Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

Quote of the day—John Prager

Posted on by

With conservatives’ obsession with guns there is no more surefire way to make oneself a god amongst the Teabilly crowd than to lure them in with a smile and an AR-15. On Thursday, Clint Didier, a Tea Party Republican, announced that he will be giving away two Ruger 2300 LC9 pistols and a DB-15 S rifle in an effort to gain support in his bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings. Hastings is just the latest to prey upon conservatives’ paranoid ‘Yer not gonna git mah guns’ attitude. Who else has joined in this new tradition of winning over stupid people with weaponry?

John Prager
June 21, 2014
Death Dealers: Pathetic GOP Candidates Are Giving Away Assault Rifles to Buy Votes
[If the title of the article were actually true then wouldn’t they have to give a select fire rifle to everyone who agreed to vote for them? Or would it be one for each community and they would share it?

The entire article is filled with logical and factual errors. Did you catch the error above where he says “bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings”? I didn’t know you could bid on people. Is Hasting going to be Didier’s slave if he has the winning bid?

Yet he thinks we are the stupid ones. Mr. Prager, Have you ever heard of projection?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ana Marie Cox

Posted on by

Activists such as those at Everytown need to redraw focus away from the infrequent horror of mass shootings and get voters to recognize the daily tragedies of gun violence. A taller order, but just as necessary: make clear that the gun violence is not about violent people with guns – it’s about guns, period.

…

There is no such thing as a neutral position on guns, because there is no such thing as a neutral gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. They are no more neutral than a poison. They can be used for good or ill, but the reason they exist is to hurt someone. In the “bad guy with a gun” versus a “good guy with a gun” scenario, the problem isn’t who’s bad and who’s good, it’s that there is a gun involved, period.

Ana Marie Cox
July 8, 2014
This Is The Real Reason Gun Control Is Failing
[By this logic the police shouldn’t have guns either then because it doesn’t matter if they are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. I have to conclude Cox has some sort of mental disorder to have their thinking this messed up.

In any case don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns away. As well as not letting clearly crazy people possess guns we shouldn’t let crazy people take our guns.—Joe]

A dystopian advocate

Posted on by

Amazing: Let’s nationalize Amazon and Google: Publicly funded technology built Big Tech

It’s mind boggling to read this crap. One of the arguments is that they are spying on people, which he doesn’t like. So putting them under government control is a good idea? Hasn’t this idiot heard of the NSA in the last few months?

It should come as no surprise he wants to destroy the “pioneer fantasy” of gun ownership.

Either he thinks of The Gulag Archipelago as a utopia instead of a dystopia or he is so naïve and/or stupid that he doesn’t realize what he advocates would create those conditions.

Quote of the day—Greasy Tony

Posted on by

The NRA are a bunch of thugs that take idiot’s money and laugh all the way to the bank.

Greasy Tony
July 3, 2014
Comment to What do Gun Control people think of NRA saying media should stop calling barbara shooter a shooter?
[“Greasy Tony” needs to do some research on the NRA and their members. It’s extremely clear his prejudice does not match my rather large sample of both NRA representatives (many women smaller than me) and NRA members. But I doubt anything so suspect as facts would change his mind. His mind almost for certain works at “a different level”.

But it’s good to know what people think of you. It helps prepare you for when they make contact with you or advocate for political action. These are not people with anything more than a tenuous connection to reality and they are bent on your destruction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—2Bill

Posted on by

Ban all semiautomatic weapons and create a national registry of all gun owners. No need to change the second amendment, even though that would be great. We could reduce the number of guns on the street and at the very least force any would be shooter to reload more often.

Let’s start by banning all guns except revolvers, bolt action rifles and breach action shotguns. Then let’s register every gun and require liability insurance for every owner.

This proposal would pass any second amendment challenge and would even satisfy the scrutiny of the Heller decision.

2Bill
June 27, 2014
Comment to 9 signs America’s gun obsession is getting worse
[They either have not read the Heller decision or have a terrible problem with reading comprehension. The proposals would not pass the “common use” test. And even if it were to pass the confiscation efforts would be “problematic”.

Then there is the problem of registration. It’s unknown whether that would pass Constitutional challenges. You can’t be made to register in order to exercise your First Amendment rights and it seems unlikely you can be made to register in order to exercise your Second Amendment rights. The “chilling effect” would be very “pronounced”. Especially after the government just confiscated all the semi-autos.

