CHARLESTON SHOOTING… Thoughts on Gun Control

PRESIDENT OBAMA on the Charleston shooting…

 “…once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.”


Once again defenseless victims were methodically shot like fish in a barrel.

Once again it took place in what gun control advocates cynically call a “gun free zone“. Witnesses say the shooter reloaded 5 times. He had nothing to fear.

Once again cynical politicians score political points saying more laws would have stopped it. Because someone out to commit murder, which has been illegal since roughly the dawn of time, is going to be deterred by laws.

People who would laugh if you say unicorns are real are perfectly mollified when politicos pretend making something illegal makes it magically go away. You know, since it worked so well with pot, meth and heroin.

How Liberals Think Gun Free Zones Work
How Liberals Think Gun Free Zones Work


— Strict gun control in France did not prevent the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

— Strict gun control in Australia likely contributed to the success in December of a single nutty cleric with an illegal gun taking an entire cafe in Sydney hostage. [Psst. Try that in a Texas cafe]

— Strict gun control in Norway didn’t deter Andre Brevik from taking 77 human lives.

— Strict gun control in DC has not kept it from having one of the highest murder rates in the country despite reporting virtually the lowest gun ownership.

— Strict gun control has not stopped Chicago from being ground zero for murder in the USA.

Historically mass shooters tend to do one of two things when armed resistance arrives. It does not matter if it is a civilian or police that are armed… the shooter typically either surrenders or he kills himself. No matter how well armed or how much body armor he has, they do not in most cases shoot it out. They are bold ONLY while they are the only one armed.

There may be exceptions, but that is the norm. Gun free zones serve only to give them a less hostile work environment.

OK, but do they MAKE you safer? Some, like “gun free zones”, actually make you LESS safe.

Returning to the American people once again to propose a cure that has actually exacerbated the problem thus far is like a child complaining to the wood shop teacher that he’s sawed this board three times and it’s STILL too short. Not bright.

Don’t be fooled. As always, gun control is NOT about guns. It’s about control.

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

The Case for Pistols at Dawn

My friend Allison posted the update below, which coincides with something I’d been considering.

I will never understand why it’s OK for others to make fun of my beliefs, my political opinions and my ideological heroes when I NEVER do that to them in return out of respect for diversity of thought and the sacredness of personal beliefs. Guess I don’t warrant the same respect. So noted.

I’m thinking one thing that would vastly improve society would be the revival of the now frowned-upon practice of the personal duel as a method of settling points of honor.


Before dismissing it out of hand, think about it. Some smarmy SOB runs out of supercilious arguments to support their latest specious claim and gets angry.

In keeping with current “progressive” policy, instead of conceding facts do not validate their kneejerk preconceptions, they immediately attempt to impugn your motives for rudely introducing “facts” that maliciously refuse to conform to their narrowly tailored world view… So they call you a racist.

Now if what you had said actually WAS racist, ie- predicated on a belief system the underlying assumptions of which involve false negative stereotypes that smear an entire race… Calling you a racist might be the obvious move.

That said, today if you disagree with ANYTHING a so-called progressive says… You are assumed to be racist by dint of the fact their president is bi-racial and a Democrat, therefore any view that is not supportive of his policies, vacation schedule, actions, inactions, or felonious conspiracies to obstruct justice are by definition “racism”.

The nightly dream of the TEA party... or so we're told by the same party that created the KKK and Jim Crow laws.
The nightly dream of the TEA party… or so we’re told by the same party that created the KKK and Jim Crow laws.

It matters not that nothing whatsoever in the conversation involved a racial component… Everything a person on the right says can be considered “dog whistle” racism.

For example, if you say “I disagree with the administration’s practice of selling massive amounts of weapons to Mexican drug lords”… This is, as any good Democrat can tell you, code for “Dear God why did we ever let the damn darkies off the plantations and why can’t we hang them like Jesus intended”.

Granted the “coded” message above has probably not actually been on the mind of anyone to whom it has been ascribed, or at least not in the years since it was essentially the basis of the DNC platform… But it is still the case that if you are anywhere to the right of Caesar Chavez, it’s assumed you pray that prayer each night before retiring to dream of cotton plantations lovingly tended by man-servants with glistening skin who sing in melodious chorus between whippings.

Now, given you probably never had that thought, much less prayed any KKK inspired prayers, you might take exception to being ascribed with such motives. But alas… Hitting a block button simply leaves the slur intact while eliminating the chance of a recurrence on your page.

Wouldn’t society be more polite if, instead, a person that calls you a racist without cause might have to face you the following morning at dawn across a field of honor bearing a single shot pistol at 10 paces and either retract the slander or die? Let’s face it. We all have at least 1 or 2 people in our lives whose overall demeanor would be vastly improved by a carefully aimed musket ball.

