For those who have not been following this, the story is here.

The stills I’ve seen could be deceptive, and chosen to give a false impression, but it looks like both of them showed carelessness in aiming their weapons. The wife is clearly not ready to absorb a recoil and her trigger finger discipline is terrible. The optics are radioactively bad no matter what your vantage point is, and the Internet has begun making fun of them mercilessly which is unfair.

The protestors are terrorists. Yes they’re protesting. They’re also engaging in terrorism.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

There were a number of different head-counts of these protestor terrorists. I have no way of knowing which ones are accurate and which ones are not. The lowest number I heard was 100 protestor terrorists, and the highest one was 300 protestor terrorists. It’s not a public street. It’s a gated community, and the protestor terrorists smashed through the gate. They had already destroyed property. So gee, I dunno…what would you do?

Half the Internet is saying “That lawyer couple looks ridiculous, I should make the time to practice with my weapon so that if I ever need to use it for that or a similar purpose, I can do a better job. Also, I’ve come around on defunding the police, it’s a terrible, awful, rancid idea and we should drop it like a hot rock.”

The other half is saying “Those two look ridiculous, I’d better never get a gun because if I do the Internet will make fun of me.”

I am deeply concerned about the priorities and the lack of wisdom in that 2nd half. I hope it’s far less than half, and that they don’t own anything worth trashing.

Some days, I am ashamed of the number of weeks, or even months, I allow to slip by without any range time. The way I see my gun, is as a machine I have purchased for an eventuality I hope never happens. It is only one part of an insurance policy and I have a responsibility to provide the other parts. Another part of this policy, just as important as the gun itself, is the practice time. I would not hold a pistol that way; I’ve at least practiced that much. That’s what she should have done. So I hope there are a lot of people in that first group who are going to buy a gun that actually works for them, make sure they have plenty of ammo, and start burning through some of it learning how to actually use the firearm. And everyone who touches a gun needs to learn the four rules of gun safety. There are lots of versions of this list, with the wording only slightly different among them.

1. All guns are always loaded
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it

ThatIsAll.

Nobody actually reads this blog, but as long as it’s been in existence I have struggled to explore the real difference between liberals and normal people. It has not been an entirely fruitless exercise. I’ve noticed — although I am far from the first to do so — that liberals and normal people who seem to be taking different positions about a common thing, and arguing about it, are really arguing about two different things. This suggests that our modern, advanced society is burning off vast, untold reserves of energy essentially talking past each other. The two sides do not see the same things the same way; they don’t do their seeing the same way; they don’t even see the same things. They do not exist in the same world together.

The point of divergence is not where we envision it to be. There are fundamental rules that hold the universe together, stitching in the quilt of space-time, that the liberals do not see.

One of the fundamental concepts they fail to recognize, and perhaps the most important one, is time.

The liberals are no longer toppling just Confederate General statues or slaveholder statues, they’ve taken to toppling a statue of Ulysses Grant, who led the Union to victory over the Confederacy in 1865. I don’t think this has anything to do with slavery anymore.

Perhaps what truly offends them about statues, is time itself. Think about it: Why do we erect statues in the first place? It is so that we remember things throughout the generations; record for posterity. What is the one thing that terrifies liberals?

In their world, there is no time. There is the dark sinful past; there is the present which is no different from the past, since we’re all just so oppressed; there is the glorious revolution that’s always just around the corner. And then there is the bright shining future filled with puppies, unicorns and rainbows. The last of these frightens them more than anything. It would nullify their sense of purpose.

They live out their entire lives, as liberals, on a hairpin turn. The revolution is always tomorrow. If they happen to be doctrinaire liberals for seventy or eighty years, they spend all that time on the bend of the paper clip, constantly waiting for their chains to be unshackled, tomorrow. It must be a terrible existence.

To anyone who sees the whole world the way the Mayfly sees it, toppling a statue must seem natural. It is the ultimate flash-in-the-pan communications medium. A year from now, there won’t be anything there; will anyone remember the statue got toppled? Or that there was a statue there at all? There’s a better than 50/50 chance people will notice things are looking kind of bare in that corner, and start circulating a petition to put up a statue there. It might even be a statue very much like the one that was removed — and they might not even consciously know. Destroying a statue, unlike erecting one, earns zero points for recording for posterity. It’s a today-only thing. It’s not at all like tearing down the Berlin Wall. It simply removes an emblem, which could be restored at any time.

It also earns zero points, as far as communications mediums go, for clarity. Grant-statue destroyers insist they’re still anti-slavery, because Grant owned slaves. Or a slave, or something. We’re supposed to interpret their actions in that light. They think this because they think people observing their actions, are trapped in the same echo chamber they inhabit themselves…which is just a fancy way of noticing they’re not truly communicating. You know, I don’t think so. I think of Grant as a liberator, so I think I’ll look on the destruction of Grant’s statue as a pro-slavery act. It makes more sense to me that way, regardless of whether or not that’s what they intend. They’re doing a crappy job of communicating, why should I help them out by playing my part in the “Oh well, nudge nudge, you know what we mean” game? Uh, no. Grant won the Civil War for the Union Side. In so doing, he ended slavery…you’re destroying his statue…you’re pro-slavery, I think. You mayflies need to learn to communicate better.

