Donations for the Ammo Budget
“Like” me on Facebook
- How Many Concealed Handgun Permits are there in North Carolina?
- Episode 176 – So Long and Thanks for all the Downloads
- GunBlog VarietyCast Radio Episode 175 – ‘Twas the ‘Cast Before Christmas
- GunBlog VarietyCast Radio Episode 174 – What Caliber for Taylor Swift’s Husband?
- GunBlog VarietyCast Radio Episode 173 – Too Many Acronyms
Category Archives: Navel Gazing
I’ve finished my look into HB-650. In order to gather all the posts in to one place, I’ve created an HB-650 Page that you can see on my sidebar in “Important Posts.”
Roberta warned me. I didn’t listen. Stupid me.
When you go debating an anti, you are teaching them. Knock it off! Address their questions and concerns, if you must, on your own blog where they are unlikely to go. In the spaces they control, you’ve got to cut them off at the knees. Don’t touch their asinine points, don’t give them new factiods to miscontrue or practice at framing their hoplophobic, nannying notions. Instead, hit our hard truths — ask them Joe Huffman’s Just One Question, ask why it is they don’t want skinny cheerleaders, grannies and gayboys to be able to fight back when baddies try to beat them up, why a retired African-American man should be denied the right to defend his home and family from thugs. Make them confront their wickedness because the antis are in the wrong; they are against human rights and they empower thug rule, bullies, beatings. And we need to call ’em on it. Every time. Every damn time.
I’m done with japete and Baldr. These two have no intention of changing their anti-gun opinions. They think we are stupid and that they are here to educate us, to bring us into the light. I have deleted them from my RSS feed reader, and I will not be following their comments like I have been previously. I’m done sending them traffic, and it would be nice if everyone else stopped as well. I think it’s time to let them wither away. Japete claims that she writes for an audience larger than us “gun guys.” Well she can see if they can fill up her comments section.
If you are reading this on the blog itself (as opposed to in an RSS Reader, like Google Reader) you may notice a few changes. When I got an influx of readers due to Ashley Smithwick, several people complained that it was difficult to read my hyperlinks as they were purple on a black background. I attempted to change the color of the hyperlinks. Unfortunately, I found that they were purple not because I specified they should be purple, they were purple as an artifact of the cut and paste process from MS Word. I spent all of Saturday rebuilding all my blog posts to get rid of these artifacts. What a pain in the behind. I probably put in about 8 hours of work cleaning up 146 posts. The good news is that I can change the color scheme in any way I like now. I have specified that hyperlinks will now be green, which shows up pretty well against the black background.
Another “problem” that occurred with the sudden influx of Ashley Smithwick readers was my “Popular Posts” gadget suddenly was filled with Ashley Smithwick posts. Prior to the first Ashley post, my most popular post had a little over 5,000 views. The second had about 1200. 4 different Ashley posts were linked by Instapundit. One hit a little over 4000 they rest went over 6000. The highest hit over 15,000. To solve this problem, I have created a gadget that shows all of the Ashley posts in chronological order. I have also updated the “Important Posts” gadget with some more posts I think are of interest. Included in that is a page entirely devoted to my “Laws of North Carolina that need to change” series.
The upshot of all of this is that I haven’t even read my Google Reader feed. I don’t have any real content beyond this explanation of the slightly improved look. So if you have reached the end of your part of the internet, check out my blogroll. All of them have interesting things to say.
A quick note on the color scheme. I cannot control the link colors. It is an artifact of Word. I’ve tried to get Blogger to change the link colors and it refuses to do so. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.
There are many different blogging styles. Some people bombard you with information. Others show you all the cool links. And some (who shall remain linkless) just act like a**holes in your comments hoping that you will follow them back to their blogs and “debate” them. They even go so far as to add “co-bloggers” whose only purpose is to try to dig up information about their rivals and post it. This is the story of one such co-blogger.
For those who know and *love* him, enjoy the following video. Narcissistic jerks don’t make me angry, they just make me laugh. Now you can laugh at him too. Rated PG-13 for language.
JadeGold, Double-O Nothing
I post under my real name. This is my real life. I’m laughting right now.
For those with non Flash Video compliant mobile devices, Click here to watch at YouTube.
Today I was treated to an example of what getting linked by Instapundit’s Glen Reynolds is like. This blog has been open for business for about 2 weeks. At best you, the generous reader, could class me as a third tier gunblogger. I’ve been linked a few times, leading to a few spikes. Today at 8:13 am, Instapundit posted
This links to
at SayUncle.com which refers to
at Joe Huffman’s “View from North Central Idaho.” which links to my post (really, a comment on my post)
here’s the result in graphical form
In order to get to my post and affect my sitemeter, you have to be reading Instapundit and click 3 links in a very specific order. And in the last 24 hours a total of 1,457 people have landed on that post, the VAST majority between 8:13 am and now. Of that 1,272 came through that three link route.
