Rape Tips from Caring Liberals

Man, did they all show up in a clown car this week or what?
This week liberals have been falling all over themselves to provide advice for women in danger of being assaulted… and of course it doesn’t involve shooting the rapist. After all, the majority of people jailed for violent crimes are Democrats, and we wouldn’t want to harm the voting base.

Here are a few samples of safety advice from the Lib world.

Uncle Joe shares the advice that has kept him from getting raped all these years
Uncle Joe shares the technique that has kept him from getting raped all these years

-1- Joe Biden – Fire a double barrel shotgun into the air, twice

Joe would be a really funny guy if not for the fact he is literally a heartbeat from being the president of the USA. When he speaks you can almost here the calliope playing in the background. Here was his shared wisdom.

Mr. Biden said he told his wife:
“Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you, whoever’s coming in is not going to.”

We won’t go into where the woman is supposed to post herself if she lives in a 1-story house, or how many people die from celebratory gunfire aimed randomly into the air.

It’d also be pedantic to pick on the fact that he also said the woman would find a 12 gauge shotgun “easier to fire” than an AR-15. [I’m guessing he isn’t well versed on the fact that a 12 gauge (he did specify) kicks like a freakin’ mule.]

Let’s focus on the fact that if you fire a double barrel twice, YOU JUST UNLOADED THE GUN. Wasn’t Joe the one telling us we need to get rid of high capacity mags so people with a gun could be subdued while reloading?

If I were Jill, I’d wonder how much insurance he took out before giving that advice.

——————-

-2- Dem Rep. Joe Salazar of Co – Rape whistles, safe zones and call boxes
Mr Salazar was afraid women just aren’t smart enough to determine when they are really in danger, and this determination was best left to professionals. 

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” said Salazar. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be…”

So Joe favors safe zones (like Columbine, Sandy Hook, et al), rape whistles, and of course the call box so determinations can be made by the police. You know, like the guys that opened fire on TWO pickups that didn’t contain the bad guys last week as noted in my prior post. They have the shoot / don’t shoot thing down pat, and you ALWAYS have a call box in reach, and police can ALWAYS show up the second you call. Right?

Joe should be given a rape whistle and made to walk through the south side of Chicago, with his wife and children. That’d be educational.

——————-

-3- Co State Sen Jesse Ulibarri – Girls could carry ink pens (yeah, really)
While talking at U of CO, Jess didn’t want the girls armed. He pointed out that Gabby Giffords shooter was subdued by unarmed citizens.

“When Congressman [Gabrielle] Giffords was shot and there was a shooting in an Arizona supermarket, people who were unarmed took that person down when he stopped to reload,” said Mr. Ulibarri on Jan. 28.

“There are other ways to address violence and it doesn’t mean we have our kids exposed to a whole crossfire of multiple folks in a room shooting simultaneously,” he continued. “Congressman Giffords’ life was saved and so many others’ when very valiant folks stood up to defend themselves and protect themselves, and they did it with ballpoint pens.”

So here’s the deal, girls. First (and this is important), make sure he misses you with HIS gun, until it is empty. Then, proceed to subdue him in hand-to-hand combat using a ballpoint pen. Got it?

If he is afraid of a “crossfire” when you armed a student, then he IS assuming the bad guy has a gun, right? Maybe he’d like to put his wife or daughter up against an armed violent rapist to demonstrate. Of course, he’d need to show them his personal technique first.

Or maybe we could just set his family on the road in south Chicago about 5 minutes behind Joe Salazar. Don’t worry, we’ll give you a Bic Click to protect yourself with. Moron.

—————-

4- University of Colorado advice – Puke / defecate/ fake VD or menstruation
Ahhh, the ever-popular Ferris Buehler’s Day Off defense. “I have a scorching case of Herpes”. Yeah, that’ll fool ’em, especially after you announced publicly that girls should say it.

As for the other self-soiling methods… for those that don’t read the papers, they don’t generally do anything. Plenty of rape victim reports dismiss this as being effective.