And the difficulties in registration would be horrific. Getting “registered” for ObamaCare was and is a big mess. Getting people to register themselves and their guns when they don’t want to be registered and want the system to fail would be far more “interesting.” Canada couldn’t make it work and there would be a lot more resistance in this country.

It’s very clear 2Bill has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Pangur-Uaine

Posted on by

The more guns the more killing. The gun culture is mass insanity. “Responsible gun-ownership” is an oxymoron. Any implement specifically designed to kill people is intrinsically evil. Total disarmament could save the species. Shoot the Second Amendment. The Fifth Commandment is right. Killing is wrong. Ban all weapons while we still have a shot at it.

Pangur-Uaine
June 22, 2014
Comment to Gun controversy lost on new shooting stars
[Via Jeff.

Simple solutions from simple minds.

Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Hamilton

Posted on by

SheepTargets

The ultimate example of a complete refusal to confront reality. This is the answer of sheep. “Baaa, baaa, if I lay still and play dead maybe the wolf won’t eat me. I’ll be especially protected by this bright ass orange target thing. Nobody could possible figure out I’m under here.”

It’s not just that our country is becoming so divorced from reality that our solutions to problems have crossed the line to full-on completely mentally retarded, they have become completely and utterly insane.

Greg Hamilton
June 24, 2014
Facebook post about this product supposedly to protect kids from being shot at school.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Peace Lover

Posted on by

BANNING GUNS WILL END CRIME. BAN ALL GUNS FROM EARTH.

Peace Lover
June 24, 2014
Comment to The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tiffany Miller

Posted on by

Most gun owners in this country are rural bumpkins who don’t have any education at all.

Tiffany Miller
June 17, 2014
Comment to Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[This is what they think of you.

Via her Facebook page we have some more insight from our intellectual superior:

Bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance. It looks like someone has a problem with diversity.—Joe]

Abramski

Posted on by

Well, the Supreme Court handed down the Abramski decision. He lost.

On the one hand, it’s not unexpected, and for most of us nothing really changes: straw-man purchases are illegal. But on the other hand, the dissent basically argued that isn’t what the statute passed by congress and signed by the prez actually SAID, and thus that isn’t illegal according to the letter of the law, and trying to interpret legislative intent is a bad way to go about making decisions. The decision could have been worse, but I still wish that it had gone the other way, even if that means congress would likely pass a law in record time to “correct” the situation.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1493

 

Credibility

Posted on by

I was loving every sentence of this article until I came to this one:

Though the hole’s depth is impressive, it’s a small fraction of the distance to the center of the Earth, which is estimated to be nearly 4,000 miles deep.

They lost all credibility with that one sentence.

Quote of the day—Kathy White

Posted on by

YEP>>>RT”@linoge_wotc: Markley’s Law. @JoeHuffman RT @ToConservatives I spoke the truth. #GunFetishClowns #UniteBlue pic.twitter.com/swc978c4HR“

ExplainsAssaultRifles

Kathy White @katbeewhite
Tweeted May 31, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via Linoge.

And Ms. White didn’t even bother to look up Markley’s Law even though it was mentioned in the quote she retweeted. One has to conclude she has crap for brains as well as a fixation on the size of men’s genitals.—Joe]

The irony of Keri L (@ikeriover)

Posted on by

After retweeting this post of mine Keri L (@ikeriover) tweeted this:

 

My post pointed out she was either incapable of comprehensive reading or that she was imagining I wrote something completely different from what I actually did. And she calls me crazy?

Another thread of interest is this:

you can get prosecuted for leaving your children in the car alone, but not if you leave a loaded gun for them to find? #NotOneMore

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@ikeriover Not true in most states. Reckless endangerment laws exist and are used.

— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014

@JoeHuffman actually this is a true story.http://t.co/EE1tzMnJDX

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@JoeHuffman you are a bully & not so surprising with your crazy pro-gun stance. I am sure you ‘quote me” &yourcrazy followers will join in.

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@ikeriover I was referring to the part about not being prosecutable for leaving a loaded gun accessible to kids.

— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014

As part of this same thread she also said, “You are a monster.” But that tweet has been deleted.

These people have mental problems. There is no other explanation.

Update for clarification: In the comments there is some confusion about who said what which led to the confrontation between Keri L. and I. Here is more of the thread:

KeriLTwitterThread

Open letter to Eric Holder

Posted on by

This, from Mike Vanderboegh, is interesting. It represents one of the stated ideas behind the second amendment back in the day– Something about keeping would-be tyrants “in awe”, presenting a force beyond that of any standing army, etc.