Hey… When I’m president we’re making duels legal again. And for the record, if you disagree, you’re just promoting racism. There you have it. I called you a racist. Which is better… Hiding my feed… or meeting me gun in hand at dawn?

C’mon. You KNOW you want to.

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

DOJ decides offending Muslims is against law?

“The future must not belong to those who slander The Prophet” ~ Barack H Obama

For those that missed it, the above quote was spoken by the president of the United States to the UN assembly in the wake of the Benghazi attack. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Granted, it was part of his subterfuge where he claimed the attack on Benghazi was the work of disgruntled movie critics, but it appears his DOJ is trying to go a step further and give the statement the force of  law.

Here’s the report on Judicial Watch:

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.

{continued… }


Seriously, do the guys at DOJ even OWN a copy of the constitution?

poster freedom of expression
What’s the Arabic word for “IRONY”?

Face it… the DOJ can’t unilaterally create a constitutional right for Muslims to never be offended. There’s case law involving other religions that confirms the government cannot tell citizens not to insult a religion.

And what the hell is “inflammatory against Muslims”? Muslims have murdered a boatload of citizens here. Nobody yells “Jesus loves me!” while flying planes into buildings or shooting up unarmed troops, and you don’t see people losing their legs at marathons for the glory of Buddah. On US soil, those actions are almost exclusively confined to Muslim radicals.



Is it now against the law to admit the truth?

Are we going to make it mandatory to follow the administrations candy-ass tactic of calling jihad “workplace violence” or “senseless killings”?

They can attempt to have a chilling affect on free speech if they have the nuts to take the consequences, but the 1st amendment trumps the will of Eric Holder, Barack Obama, or any of their slimy little minions. They start trying to prosecute people for speaking their mind about Islam, they can expect to lose the case AND their job.

And for the record…

Mohammed was a pedophile and Eric Holder is a cockwaffle.

Prosecute that, numbnuts.

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

A Culture of Coddling

I wrote this blog post in response to the following argument against corporal punishment in schools:

Being in a position of authority does not give anyone the right to physically assault me at any time in my life. If you were to physically attack me in any manner you’d be arrested, put in jail and subsequently sued. Battery is a criminal offense and no position of authority puts anyone above the law.

So why would you think that it would be okay to do that to me as a child?

My response follows… it’s long, but if you have the notion the statement above is right, try to wade through my reply (below). I have this suspicion people are too damned willing to accept “a good argument” that agrees with what they feel despite the simple fact that it isn’t born out by results. At some point we really need to notice the facts on the ground don’t support the reason current rules are in place… and many children now feel entitled to act out without repercussion.

Yeah I know… this proves “I’m old”. Sue me. There was a time when we valued experience.


“Rights” are a legal concept. “Assualt” is a legally defined term. 
Our rights in this country are set forth on paper explicitly. Unless something violates those, while you may object, it is not a violation of your “rights”.

Not every form of physical contact of which you disapprove is automatically against the law or constitutes criminally actionable “assualt”. For the first 200 years of our countries existence there was never any suggestion that corporal punishment violated any “rights” or constituted “assault”. It was just the way children were taught not to do things.

Exhibit A:
Meet Texas in the barbarous ’60s and 70’s

As recently as my own childhood (born in ’57) it was standard for principals, coaches and most teachers to use a paddle to enforce rules. Female teachers generally brought in a male teacher with a strong arm, tho some administered their own “licks”. Paddle dimensions were typically 3-4″ across and length typically about 2 1/2 ft.

Preference of wood varied. Shop teachers often crafted the beauties hanging in various teachers offices. Mr Murphy (Science teacher) went high tech, his was 3/8″ plexiglass with holes drilled in it. You could tell who’d been crosswise with Murphy when we dressed in athletics… the distinctive pattern lasted about a week.

“Thank you sir”
Nobody got dragged around by the arm, we knew the standard drill. If we violated the rules we got busted. The coach/principal/dean was judge, jury, and executioner of sentence. Right then, right there, no chance of appeal. If he deemed it necessary, we grabbed our ankles and lick(s) were administered. After which we turned and shook his hand and said “Thank you SIR”. Failure to follow the procedure meant additional licks. Failure to accept the punishment meant expulsion. Girls almost never got licks, they generally got detention instead, but they seldom pushed the limits like teenage boys are prone to.

Things you could get busted for were numerous
It wasnt a litigious group, basically if you did something that was against the rules and got caught, you might get busted. Some teachers/coaches were more prone to that action, and we all knew who would nail us if we did something in their class and planned accordingly. It could be as innocuous as failing to meet the dress code. I was busted for not shaving once in 8th grade, busted for gambling (pitching pennies) during woodshop, various other infractions. You could of course also get it for fighting, mouthing off to a teacher, entering class after the bell, or other breaches.