Seriously, you dweebs… have you know respect for women?
Women are every bit as capable of training with and operating a handgun as men. More capable if we consider recent spray and pray shootings by the NYPD (took out 8 civilians to get the shooter) or the LAPD (40 shots fired at the wrong women, both were merely wounded). I think we can safely dismiss this BS that ONLY police can handle firearms due to their incredible skill.

You know what IS effective?
A 9mm jacketed hollow point to the center of the guy’s chest, followed by one to his skull. It has the added benefit that it not only stops that attack, there is a 0% instance of recidivism afterward.

But don’t take my word for it. Think about placing your wife or daughter alone in the park where a rapist with herpes has recently struck. Let me know if you want her armed with…

  • a rape whistle
  • a phone
  • an ink pen
  • an empty shotgun
  • advice to shit herself if attacked
  • a fully loaded Kimber 1911 in .45 acp

I know which one I’d pick. The last one. If you’re honest with yourself, so would you.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.
I’m Rob Jones… and I approve this message.

“You don’t NEED a {insert firearm} to hunt deer….”

“You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer”
It’s bad enough to see that  in forums and on Facebook, but I understand not everybody pays attention to history. I know the 2nd amendment doesn’t actually pertain to a right to hunt game, but I’ll forgive friends that have been indoctrinated by the media to believe otherwise. That’s curable.

I do NOT however share that spirit of forgiveness when it comes to elected officials. I’ve seen variations on that statement from a lot of them lately. I’d like to think there was a time we held the people to DC to a slim standard of education, at least on the topic of the constitution they take an oath to uphold.

As recently as 1960 a presidential candidate (and soon thereafter, president) was not so misleading (or misled on the issue, and knew exactly why the 2nd amendment was created.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Kennedy, unlike members of his party today, was educated on the constitution. Sadly, that education seems to be in short supply lately.

federalist papersSO… how did he KNOW that… couldn’t he be wrong?
Kennedy was not guessing, nor repeating what he’d heard. When our country was new and the constitution was as yet un-passed… the founding fathers of our country had to explain it to the public in order to get it passed. Lacking radio, TV, or the internet to address the public, they committed the information to documents written to the public, explaining the setup they had created for the country.

The collected documents used to sell the American public on the constitution were written by the same guys that helped create the constitution. The docs are available today in a collection known as The Federalist Papers. EVERY American should read them, and every politician should be tested on the topic before they are allowed to step foot into the House, the Senate, or the White House.

.

Never move a fence until you know why it was put there
The old saying above is not just pithy farmerish-sounding wisdom… it is sage advice. It is important to know why something was put there before you remove it. Our founders were just men, but they thought the process of building a nation through thoroughly. Most were firmly against a standing army, but they mention that should one be established later, and be loyal only to the federal government, it should not be able to exercise tyranny because the public was armed and vastly outnumbered said standing army.

So despite the conventional wisdom of today, people that say the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights is there to protect the others are NOT boorish redneck heathens… they are saying the same thing Kennedy recognized as being the intent of our founders.

But hey, the constitution is a 200 year old piece of paper
If you think the consitution is “outdated”, and today’s society calls for a new guideline where only the military (and everyone that is willing to disobey laws) should be armed, I disagree with you but you have every right to that opinion. That said, you do NOT, absolutely DO NOT… have the right to simply decide we can now forget about the 2nd amendment. Not you, not the men in Congress, not even dear Barrack H Obama.

The only way to remove a portion of the constitution is to amend it. PERIOD
If anyone feels strongly about doing away with the second amendment I encourage them to try and get the appurtenant legislation passed and ratified. Until then, it is the law of the land and it protects my right to bear arms. Lots of luck to you in your effort to get it repealed, but trying to get rid of it any other way is illegal. We are a nation of laws, and under no circumstance need we tolerate attempts to do an end run around the constitution.

So NO, you do NOT need an AR-15 to hunt deer
You also don’t need it to iron a shirt, change a flat tire, or watch TV… but it would be extraordinarily handy in the potential use the 2nd amendment presupposed. If you do not approve of that reason… take it up with the founders.

I'm Rob Jones, and I approve this message.
I’m Rob Jones, and I approve this message.

Open Letter to DC

Sent the following to the Honorable Senator Kaye Bailey Hutchison. I suggest others in DC would benefit from the same letter or one like it, as they appear to be poised to make a huge mistake.

