BLOODHOUNDBLOG.COM

There’s always something to howl about

Reasons to be cheerful, Part 2.9: Marksmanship is a perfectible praxis.

Take note: If the shit really does hit the fan — which I do not expect to happen — fortune will surely favor the well-prepared mind.

No need to get fancy. Aim for the torso and don’t waste ammo.


Reasons to be cheerful: Defying the specter of ugly fates.

Manifest your own destiny: You say you want a revolution? Yeah, well anyone can piss and moan about how bad everything is. If you want things to change, I’m making a stout effort to show you how to achieve revolutionary change — from the inside out. But your own efforts at self-improvement will bear sweeter fruit sooner if you share what you’re learning with other people who love to live. You’ve never heard anything like this before. Why would you hoard it to yourself?

Related posts:
  • Reasons to be cheerful, part 0.5: Sleeping giants can’t sleep forever.
  • Reasons to be cheerful, Part 2.5: It’s raining soup and all you can do is piss and moan that Big Mother hasn’t given you a free bowl.
  • Reasons to be cheerful, Part 3.1.4: “Get me rewrite!” How to revise the script of your life — writing yourself a happy ending.

  • 23 comments

    23 Comments so far

    1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]

    2. Brian Wilson June 27th, 2010 11:54 pm

      not a big fan of hippies, Greg?

    3. Wine Dog June 28th, 2010 6:10 am

      Greg, really? You just said to shoot that kid? Or did you just say to shoot people who don’t agree with you’re political point of view? The President was elected by people who don’t share you’re point of view. We’re actually coming out of a recession that was created by people who share you’re point of view. Gut check buddy. You’re off the reservation.

    4. Jim Klein June 28th, 2010 6:33 am

      > Greg, really? You just said to shoot that kid?

      My browser didn’t show that. Did I miss something?

      Personally, my guess is that Greg forgot some people are incapable of thinking in principle. If some wild nut comes at you or yours with clear intent to end your existence, what shall you do…call 911?

      > We’re actually coming out of a recession that was created by people who share you’re point of view.

      Good news! This puts you in the running for the most nit-witted comment ever written on the Net. Principle-wise, I mean. Two gargantuan errors in a single sentence is no easy chore.

      And the “actually”…well, that’s just like icing on the cake!

    5. Greg Swann June 28th, 2010 6:58 am

      > not a big fan of hippies, Greg?

      Not a good time to be a fan of cops, is it?

    6. Greg Swann June 28th, 2010 7:11 am

      > You just said to shoot that kid?

      To the contrary. I said that, when a looter like this shows up at your home, if you are not prepared to take his life, he is armed with a mighty trumpet to take yours. On that day, should it come, you’ll find out who you really are.

      > Or did you just say to shoot people who don’t agree with you’re political point of view? The President was elected by people who don’t share you’re point of view.

      This much is fun. You’re looking at a burning cop car in the midst of a riot and you think you see a political debate.

      > We’re actually coming out of a recession that was created by people who share you’re point of view.

      The looter you are seeing here and the looters in New York and Washington are blood brothers. They have nothing in common with my political philosophy. If you doubt this, there is a short summary of my thinking here.

      > Gut check buddy. You’re off the reservation.

      When someone says something you had never before thought to think about, that’s a precious gift. Prove me right, prove me wrong — your mind will be better for it either way.

      Meanwhile, now that you know that it is possible for savages to make war on civilized society while the people you thought were paid to maintain order stand around and do nothing — while their own vehicle is being torched — you might think about putting in some time at the shooting range.

    7. Greg Swann June 28th, 2010 7:39 am

      > If some wild nut comes at you or yours with clear intent to end your existence, what shall you do…call 911?

      There are many more excellent photos of the rioting at The National Post. Mark Styen has been delicious on the stolid inaction of the cops, who, seemingly, only have time to persecute the innocent.

    8. Wine Dog June 28th, 2010 8:15 am

      My father, amongst other things taught me two very important lessons. One was to respect the fierce and mighty power of a firearm. The other was that a motor vehicle was a lethal weapon. Then he taught me to shoot and then he taught me to drive.

