Gun Free Zone

In the previews, you see the journalists interacting with different people involved in the civil war and allegedly making it all the way through.

I my opinion, this is echoing movies like Salvador and Under Fire and not based on the reality that journalists are now seen as propagandists for the government, no better than Tokio Rose or Hanoi Hanna.

And they would be summarily executed on the spot.

“Hi! We are Journalists covering….”

[BANG]

The End

(roll credits)

“I am not convinced voting will matter in this election. But if in fact the win is too big too rig…it will still just slow the slide into tyranny we’re experiencing. The only thing that will actually reverse any of this, thanks to the uniparty in DC, involves the tactical and strategic application of rooftop voting.”

James Tarr.

The moment people feel voting is irrelevant will be the day we are done with this phase of the USA. After that, it will become a place where the Political Scum under the covering of legality will impose their will upon the Citizens as it was done in Venezuela with the consequences we all have seen.

But there is only one difference: We can reply “Fuck you” at 150 grains doing 2,500 feet per second.

A lot of times.

There is something known as the snowball effect.

Back in the day with Glocks, we had the infamous Glock-leg and Glock-kB.

But one story hits the news, people see it, people report their similar experiences, that becomes news, and the whole situation snowballs.

The SIG P320 and accidental discharges are the same thing.

One story makes two, which makes ten, which makes a public opinion bases on perception and not reality.

Let’s look at two recent examples:

I guarantee you that “extensive firearms experience as a gun owner” meant he carried a J-frame in his pocket for 30 years without a holster and it never went off.

He switched to a P320, did the sane careless handling, and shot himself.

Because he never shot himself with his J-frame, it must be the gun and not him being a jackass.

Example number two:

Officer’s gun that fired inside Massachusetts school is latest Sig Sauer incident

A veteran Cambridge, Mass. police officer’s gun discharged inside of a public school staff bathroom earlier this week, the latest instance of a Sig Sauer P320 pistol allegedly firing without an intentional trigger pull.

Cambridge Police confirmed this is the fourth time a P320 pistol unexpectedly discharged since the force adopted the gun as its duty weapon in 2018. The department said it is investigating the incident.

On Tuesday, Cambridge Officer Frank Greenidge was inside a staff bathroom at Rindge and Latin High School, when, according to a department spokesperson, he “removed his department issued firearm from its holster and it unintentionally discharged. There were no injuries and the school day continued uninterrupted.”

Another cop.

Officer Greenidge went to take a dump, drew his gun, and it went off.

Who wants to bet Officer Greenidge isn’t a gun guy, and butterfingered the trigger?

But he knows other cops have complained about their P320s so is blaming the gun instead of accepting that he’s an idiot and a reprimand.

That’s the way these stories go.

Buy a holster, don’t touch it, and ignore the media.

If you missed it (you probably did), Right-wing social media was buzzing about Michael Knowles interviewing Nala Ray.

"$9 Million on OnlyFans & God Saved Me" | Michael & Nala Ray pic.twitter.com/kPP2eCm12Y

— The Michael Knowles Show (@MKnowlesShow) April 6, 2024

The Christian Right on Twitter, by-and-large loves this girl and her testimony.

I’m have doubts.

I’m not a Christian.

We Jews do not believe in salvation. That is not a Jewish principle.

We believe in atonement. One must atone for their sins. Part of atonement is making right and reforming previous behavior.

So I watch this interview and this is my take-away.

This girl made $9 million doing hardcore pornography on OnlyFans and builds up a huge follower base.

She finds a man, falls in love, want to get married.

She finds Jesus, prays, and is saved.

She quits OnlyFans.

She transitions to making softcore content of her in scantily clad costumes and athletic clothing and calls it cosplay and fitness influencer content.

She starts making money with Christian influencer content.

She doesn’t give away her $9M from OnlyFans, she doesn’t reject her followers.

She doesn’t do good works, build church, fund missionaries, help Christian hospitals, etc.

She found Jesus and a sports bra and did substantially change her life.

Social media tells me I can’t judge her. Her sin has been washed away.

Didn’t Jesus save Mary Magdalene, who was a prostitute?

Yes, but I don’t remember in my Episcopalian high school days, learning that Mary went back to being a prostitute after becoming a follower of Jesus.

Nala Ray’s transformation looks like a grift to me.

She gave up hardcore for a husband and parlayed making money off incels to making money off Christians.

I remember from the history books when the Medieval Catholic Church would require people seeking forgiveness to fast for 40 days and take a vow of poverty.

At least make her buy a planetary indulgence for $9,000,001.

Make her demonstrate an act of contrition.

Thus just feels like a grift and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it that way.

I’ll admit, I don’t know salvation, but I do know atonement, and nothing I’ve seen her do looks like atonement.

There is a style of communication called “mitigated speech”. I learned about it by watching a video by Malcolm Gladwell giving a speech about his book Outliers.

It comes about when somebody uses language that is designed to not offend, rather than to say things clearly.

One of the examples given, was of a co-pilot at Washington National Airport saying to the pilot something like, “Wow, there is sure a lot of ice coming down.”

The pilot, busy with pre-takeoff work load, replied, “yeah, it’s nasty out there.” and then proceeded with the checklist.

The co-pilot waited a little bit and asked, “I wonder if we should think about getting de-iced?”

The pilot didn’t do anything. A few minutes later, they were at take off speed, they rotated, came off the ground, and a few minutes later crashed into the Potomac River.