————-
Dear Senator,

Obviously in the wake of recent tragedy we are about to face attempts to restrict the availability of firearms and/or ammunition and possibly other restrictions on the ability of citizens to exercise rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. Said legislation will make anti-gun types feel better while in all likelihood doing nothing to cure the problem, and possibly even exacerbating it.

I believe the biggest fantasy ever foisted on the public was that installing a sign creates a “gun free zone”. As recent shootings prove, it does not. Passing that law made people feel good, but a false sense of security is useless. In fact gun free zones only enable those with intent to do harm to operate in a safer environment without fear of interferance. The presence of one or more individuals with a firearm to counter the threat would have saved lives.

All that said, please inform your colleagues in DC that I and thousands like me are watching, and anyone (I repeat… ANYONE… Regardless of party affiliation) who votes to encroach on our right to keep and bear arms in any way need know this will be a career defining act. It WILL be their last term. There are enough committed gun owners to ensure that outcome.

Our freedoms are not subject to abandonment to create useless feel-good legislation, and anyone that compromises that freedom will discover the meaning of “outta here” at the very next time they attempt to run for office. They will be over politically.

And lest anyone suggest we are selfishly putting our wants and desires ahead of the safety of children, tell them they need to learn from the past. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. And yes, I have defended other’s rights with a firearm before. The people who benefit most from gun control are the criminal element. For them it is workplace safety legislation. I am not in the least interested in keeping criminals safer.

Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely

Rob Jones
————–

Connecticut Shooting Tragedy

My heart goes out to the families affected by the mass killing at an elementary in Connecticut. Sadly I actually heard someone say today “How could a loving God allow such things to happen”.

Blaming God is simply not a conclusion supported by the facts. I’m reminded that we keep passing laws to keep God OUT of schools, and the problem is the lack of his presence, not physically of course, but in the hearts of those that perpetrate such inhumane and horrific acts.

We as a society are  just too wise in our own eyes for our own good. We decided that we are just too smart to believe in God. It was like Santa, we’d outgrown it. The REAL problem must be increased access to weapons that can kill faster than ever before.

For those that are not familiar with firearms… the CURRENT sidearm in use by the United States Marine Corps is the 1911, so named because that was the year it was designed by John Browning. And it wasn’t the first semi-auto, it just happens to be one of the best ever built.

It fires the .45acp cartridge, which has the most effective history of “one stop shots” of any round ever produced. It was used to great effect by WW1 Medal of Honor recipient Corporal Alvin York on the day he took out 7 of 7 advancing German soldiers with his sidearm.

Still in use by the USMC, the 1911 semi-automatic handgun has been around over a century. Remember when it was used in all those school shootings in the 1950's. [Me neither.]
Still in use by the USMC, the 1911 semi-automatic handgun has been around over a century. Remember when it was used in all those school shootings in the 1950’s. [Me neither.]
That weapon has been available to civilians for over 100 years, and is actually deadlier than the Glock carried by the kid that did this shooting.

Semi-autos have been around for a century plus, but the “school shooting” phenomena is a much more recent addition to the landscape.

So maybe the problem is the bad weapons are just more available now?

Again, no. Heck, the Thompson sub-machine gun is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon that fired the same .45acp round as the 1911. It was designed for the military to “clean trenches”. When first available in the early 20th century… it was sold at the local hardware store. It was marketed to farmers as a varmint gun.

Anyone recall school shootings when Thompson submachine guns were available to the general public?
Anyone recall school shootings when Thompson submachine guns were available to the general public?

Yet we had no school shootings in the 1930s.

Basically for roughly a century plus we have had access to deadly repeating firearms that could be used exactly as they were used today. The problem is NOT advanced gun technology. The problem is NOT access to firearms.

The problem IS a society that raises our children without values.  Children are not held accountable for their actions. Telling them NO when they are young is not politically acceptable. Making them show respect for others is not fashionable.

And they are given NOT the time and the love of their parents… but expensive toys that are then allowed to raise them in their parents absence. Who knew Nintendo wasn’t a substitute for parental love and discipline.