In the comments policies below I have made it clear that MikeB is not permitted to post comments. You may wonder why. You might even wonder who “MikeB” is. Here’s my reasoning for this comment policy:
I am a peaceable armed citizen. I’m not exactly a “law abiding citizen,” because there are unjust laws. One cannot be moral and decent while simultaneously honoring and respecting unjust laws. All the same, most of the time laws are just and should be followed. As an honest citizen, it behooves me to scrupulously avoid the company of the low, unjust, and the plain criminal. MikeB, by his own admission is such a criminal.
To sum up, I did Parris Island Marine Corp training when I was 17, in the summer of 1970. I didn’t have to go to Viet Nam, thank goodness. After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years. I was never passionate about them back then and over the last couple of decades have become strongly anti-gun, especially since I started writing this blog.
People who not only own firearms illegally, but are bold enough to brag about it on the internet are not the sort of people that I want to be associated with. This is entirely separate from the fact that he is a lying, link whoring, anti-rights troll. Rather than rehash it, go here to read about it. I always say that there is no point re-inventing the wheel. Linoge was kind enough to write it all down for us, so read it at his place.
Due to some blog unpleasantness, I offer this email exchange with the person in question
Those are pretty strong words you wrote. Like I said to Breda once, I swear to god you’ve got me all wrong. Did you take Linoge’s word for all that? I know he can be pretty convincing in an overwhelming kinda way.
For example, calling that quote about my having owned guns legally and illegally bragging, where do you get that? It was nothing of the kind. It was an attempt to respond to serious questions on a comment thread ONCE. It was Linoge and Weer’d who took it and ran with it.
You even described yourself as “not exactly a law-abiding citizen” because of the immoral laws. Why do you use such a rigid measuring stick with me? My description of myself could be explained in many ways which don’t make me a “low, unjust, and [the] plain criminal.
Another thing is, do you really want to ban people? Aren’t you opposed to that kind of thing in general? Isn’t that the antithesis of pro-rights philosophy? Please reconsider.
So far you’re the first that I know of who’s banned me even before I ever visited. Now, why don’t you be the first to lift the ban. Make a post about it. It’ll do you good and your readers too.
It is you who have got me all wrong. It is not Linoge’s words that have condemned you, it is your own. You told of how you are(were?) a criminal. I do not permit criminals in my house. You are and will remain unwelcome.
For curiosity’s sake, what did you mean when you described yourself as not really law abiding? Is that not the same as criminal, using your harsh judgment?
The main difference is that, at such time that I feel the law is immoral enough to warrant breaking it, I will do so publicly, daring the government to arrest me. If a man feels that a law is worth breaking, he should have the courage to do so in the same manner as Gandhi or MLKjr. Moral and honest civil disobedience to change a law is honorable behavior. Ignoring the law for one’s own convenience is selfish and
for a person who advocates increased gun regulation, i find it strangely hypocritical that you are proud enough of your lawbreaking past that you tell everyone online. Perhaps you are assuming that since you have no respect for the law, none of the rest of us do either. In that you are very mistaken. It is because I have a respect for the law that I insist that the law be moral and based in the Constitution. When I find that the law is neither, I will work to return the law to its proper foundations.
Thanks for elaborating. I mean it.
Consider something. You have no idea what I did or failed to do in the past. That excerpt from a post of mine was the only time I mentioned that business until months later after being viciously attacked scores of times by some of the pro-gun guys. Then I wrote of it again basically to say I wouldn’t share any more of my past. You just don’t have enough information to conclude that I’m proud of anything, or ashamed of it for that matter.
You can’t possibly think it’s morally right to condemn someone on evidence like that.
You also cannot conclude that I have no respect for the law. I do. The fact that I disagree with you on what the 2nd Amendment means in modern society, like a lot of people do, is not grounds to think I have no respect for the law.
I’m inviting you to separate yourself from the likes of Linoge and Weer’d and Bob S. There are ways to fight for your cause without stooping to their level, examples abound.
I’m sure you’ve looked at my blog, but I invite you to participate there. It’s one of the best discussions around. There are always five or six regular pro gun guys putting up the good fight for your cause. I’d love it if you’d join them. You know how most of the pro-gun blogs don’t like disagreement and argument, they prefer like minded commenters. That’s why I’m blacklisted from so many. And the gun control guys are worse, most don’t allow comments at all, as is continually pointed out. If you don’t want me coming to yours, come to mine. I mean it.
Whatever you decide, I’ve enjoyed chatting with you.
>You can’t possibly think it’s morally right to condemn someone on evidence like that.
Condemn, no. Ban from my house and my blog, yes.
>I’m inviting you to separate yourself from the likes of Linoge and Weer’d and Bob S.
>I’m sure you’ve looked at my blog,
No i haven’t. Like I said, I’ve been around a long while watching you get banned for cause.