Aunt Joan Strikes Again!

Joan has been posting a LOT recently. I personally like to read into that a little bit, but I’ll let you make your own observations about that yourself.

Still she just CARES SO MUCH!!!

The November elections are just a few months away.

Great Segue! Yeah in the middle of July I’m always thinking about November too!

As a country, we have decided that our elections will be peaceful transitions of power. So then, what do you think of when you think of armed people at voting booths? I think of Iraq, Afghanistan or another undemocratic country, maybe even during war time with armed military there either to intimidate or to protect the voters.

Well Afghanistan is a Constitutional Republic, and Iraq has a parliamentary government. They may not be the next foreign local that Joan is going to for her pontifications of how awesome other countries are with “Gun Death”, then ironically return to Minnesota to write news stories about degenerates in Minnepolis/St. Paul shooting each other. Still I don’t think this is what you mean by “Undemocratic”, but this is coming from a woman who uses that “First World Nations not at War” line where she calls a bunch of modern societies “Third World” just to suit an agenda.

Also for as much hand wringing Joan is about to do, Elections in this nation ARE peaceful transitions of power. I mean look at the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, it was a MESS, and there were a lot of unhappy people during that transition, but was there violence? Nope, and George Bush even got RE-ELECTED (tho that in most part was the DNC’s fault of nominating John Forbes Kerry, just like the 2012 Election was lost because Willard Romney was just as much a weak candidate), still there was no “BLOOD IN THE STREETS!”.

In America, we can now think of armed and apparently paranoid citizens who believe that something inside of a polling place may be so dangerous that they will need to pull out their loaded guns and shoot. In Alabama, it looks like people can open carry their guns into polling places.

I will defer my response to a great expert in firearms, and really people, the Amazing Kathy Jackson:

Sooner or later, every person new to concealed carry asks this question, sheepishly, of other people they know who carry. “Would you carry a gun to _______?” they ask. The blank can be filled by any number of things. Would you carry a gun when you go camping? Would you carry to your mom’s house? to work? to church? to the movies? to your kids’ Little League games?

The question, earnest as it is, always bemuses me somewhat. You see, I don’t usually carry a gun to anywhere in particular, but I do go places and do things. And I simply carry, wherever I might be.

What I’m getting at is that years ago I made a decision that my default setting would be to carry my gun wherever I went and whatever I was doing. As a result, if I’m ever not carrying, it is because I made a deliberate decision not to do so right then, based upon some specific reason not to do so. So I don’t have to look for reasons why I might want a gun wherever I’m going. I’m taking my gun with me unless I have a good reason not to.

Now this is something anti-gun people simply don’t think about. I used to carry damn near every day of the year. If I wasn’t carrying it was because A) I was at camp where I don’t feel comfortable in securing my gun in my tent for those times when I can’t carry such as swimming, or hate to carry because sleeping in a holster SUCKS, or B) I was sick in bed, so I never got dressed, and part of “Getting Dressed” is putting on a gun.

Now I’m carrying a lot less. Why? Because I could get fired from my job if it was discovered I carry against company policy. I gamed it out when I took the job, and while “I’d rather be fired than dead” is logical, the chances of my gun being discovered by somebody who would report it is VERY small, but a larger risk than actually needing to use it, and that incident might make it impossible for me to find gainful employment again.

Anti-gun people don’t do well thinking about these small numbers. A very small number is something they round down to zero, and just declare that NOBODY EVER needs to carry a gun. Except it isn’t zero. I’m 35 years old, and I have ridden in a car easily 30 full years of my life. I have been in 3 major car accidents, none did I get so much as a scratch or a bruise. One the car my wife (then girlfriend) was driving was hauled to the junkyard. Thankfully even in that accident nobody was hurt, not either of us, not the other driver who wasn’t paying attention and hit us, and also had a severely damaged car. Cars have become REALLY safe, and none of these accidents have I NEEDED my safety belt, nor have any of the times I’ve been driving or riding in a car have I needed any safety features at all.

Do we round down to zero then? I sure don’t, and I don’t know anybody else who does. The chances of me NEEDING a gun are eclipsed by the CONSEQUENCES of me NEEDING the gun and not having it. If you truly need a gun and are unarmed, chances are you’re dead. That’s a pretty big caveat.

But given that I have elected to obey my employers wishes and NOT carry when I work, work is not the only place where I’m disarmed. I’m disarmed traveling TO work, I’m disarmed on my lunch break, I’m disarmed traveling home, I’m disarmed the entire time from when I leave my house to when I return.

Now since I take public transportation to work, I don’t have the option of locking a gun in my car. Of course anti-gun people are against people locking guns in their cars as a way to comply with employer’s wishes as well. That’s why we call them “Anti-Gun”. Still even then I have reservations about locking a gun in what is essentially a glass box that is in itself a hot black market commodity.

Sure I can bolt a lock box under my driver’s seat to secure my gun from a “Smash and Grab”, but what if the criminal up and steals my car?

So yeah, I’ve carried EVERY time I’ve voted since I got my permit. I don’t like the idea of locking my gun in my car, and I often walk to vote. So what big deal does Joan see with this?

As I said in several recent posts, what could possibly go wrong? What if someone has a difference of opinion about their candidate? What if a gun discharged inside? As you know, if you have been reading my blog for a while, this happens fairly frequently- enough to be of concern.

OK well first up polling places and 100 feet from the entrance door are FEDERALLY MANDATED non-partisan areas. There are almost always people outside the polling place campaigning for their favorite person or referendum issue, but they can’t be within 100 feet of the door, and certainly not INSIDE the polling place. Because of this I’ve found polling places to be about as quiet and calm a place to ever exist. The volunteers perform their duties, and nothing more, and the people voting get in, get their ballot, cast their vote, and get out. So Joan’s first fear is already protected against, even if nobody is armed.

Further she claims that somehow accidents are wide spread, except she links a partisan blog that has nothing to do with people carrying guns to vote.

Oh and you know what I see EVERY time I vote? An Armed Police officer guarding the ballot box and overseeing the conduct of the people in the polling place. What about that gun? Of course police sidearms are different BECAUSE they are different!

Also there’s this crap!

You’ve just got to “love” that last statement. So now private property owners can’t stop people from coming inside with loaded guns because someone has a right to carry a gun? What has gone wrong with the American gun culture?

This is pure stupidity! If you open your private facility to being a polling place you are surrendering most of your rights. My local place is a private building, I’ve also voted in fire stations and Private University facilities. All of these locations can close their door to me…except when I’m voting. Also the private places can hold political rallies and post campaign signs…except when they are a polling place. To say that somehow they have a right to disarm people who are legally armed on “private property rights” while being a public polling place is pretty irrational.

Speaking of irrational:

America’s elections happen peacefully, at least so far. New leaders are chosen without guns. This is a minority of Americans who have managed to convince elected leaders that their rights are more important that the right of the rest of us not to be shot or to have people with loaded guns everywhere we go.

Here’s a common activist bit of non-logic. When a new law is proposed or goes into place they pretend like it is the ONLY place in the world that this happens. Sorry Joan, making it a crime to carry in a polling place is the rarity, not the other way around. We don’t have people getting shot in polling places, and we don’t have violent uprisings disrupting elections.

This is the anti-gun equivalence to George Wallace’s famous speech.

Old George (A Democrat, much like Joan) couldn’t STAND to have blacks treated as equal citizens, yet most of the country was doing just that. Joan is as much of a bigot and a political dinosaur as that monster, Wallace.