Bottom line, our problem is not the weapons. We can’t legislate them out of the hands of those that would have them any more effectively than we made pot disappear by outlawing it. Pot’s been illegal here for over half a century and I could name several guys that are probably smoking it as they read this.

Awful deeds like we saw today will not be fixed by creating more imaginary gun free zones or implementing more gun control laws. The school was ALREADY a gun free zone, and that area of the country has stricter gun control than most. The problem isn’t the hardware, it is the lack of values of those holding it.

Until we recognize the real problem, any solution  we attempt is a waste of time. We owe our kids a better set of values, not a fancier set of toys.

"I'm Rob Jones, and I approve this message."
“I’m Rob Jones, and I approve this message.”

Guns, Browsers, and Consistent Thought

* I’ll keep it short and sweet *
For the millionth time… if you argue the 2nd amendment applies only to single shot muzzle loaders because after all, the founders didn’t have anything more… what argument do you plan to use when you’re told the first amendment doesn’t apply to the internet?

Please. Use the head for more than a hat rack fellas. Don’t undermine your own interests.

I’m Rob Jones… and I approve this message.

Random Thoughts on Memorial Day

Self-Defense
I got an email labeled “Self Defense” this week from my brother-in-law Michael… a Naval Academy grad who served his country two tours in Viet Nam. It started with a narrative of a guy being awakened by intruders in his own home. The man grabbed a shotgun and went out to see who the heck broke into his house and was soon face-to-face with two men in the dark… one wielding some crowbar-like weapon and coming at him.

The homeowner did the only thing he should have done, and let loose with the scattergun inside his own home. Both intruders went down, one died.

I immediately recognized the story as that of Tony Martin when the text turned to discussing how the owner was subsequently vilified in the press and the intruders, both of whom had a criminal history, were treated as lovable rogues who were mistreated by a vengeful old man who snuffed one out in the prime of young manhood and caused irreparable damage to the other by his unconscionable action.

The true story occurred in the UK, where gun laws slowly crept to the point to where there are just not very many legal ways to use them for self-defense. Granted, had the man NOT had the shotgun he’d have been in the news too (as a death statistic most likely), but in the true tale he was sentenced to life in prison.

How Did We Get Here
Slowly. That’s how. It CAN happen in the US too, despite the fact that our 2nd amendment was put there to eliminate the possibility. You cannot read the writings of Thomas Jefferson without agreeing that he felt the 2nd was there to enable us defend ourselves jointly and individually from whatever danger confronted us, including all forms of two-legged predators.

His writings included statements that an armed populace is a hedge against a tyranical government, and that laws disarming citizens only assured criminals of a safer working environment because those that’d break the law to hurt you would certainly break the laws saying they couldnt have firearms… whereas law-abiding citizens would be by definition disarmed under that circumstance.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes….Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting Cesare Beccaria’s of “On Crimes and Punishment”

Yep… TJ was the guy that wrote the statement that is the basis for “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Next time you call the guys in the NRA “gun-nuts”… try to recall they are in rather auspicious company.

Changing Times
Some will say that times have changed and the constitution must change with them. Well, for starters… if you believe that, then try changing the constitution, not writing laws that are in direct contradiction to it. “Shall NOT be infringed” has meaning. If you don’t like that part of the constitution, change it by legal means if you can.

Fine, You can Have a Flintlock ONLY
Gotta love that argument that says the 2nd should only apply to guns in existence at the time the constitution was written. Really? If so, are you prepared to only apply the first amendment to handset type… or would you assume it also covers the internet, newspapers, radio, television, etc…?

Most anti-gun people have to do cerebral contortions worthy of an Olympic gymnast to try to make their arguments seem cogent, but the simple fact is they try to interpret every amendment as broadly as possible UNTIL they talk of the 2nd… then suddenly things are different.

Generational Change
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think those that want stringent gun control are *intentionally* disingenuous… I think they are a product of their times, as I am. I was raised by the WW2 generation. The men that affected my life HAD to carry a gun in their early days and it was the only thing between them and survival.

They knew it only performed on command, they were familiar with it, they knew it was a tool for survival. A huge portion of our country was involved in WW2, and their progeny were raised knowing the value of a firearm in keeping ones life.

