It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening — and even if it does, they’re not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid …
No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn’t mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won’t lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn’t think about that one, did ya?
All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.
August 10, 2009
Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia
[My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.
My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.
The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, “Does he think women have infinitely sized guns?” Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:
- Buying a gun now, such as a so called “assault weapon” that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does “immunize” said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
- In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won’t or can’t happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
- The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
- Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us “barrel-strokers with small penises” have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.
What would be funny if it weren’t so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.–Joe]