Yes… it was an evil era, and the violence caused lifelong trauma 
Skinner (my best friend) and I got caught fighting. Hey, he shot me in the face with a high pressure hose, as in “you could put an eye out with that thing”. We were given a choice between licks or “putting on the gloves” to finish it. As licks sucked, and the alternative allowed us to finish what was started, we chose the gloves. FTR, he won when a well placed shot to the solar plexus paralyzed my ability to breathe… can’t swing if you cant breathe. Note to self: Avoid fights with the captain of the football team, especially if he has Golden Gloves experience. A few years later we were “Best Man” at each others weddings. Yeah… violence causes lifelong trauma. Suure. 

More “violence for fun and games”
At one point Mr Bledsoe (a shop teacher) noticed a minor fracture in his paddle. The guys in shop were a macho crew, so he declared a contest. The guys that wanted a shot at owning the instrument of torture that was his beautifully crafted pecan paddle could line up and take a lick each until it broke to the point of requiring replacement. It would be awarded to the guy he broke it on. Nearly everyone in there had been hit with that thing a few times, and we wanted the trophy. Last time I looked it was still in a closet at my mom’s house.

Bottom line, we simply understood that society has rules…
We followed them if we wished to remain in our society. These were NOT love taps, they were “lift your rear in the air and leave a magnificent bruise” hard. I got a boatload of them, as did my friends. It wasnt something we went to mommy and daddy about and asked them to call a lawyer… it was understood that if we didnt follow the rules we’d accept the punishment for that action. Our parents would have thought us daft for whining.

Exhibit B
We had MUCH greater access to weapons in that era 

We all owned firearms and were familiar with their use.

  • – There were NO 5 day waiting periods for purchase,
  • – You could buy firearms by mail,
  • – There were no bans on “assault rifles” or high capacity mags,
  • – The concept of a “gun free school zone” had never been discussed, much less implemented
  • – Every male I knew carried a pocket knife

Also… every male I knew owned one or all of the following… a BB/pellet gun, a .22 rifle, a shotgun (either pump or semi-auto), and a deer rifle… usually in 30-30 or 30-06. You could have held off a regiment with the firearms accessible to the kids in my junior high, and most of us were excellent marksmen.

We occasionally brought them to school and store them in our lockers on days we planned to go hunting after school. Nobody cared. Nobody feared. We were responsible gun owners from childhood and we were accustomed to following the rules of our society. We KNEW there were consequences if we didnt. We were raised that way.

By the reasoning common today… 
It is widely accepted as “fact” that

  • (A) kids treated to corporal punishment are prone to violent misbehavior AND
  • (B) access to guns causes misuse of guns.

Problem is… we had MUCH greater access and virtually zero formal rules about guns, and we were treated with what is in todays terms “violence”. BUT… there were no school shootings in the time I was raised in high schools or under. The only one at University level was at the University of Texas in the 60s. Half of Austin returned fire with deer rifles retrieved from the racks in pickups and then a few armed citizens plus an off-duty cop went up after him and shot him dead.

We had the means and supposedly the motive, why didnt we have school shootings? Why are todays kids that are largely raised without the “violence” the ones who introduced us to “school shootings”?

“Results” trump “a good argument”
In our era there were NO instances like Columbine. In the current “we dont beat kids” society there have been MANY shootings from grade schools thru grad school, despite (if not because of) less corporal punishment and a plethora of gun laws. My generation, clearly raised by means you consider violent… was remarkably LESS prone to react to negative stimulus with extra-judicial lethal force than kids growing up now.

We had far more access to the tools to exercise “a little street justice”… 
…But the concept that we were little princes entitled to break rules and not have a finger laid on us was absolutely foreign. Many kids today are, to be blunt, coddled wimps who think anyone (including parents) that administers physical punishment should be placed behind bars. God help them if they join the military with the expectation mommy and daddy’s lawyer will be of service if they get break rules.

Trust me, kids raised under today’s standards are in for a major education if they enlist in the USMC. I was an officer candidate in the Marine Corps at Quantico VA in the mid 70s… and the stuff everyone is claiming is “torture” in the Brad Manning case is actually far less stringent than the treatment of guys that were upcoming officers living in my squadbay.

Earlier generations were raised with realistic expectations of how life works. But now…

  • Children can’t play dodgeball because it’s just too violent,
  • Can’t be punished without a court order and two lawyers present,
  • Discipline by a parent or teacher could result in the adult being imprisoned,
  • Every child on a sports team gets a trophy regardless of performance,
  • Soccer and t-ball games are played without keeping score to protect their supposedly fragile self-esteem.

If this crap really worked, explain why school shootings came with this principle and was noticeably absent before it. If the “logic” supporting the current ideas were sound, it’d be the other way around. People that believe the current methods work need to quit telling us about the labor pains if they can’t show us the damned baby.