NEXT!
The crop of adults coming into the world next were raised not by the guys that saved the world from the Axis powers… but by a generation much of whom spent their formative years dodging the draft and or protesting against it during the Viet Nam era. Their parents mostly did not go to war, they argued about it.

Where my parents grew up in a nation largely rural by nature and gun-friendly by design… the new crew grew up with little positive contact with guns. Guns were what criminals used and police had them to fight criminals. The end. Normal people just didnt own them.

Pardon me for not feeling their pain, but the simple fact is their perceptions that guns are evil do not change my constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In truth they are lucky the rest of us exist, because guys that’d do a home breakin don’t know which house I live in and which one they do.

How Does That Work in Reality?
Test it if you like. Put up a sign on your house that says “gun free zone”. Have a neighbor put up one that says “Protected by Smith and Wesson”. If one of them is gonna be subject to a home invasion… it aint gonna be the second one. People that do that sort of thing prefer NOT to get shot. Just works that way.

Media Influence
The media (whether we’re talking news media or entertainment) is also extremely anti-gun… for reasons we can only guess at. Their story is that it is because they are intellectually superior… though I personally consider Thomas Jefferson a helluvalot smarter than Rosey O’Donnell and her ilk.

If More Guns Cause Crime… Do More Spoons Cause Obesity?
Oddly that particular bastion of anti-gun fervor has her own armed bodyguard, and even if you ignore the hypocrisy (oh, it’s ok if somebody ELSE pulls the trigger to keep you safe) and accept the premise of her arguments about guns… you’d have to also accept that the answer to her obesity issues would be to outlaw spoons.

The effect of a media drenched society in which virtually everyone with an outlet to speak thinks guns are evil is that hordes of impressionable minds are led to believe people like Thomas Jefferson either didnt think firearms were appropriate or else the times have changed and NOW we have the police to protect us.

911 – A Great Way to Find the Victim
Police with any integrity will tell you that they cant possibly protect each and every individual. Most I’ve spoken to have taught their own spouse to fire a gun and have one in their home for self-defense. I’d also posit that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that somehow you think you are clean if you call somebody *else* with a gun to accomplish what is necessary for your own defense.

There’s nothing wrong with calling 911…
But I’d suggest that in a home invasion scenario it’s highest and best use is to get the police there to remove a bleeding criminal from my carpet… not to find my own corpse. It’s my house. If the sumbitch wanted to live he shoulda knocked on the door like everyone else. Sorry, I have no compassion on that score.

You’re just a “gun nut” (aka: My Own Experience)
Actually, I own over a dozen or so, but I have only drawn a gun on a human once in my life. I didnt fire it, but I did convince him not to stab the guy he had on the ground who was helpless and in danger of losing his life. Guns do not always have to be fired to save a life, they’re remarkably effective visual aids, but then stories where somebody *saves* a life without taking one just aren’t newsworthy.

My guess is the guy that was on the ground is happy I had a gun in my car that day, and the attacker that was subsequently arrested after being held at bay (with what he didnt know was an unloaded gun) is probably banging the drum to get handguns outta the clutches of the populace. If you’re anti-gun… remember, so is HE.

Current Issues
The Tony Martin story may have happened in the UK, but it isnt far away here. In the UK, laws restricting guns were passed incrementally over about an 80 year period. Licensing requirements made it easy to ID and confiscate the arms of legitimate owners who would be criminals if they didnt give up their arms when subsequent laws made them illegal. As such I absolutely oppose registration requirements… those only give a government a way to disarm law abiding citizens… and my constitutional rights are only protected by the constitution… not GRANTED by it.

If that sounds like an extreme position… bear in mind it is also a paraphrase of something said by Thomas Jefferson. I’m not the least bit shy in suggesting the architect of many documents building the strongest free nation in the world was smarter than any of the people currently running it.

Memorial Day
Anyway, didnt plan to write a thesis… but those are the thoughts that come to mind on this day when we honor those that’ve donned the uniform to defend our nation and to aid those oppressed. To them I say thank you. Those home safely at peace owe that condition to those that put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf.

God bless each of you, past and present. Thank you for your service.

 

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.
I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.