The co-pilot was using mitigated language. Instead of saying it clearly, such as, “I’m seeing ice build up on the wings. We should wait for de-icing”, he instead said things that did not make it sound like he was attempting to override the pilot’s authority.

Mitigated speech is also used when a person is afraid of the consequences of making a decision.

If you say, “I’m hungry.” You haven’t given a hint, you haven’t questioned anybody. You’ve “just” made a statement. In an environment which is trained to understand mitigated speech, this is a command to make dinner.

When somebody who is autistic, who is used to attempting clear communications, with a formalized response, “I’m hungry.” or “What’s for dinner?” are a simple statement or a simple question. They are not commands.

In the same way, if I hear those things, I am likely to acknowledge the statement and answer the question, I’m not going to take them as commands.

My wife used to use mitigated language, ALL, THE, TIME. It led to significant stress in our relationship.

I showed her the video, she asked me, “Why didn’t the pilot just do the de-icing?” I responded, “Why didn’t the co-pilot just say it clearly?”

She got it.

She has been working diligently to stop using mitigating speech. For her, that mitigating speech was pure protection. She could honestly say, “I never said that.” and be correct. If she said something and I read it correctly but was unhappy, she “never said it”. If I didn’t do it, I “wasn’t listening to her”.

It was amazingly safe and comfortable for her.

We are more balanced today. She’s put in the most effort. I listen for that mitigating speech and turn it into concrete speech with verification. Both of us put in an effort.

When It All Breaks.

A few years ago, my wife’s best friend realized that her husband had dementia. He went from the person in charge to having difficulties functioning. This hits me hard because of my mother and father.

My wife reached out, told her friend that she was there for her. My wife works constantly, but she was sending texts and messages to try to stay in touch. She offered help and had it turned down.

Today, my wife got a long text message from her friend. My wife was accused of being a horrible person, a horrible friend, a horrible mother. She was accused of not caring because she hadn’t brought dinners over. That she hadn’t stopped in.

It was mitigated speech that did this.

My wife was sending texts. Her friend wasn’t responding. In her friends “mitigation codebook,” it said, “not answering a series of text messages is a request for a visit.” Chapter IX, Section A, subsection g, paragraph 17. Right?

My wife didn’t have the same codebook, her codebook said, “not answering a text is an indication of being busy.”

She assumed her friend was just too busy to make time to text or message with her. And since she had made multiple offers to help with no response that wasn’t negative, she had done all she could and all her friend could accept.

I gave my wife some guidance on language. Sent her over to her friend’s house. It worked. My wife came back with things to do for her friend. Which she was happy to do.

Kids got tasked to help out the friend, little things, like my 18yo boy collecting and taking the garbage out to the curb for her. Cost my son 7.25 minutes, I timed him.

Dementia is horrible

My wife was barely back home from shopping, including picking up stuff for her friend, when her friend called with an Emergency.

My wife was off like a shot.

It appears that her friend’s husband had “taken a handful of sleeping pills”. Wife got there, evaluated, called 911.

Police, EMT, Rescue all rolled on the code. The husband survived. He did answer to in the affirmative for wanting to kill himself.

I’m a little upset that he didn’t get a 72hr hold, but he’s still at home. Friend is still dealing with him. But at least my wife knows what is expected of her. The kids know what is expected of them.

Conclusion

I’m proud of my wife. When she received that first message, she broke. She went defensive. But with very little coaching, she turned it around, recognized that it was a plea for help. And was there for her friend.

For me, I have to make the time to call my father, every Monday. He needs that contact. I want to support him. I do not want him to feel alone.

For the rest of you, take the time to say “I love you” to those that you love. You might lose them, you don’t want to ever regret the last thing you say to a loved one.

A bill to require public schools in Tennessee to teach children age-appropriate firearms safety concepts as early as pre-kindergarten is headed toward a vote on the House floor, after advancing through a committee Tuesday morning.

If passed, House Bill 2882 would require public schools to provide students with mandatory “age-appropriate and grade-appropriate” training, beginning in the 2025-2026 school year.

Live ammunition, live fire, and live firearms would be prohibited.

Required training would include instruction on:

Safe storage of firearms;
Safety relating to firearms;
How to avoid injury if a student finds a firearm;
Never to touch a found firearm; and
To immediately notify an adult of the location of a found firearm.

‘Age-appropriate’ gun safety training bill for students advances in TN (tennessean.com)

This sound logical, right? And you as an observant reader, already figured out that it sounds very similar to the effective Eddie Eagle program.  Hey, if we are trying to avoid kids from getting hurt, we do what works even if it tastes like crap, right?

The bill passed the House Education Instruction Committee in a vote of 12-3 on Tuesday morning, primarily on party lines. Rep. Ronnie Glynn, D-Clarksville, who is an U.S. Army veteran, broke with his party and voted for the measure. It has not yet moved in the Senate.

Three Democrats voted against teaching kids to be safe. The reason?

The bill drew sharp criticism from Democrats on the committee, who argued that parents should have the opportunity to opt their children out of the training, and that the training could be insensitive to students who have had past or familial experiences with gun violence.
…
Rep. Vincent Dixie, D-Nashville, argued that parents should have the opportunity to opt out their child from the training.

Ignorance will lead to children’s deaths and that makes for political opportunities and cash influx under the fake promise of “fixing gun violence.”