      My father would never make an off the cuff remark regarding guns or weapons, and neither would I. The results of his teachings have been a deep respect for the power of a firearm. As far as skill goes, I actually have a friend who thought he was a good shot. After an afternoon with me, he went and got RK surgery. He spent over $5000 for his Italian shotguns. I owned him with the old family Model 12. No need for me to go to the range, although I do from time to time.

      The notion that we need to arm ourselves against enemies unseen is ridiculous. The statistics for an actual successful defense against the improbable attack on our property is miniscule. More likely, the weapon would be used on the homeowner. And sure, call 911. Here they argue with me as to whether or not there is an actual crime in progress. Cut those taxes. Cut those services, then complain about it. My weapons remain unloaded with safety in place. I have more of a fear of the local idiot cops busting down my door and shooting my dogs than anything an actual criminal might do here.

      “This much is fun. You’re looking at a burning cop car in the midst of a riot and you think you see a political debate.”

      A burning Toronto cop car at the G-20 is in fact a political statement, so yeah, that’s how I see it. How did you interpret a cop car burning at the G-20 some other way?

      “The looter you are seeing here and the looters in New York and Washington are blood brothers. They have nothing in common with my political philosophy.”

      This is fun. Did he loot a trumpet? He’s an anarchist. There’s a huge difference. They don’t take anything from anybody. They just make a mess of things. They cause the media to take pictures of them, they destroy property, they hurl things that hurt people and they promote anarchy. They don’t loot, they destroy. Their purpose to destruction. Nothing more.

      We do in fact come from nearly opposite ends of the political spectrum, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for spirited debate and even some common ground. You can trust that all of my work is deeply thought through.

    9. Teri Lussier June 28th, 2010 9:11 am

      >He’s an anarchist. There’s a huge difference. They don’t take anything from anybody. They just make a mess of things. They cause the media to take pictures of them, they destroy property, they hurl things that hurt people and they promote anarchy. They don’t loot, they destroy. Their purpose to destruction. Nothing more.

      But they did loot- steal- and destruction of property that doesn’t belong to you is looting- despoiling, pillaging, plundering- it’s all the same.

      Anarchy can be achieved peacefully, unless we aren’t talking about peaceful people, I suppose. In which case I should have the right to protect myself and my family, my dogs, a few cats, against a violent attack.

    10. Greg Swann June 28th, 2010 9:34 am

      Factually, you’re all wet:

      1. These young idiots are not protesters, they’re rioters and looters (which is not to imply that relatively peaceable scarecrowism — marching around carrying signs and shouting — is somehow a form of rational debate).

      2. They’re not anarchists, they’re the nihilist wing of the communist movement. Their end goal is not a stateless society, but, instead, a totalitarian state over which they imagine that they will be in charge. (They are grievously in error about this; if they are successful in their objectives, they will be exterminated as soon as they’ve worn out their utility to their much-more-murderous masters.)

      > The notion that we need to arm ourselves against enemies unseen is ridiculous.

      The question is, if the shit does hit the fan — and I made a point of saying I don’t think this will happen right now — what will you do when marauders come for your home and family, and not for the electronics and jewelry stores of downtown Toronto? If your answer is different from mine, then, at a minimum, you must expect to be enslaved by a cretin like the one in the photo.

      > I have more of a fear of the local idiot cops busting down my door and shooting my dogs than anything an actual criminal might do here.

      As you can see in the photo, this is a distinction without a difference. If the center does not hold, you will need to be prepared to defend yourself from brigands no matter what costumes they wear.

    11. Wine Dog June 28th, 2010 9:55 am

      I think we’re splitting hairs on language, essentially saying the same thing, calling it something different.

      “As you can see in the photo, this is a distinction without a difference. If the center does not hold, you will need to be prepared to defend yourself from brigands no matter what costumes they wear.”

      Having lived in San Francisco for 15 years and worked there another 5, I’ve seen that photo in real life, really more than anyone should have too. Still, I knew we could find some common ground. I don’t think the brigands will be wearing the expected costume, but we all need to be paying attention.

    12. Jeff Brown June 28th, 2010 1:21 pm

      This comment is aimed at nobody in particular.