I suppose we can quibble back and forth about what you think of slavery, and what I’m supposed to think you think about slavery, but we can draw some reliable inferences about what you think of clarity. You’re against it. You’ve got an agenda that wouldn’t be as popular if it were better understood, and you know this, because if it were not so then you would pick a different medium. The fact that you’re committing property crimes and getting away with it has a lot to do with that real message. I’m pretty sure I don’t like it.

Watching the evening news, I was impressed with the endless repetition of that hackneyed phrase, “mostly peaceful protests.” “Mostly” implies a quantitative analysis. You managed to get hold of all of whatever you are describing (the noun), tested each part of it against the descriptor (the adjective), and you found that greater than 50% of it qualified.

I’m doubting like the dickens that this happened with that hackneyed phrase, “mostly peaceful protests.” Can’t we just drop the b.s. and acknowledge the obvious: Someone in a position of influence would like me, the news consumer, to think of these protests as peaceful — in spite of the evidence in front of my eyes. Other than that, I really don’t have any idea what “peaceful protests, for the most part” actually means…and neither do you.

All we can tell for sure is that they weren’t entirely peaceful. Whoever occupies that position of influence, anticipated that if they didn’t include that word “mostly” they would be called out immediately — because this is a riot. Someone broke something, someone hurt somebody, somebody killed someone, or some combination of those three things.

Call me a bigot if you want but I’m not in favor of that.

Another thing that impressed me, was all the people claiming to be acting to soothe tensions and lower the temperature, right before doing things to aggravate tensions and increase the temperature. My favorite example is having Al Sharpton speak at George Floyd’s funeral…although there are many other examples to be noticed if one merely takes the time to notice. Someone tell me how that’s supposed to defuse tensions. What’s Al Sharpton’s track record for having this palliative effect during these incidents?

In fact, these protests have devolved into nothing more than just that. Emotions are about to blow over!! Here I am, a soothing, peaceful democrat leader or pillar of the community, to make everything peaceful again…(poke poke poke poke poke)

There’s an old saying about pissing on my shoes and then telling me it’s raining. These riots are like pissing on my shoes, expressing great dismay over my befouled shoes, loudly looking forward to a future with clean shoes, announcing “a new round of” shoe pissing, blaming Trump, then inviting some more people from across the country to ride buses in to piss on my shoes.

Then giving them unlimited free lemonade.

I don’t really know what any of this has to DO with Trump, anyway. Other than he’s against it and Biden is for it.

Here I was all set to vote for Joe Biden! Maybe. But, there’s a hitch in the giddy-up there. Even though these are democrat-run shitholes, I know there are real people living in them with hopes and dreams. I don’t like seeing them hurt and killed, their businesses destroyed after they’ve been waiting all this time to reopen from the Chinese Virus lockdowns. So sorry, Mr. Biden, I cannot support this.

Obviously, America has a problem.

Our most densely-populated, most highly-populated, cities are run by people who have bought into this hooey that “protests” have some kind of soothing, palliative effect. People who think that any effort to see to it that “law and order” triumphs at the end of the day, must be racist…a thought which is, in & of itself, racist. The persistent and permeating narrative is that we may have peace and harmony again if, and only if, we “listen to” the “protesters” who are breaking the city.

Entrenched liberals acknowledge the correlation and insist it must exist because of the “prosperity” in these cities. Liberals run the cities, bringing their prosperity which brings the population density which creates problems. Hmmm…it has the whiff of truth about it. It’s as if they got beaten in an argument by a conservative who pointed out exactly that sort of thing in defense of the United States as opposed to other countries, and decided to use that as a defense of New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc….

The problem is that these densely populated, liberal-run metropolises are not on an upswing. They are not thriving. They are festering. They have it in common that their salad days did exist, once, back when conservatives were running things. And then things were comfy and cushy and liberals declared “Hey, I like comfy” and moved in and ruined it.

They are the caveman who arrives for the campfire feast, then poses & postures as if he arrived for the hunt. But you can’t hunt thinking like a lib and you can’t build a mighty city thinking like a lib. They are scavengers, not builders..

These arguments that make liberalism look good and that are most persuasive, have it in common that they confuse creation with destruction. We have all these cities in flames right now, and every single one of them is run by City Breakers, or people who are listening most intently to the City Breakers. They are not City Makers, nor are they listening to anyone who is a City Maker.

How do you go about making a city? Or a mighty, prosperous civilization. You can’t do it thinking like a lib. All the morning news I’m seeing now, even on Fox, is lib-thinking. It’s passive voice. “The city is in crisis!” “Two police officers shot!” The noun got verbed. Nobody actually did anything.

News has become the one product offering most out-of-step with consumer demand. Consumers of news are hungering for active-voice constructs and not getting them. Who is peacefully protesting? Who is rioting and breaking things? Who shot these cops?