Is It Wrong to Criticize Good Intentions?

I’ve heard this particular criticism in more than a few quarters, and not just in regards to Appleseed:

The arrogance of thinking that any program that does not teach the way you do is “out of line” is just so bizarre, it is hard to fathom. Especially when we have such a high rate of success and happiness with the program.

I might poke fun at the people who are saying that Appleseed is a black helicopter program and is painfull,.. ouch!, or that we are fanatical and scary…or that we are not doing it right because we are not using their methods, but;

I would never diss another program for getting new shooters on the line, telling them about the history of their country and letting them know they are needed to help spread the 2A rights message.

How is this wrong by any stretch of the imagination? One or two guys maybe not completely thrilled, out of forty , with the rest really happy about their new rifle skills and willing to join in and defend the 2Amendment. This is a bad thing?

It’s not that there’s only one, true way to teach.  In fact, the vibe I initially got from Appleseed was quite a lot of the “one true way.”  That’s not what I’m saying at all.  But I am saying that it takes more than good intentions.  My original criticism centered around my initial belief that Appleseed was for newbie shooters.  A lot of people came on to tell me that I was wrong in this impression, and that it was intended for people who’ve already had exposure to firearms and the gun culture.  Fair enough.  But then I see people saying stuff like this:

For the host to say this is not for beginners is sadly laughable.  After half a day of instruction, my nephew is shooting in sitting position and scoring all shots on the 300 yard prone target, when he accidentally shot the wrong one.

I have no doubt that many will benefit from learning marksmanship.  But is it for newbie shooters, or for novice shooters that already have exposure to guns?  That’s a pretty key question.  If it’s for the latter, then a strenuous program I think is fine, but if it’s for the former, then I return to many of my original criticisms. I am not criticizing just for the sake of criticizing, or because I want to trivialize people’s hard work.  The ideas behind Appleseed; getting people into shooting, teaching marksmanship, and teaching history, are all worthwhile endeavors.  I don’t question the intention or the value of what’s behind it.  But I think results are more important than intentions.  I’m open to the idea that Appleseed is delivering those, but I don’t think that’s above question, nor above criticism. Does Appleseed hand out surveys to participants to gauge how they felt about the various aspects of the program, along with asking for suggestions on how it might possibly be improved?  If I were running a program, whether for newbie, novice, or expert shooters, I would certainly want this kind of feedback.  If that’s not being done, what would be the objection to doing it?

Getting new people into the community is vitally important.  Arguably the most important thing we can do.  I don’t blame anyone for wanting to get involved in something like that, and applaud them for doing so.  But I think it’s so important that those doing so be open to criticism and suggestion from the broader community, because ultimately this issue is about a lot more than just Appleseed, and it’s certainly about a lot more than “Fred”.  If we’re failing in a key aspect of outreach, we all suffer for that.  It’s important, critically important, to get it right.

What Makes Me Skeptical

I know I mentioned before I’d reserve judgment on Appleseed until I had actually been one.  After reading chatter over on their forum, I am reconsidering that.  I do not wish to paint all Appleseed participants and instructors with this same brush.  I’m sure many of them, like this gentlemen, are fine instructors, who really do want to help bring more people into the shooting culture.  I do not question the basic premise of Appleseed.   But I do question things like this:

These people sound like yuppies just chatting, nothing about them says anything to me about them having any credentials for having a radio talk show other than they just happen to have one. And where is their work on any kind of 2A program? Geeze, I have never seen more “If it didn’t originate here, it is no good” than these guys on blogs/talks.

And how about this one from a forum administrator:

Well well well.

Haven’t even been to one and are dissing it?  How Jr. High.

Typical of amerika today, where everything is a 15 second soundbite and too many folks think that fame can be found sitting in their underwear in front of a computer screen in their mama’s basement.  Not hearnig the “show”, I shall reserve full judgement until later.

For now though, I hope that they get to an Appleseed soon, ID themselves (although we should know them by the pastey white skin and the fact that they are still wearing just underwear!  LOL!), and give it an honest try for a weekend our way.  One would think that since they are conservative they would want to do a good job of reporting by getting the whole story instead of making it up like what happens on T.V.

Or they can continue being jut like all the other empty heads out there spouting off oppinoins as fact and losing crediblity among all but those whom also sit in their underwear in their mama’s basement.

And quite frankly, they can have them folks.

Will listen tonight.