      A looter or anything like it will leave much the worse for wear from my home. Don’t think most folk’ll be successful in defending their homes with firearms? Let’s stop using SF as an example and look to serious folks, as in Texas. Wanna die? Break into a Texan’s home at 2 in the morning.

      Those not willing to be prepared to defend their own home/family to the death deserve the predictable consequences.

    13. Teri Lussier June 28th, 2010 5:03 pm

      Today’s Supreme Court decision on Chicago’s gun ban:

      “…The need for defense of self, family and property is most acute in the home. The court found that this right applies to handguns because they are ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to “keep” and use for protection of one’s home and family.’”

      http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/28/US-Supreme-Court-Chicagos-gun-ban-struck-down/UPI-18071277761369/

    14. Brad Coy June 28th, 2010 11:41 pm
    15. Greg Swann June 29th, 2010 7:03 am

      > What if the kid were arrested?

      Beats getting shot. Those punks only pull those stunts because they know the response will be so stupidly passive.

      Amending this: The protesters in Iran last fall were fighting for their lives — with their lives at forfeit. The contrast illustrates the vain conceit of these clownish stunts.

    16. Jim Klein June 29th, 2010 8:50 am

      “I think we’re splitting hairs on language, essentially saying the same thing, calling it something different.”

      That would be your error then. I’m quite sure Greg is talking about the thing, not what we call the thing.

      Though on what we call it, you had one good point IMO. While politically, Greg is right that chaps like this are as far from anarchists as possible, you’re also right that they’re anarchists in one important sense.

      In a social context, there is quite literally nothing ruling this guy. You can look at him and see that! Another way of saying that is, “He is mindless.” That much you’ve got right. So ‘fess up—if a mindless animal charges to attack you, are you really reaching for the phone?

    17. Jeff Brown June 29th, 2010 9:31 am

      Wonder if, without a firearm with which to defend their home and family, they’ll point the phone and yell ‘Bang! Your dead!’

    18. Jim Klein June 29th, 2010 10:30 am

      Apropos of nothing maybe, I used to spend a lot of time in Detroit where it was common knowledge that if you wanted response from 911, you had to say there was a gun involved. Eventually (mid-80s) it got so ridiculous that even that wasn’t enough…the key line was, “There’s a gun present (or shot) and I think there may be a police officer involved.” Suddenly there was no shortage of units and response would be mighty quick.

      I never had to use those lines, but it was SOP and common knowledge on the street. Oh, I could tell some stories about Detroit! What this nation is going through, I’ve already witnessed, albeit on a smaller scale. Now the population of Detroit has declined by well over 50% during my lifetime, but I just can’t figure out where 150 million people are going to go!

    19. DJ Morris June 29th, 2010 2:45 pm

      Too funny…like who really has their clothes burned off them and still holds on to his trumpet while running down the street with a clown head sticking out of his trousers :)?

    20. [...] is too realistic. I say that because of something that Gregg Swan descibes on his blog in his Reasons To Be Cheerful series. His idea seems to be that with as many people wired into each other as we now have, we have [...]

    21. Sean Purcell June 29th, 2010 9:55 pm

      You have all missed the mark widely by discussing this in a political context rather than a commercial one. We are obvioulsy looking at a new ad from United Colors of Benetton…

    22. Tom Johnson June 29th, 2010 10:33 pm

      @ Jim Klein: I just can’t figure out where 150 million people are going to go!

      Jim: They will be put in the FEMA Concentration Camps, of course. It is all part of the Bilderberger world de-population plot. Just ask Sean. His tinfoil hat is much better than mine!

    23. Jim Klein June 30th, 2010 9:12 am

      1935: “They’ll be put into ovens and incinerated.” Pretty crazy, eh?

      The sick part is that Bilderbergers don’t really want de-population. You see, if the production of a human decreases by 50%, then you need twice as many just to stay even. Things change in the human realm; it could come to pass that incineration looks downright humane.

      Sorry, Greg, to write such thoughts at this place, but at least this is the right thread for ‘em, with the right picture leading the way. I mean, doesn’t everyone want to live and work on this guy’s behalf?