dangerous, My Friends