Or this one:

Breda was the only one that was not “high”, and it showed.  It is a tough deal to have a first timer, with the fire hose just removed, to do justice to the program.  It does give us some perspective on how better to prepare folks to speak about Appleseed.   I think if I can find a “supplier”, I may get high and see if I understand what they were saying.

Now, Chris Byrne, who has actually been to an Appleseed, and knows his shit, I think presented a fair and balanced view of the program.  What I’m seeing is a lot of people who are unable to accept valid criticism and input, and that sets off alarm bells.  These aren’t the people I want representing the gun culture.  I have one basic litmus test for determining whether a person or organization is the kind of person I want to work with or not: Are you looking for allies, or are you looking for heretics?  When I get a whiff of the latter, alarm bells go off, and my skepticism get raised.  In grass roots movements, you’re always going to have some people trying to root out heretics, but how the organization deals with those types of folks says a lot about it.  Is Appleseed willing to deal with those who can’t deal with criticism?  Are they willing to weed through their own garden?  These are the major questions I have.

Bad News for Barack

Most Americans disagree with him on guns.  That’s bad news for the Brady Campaign too.  Of course, it’s amazing how much a difference asking the right question could make.  Let’s look:

Question Asked How Brady Would Have Asked
“Do you support or oppose legislation to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting?” “Do you support or oppose legislation to ban armor piercing cop killer bullets that can shoot down airplanes and destroy armored vehicles?”
“Do you agree or disagree that you have the right to use deadly force as a means of self-defense in your home, without having to retreat?” “Do you agree or disagree that guns in the home should be restricted to save the lives of children?”

Americans answered 77% that they’d oppose a ban on most hunting and sporting ammunition, which is to say most ammunition. 88% of Americans believe they have a right to use deadly force in home defense without having to retreat. Sorry Obama and Brady folks, most Americans just don’t agree with you when you ask the question the right way.

More on Endorsements

Some of you might remember the post I did last week asking some questions about endorsements in the Altmire/Hart race in Pennsylvania’s fourth congressional district.  I received a response from Kim Stolfer, who heads up FOAC.  Kim has given me the green light to publish his response, which  will do so in its entirety.  It’s rather long, so I’ll put it beneath a “more” link below.  I encourage everyone to read.

Continue reading “More on Endorsements”

Why is the Philadelphia Daily News …

… even wasting ink printing nonsense like this:

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness – and hopelessness!

As SayUncle said, “And gun nuts are the crazy ones?” Up until now, I’ve thought the media wants Obama to win badly, but seeing how unhinged they’ve gotten lately, I’m left to wonder if they want him to go down in flames.  Might make for better headlines.

Blue Dog Support of Obama

Bitter talks about how far Blue Dogs should go in their support of Obama.  I agree with her that Schweitzer and Tester are actively trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Montana gun owners in covering up Obama’s awful record on gun rights:

The only really blatant examples of number four that I’ve seen have been in Montana. I don’t know why that is, unless Obama is really making a play for that state. I hope that the voters there will make sure to remember these false claims about Obama being fine with guns when his ATF starts closing down more of their gun dealers and he requests a gun ban on his desk after the first shooting with national attention. When the Blue Dogs start actively lying to their constituents over something as well documented as Obama’s anti-gun record of public statements and policy ideas, it’s time for them to go. They are no longer working to serve the voters who put them there.

That’s pretty much the skinny of it.  I hope NRA will think about this when it comes to endorsement time.

Progressive Misogyny

They don’t call them the nutroots for nothing.  The lefty blogosphere has come absolutely unhinged since Sarah Palin was selected as the Vice Presidential pick.  Even other Democrats are noticing it:

A woman enters the presidential race and suddenly the progressive mission is to shame and mortify Sarah Palin, her children, her husband, and every woman who has ever found herself in a similar situation. And then no one will ever vote for Sarah Palin again because she’s a slut!?!?

I agree, it’s pretty atrocious.  And now the focus is shifting to Bristol Palin, and her pregnancy.  Rightwingprof has a lot more.  I also like this comment at TGW:

It really does get better. The “evidence” being trotted out for the pregnancy coverup is a family photo in which teenage Bristol is less than anorexically thin. “She’s got a pouch! Look at the hooters on that girl!” they scream.

Fellas? I’ve been pregnant and that’s not a pregnancy belly. It’s a normal female body. It’s obviously been a while since those internet-porn wankers have seen one.

Yep.