I’m not sure what good the letter could do, beyond letting Holder and Company know that we have a fairly good, general idea of what they’re up to, that we’re not all entirely intimidated, blind, cowed, distracted and demoralized. There may be some value in that and there may not, but there it is. I’ve done similar in the past, but I don’t think I’ll be doing it again.

As for the possibility of violence; I do NOT believe that, at this point anyway, Holder and Company are the slightest bit intimidated. Not in the way the author may have intended. I believe it is likely, insofar as I understand the mentality or the occupying identity that drives them, that Holder et al are quite looking forward to violence, that they’ve been getting impatient waiting for it and can’t quite understand why we’re taking so long to get with it (and thus help them fulfill their plans).

It might be more productive to try to convince Holder & Company that they themselves are mere pawns, and that once their role is served and their usefulness expired they’ll be left in the lurch, or squashed like cockroaches, by those they currently serve, but that won’t dawn on them until it’s far too late for them. It almost never does.

And so the value in such letters or postings is, at best, that later on they’ll not be able to say they weren’t warned or didn’t have any choice. In light of THAT, maybe our efforts should include defining for such unfortunates a viable way out.

Crazy talk

Posted on by

I don’t even know what this means:

CsgvNonsense

This is some sort of crazy talk. These people are out of their minds and yet the media listens to them? If anything they should use them as an example of people with mental health issues.

Quote of the day—Scott Martelle

Posted on by

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill.

Scott Martelle
May 28, 2014
You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
[H/T to Sebastian.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns. This is from the Los Angles Times’ Opinion Staff.

He dismisses the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with:

One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns.

He dismisses self-defense with:

Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.

This is even though his cited source, Paul Barrett, says the lower limit on estimated defensive gun use in the U.S. is about 100,000/year which exceeds the murders by a factor of ten.

It is apparently beyond his ability to accept the realities of the Supreme Court ruling that firearm in common use, and handguns in particular are protected. This is in the ruling he linked to! Then after realizing numbers and simple arithmetic are apparently beyond his grasp we could suggest he look to the “success” of banning things which have far less benefit and probably more harm, such as recreational drugs. How did the prohibition of alcohol work out? And the continuing ban of hardcore recreational drugs? Maybe he would like to extend the bans of those things harmful to other things such as tobacco? How does he think that would turn out? We already have a large black market in cigarettes because of the high taxes on them.

But we shouldn’t bother speculating. He obviously has crap for brains and is incapable of extrapolating past the end of his nose.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Janey Rountree

Posted on by

There is no question it will be the smartest, toughest regulation on gun stores in the country. It’s designed to prevent gun trafficking and illegal sales in these stores.

Janey Rountree
Chicago mayor’s deputy chief of staff for public safety
May 28, 2014
Chicago mayor pushes plan requiring all gun sales to be videotaped
[I don’t care what it is “designed to prevent”. I care about results. The city of Chicago could pass a law requiring chastity belts for all women which was “designed to prevent” prostitution and unwanted pregnancy but that doesn’t mean it would achieve the desired goal or be constitutional.

For decades the city banned handguns and yet the cops confiscated about 7,000 guns a year. So how is the plan for videotaping the sales, limiting sales to about 0.5% of the city’s geographic area, and limiting sales to one per month per buyer going to be measurably better than the way gun stores are regulated in the more free states?

If they think it will be so successful then why don’t they place the same restrictions on alcohol and tobacco sales to prevent them from getting in the hands of minors. Or the sales of illegal recreational drugs? Oh, yeah. Those are even more tightly regulated yet any high school dropout can get anything they want within a few minutes, 24/7, from all the “unlicensed” drug dealers.

This law is not “smart”. It’s crap for brains stupid. It’s unconstitutional. And those that voted for it should be prosecuted.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The_One_Pc

Posted on by

The type of gun control we have now doesn’t work. We need to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment.

The_One_Pc
May 24, 2014
Comment to Sheriff: Gunman killed 3 people at home before going on rampage
[If laws aren’t working then those laws need to be repealed. You don’t double down on something you admit isn’t working.

The drug control laws aren’t working either. What does he advise to remedy that problem?

Or how about the laws against people under 21 drinking alcohol? What does he recommend for that?

Even though the guy has crap for brains, don’t let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark O’Mara

Posted on by

Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

Mark O’Mara
May 2, 2014
I’m a gun owner and I want gun control
[“…without fear that it will vanish altogether”! That’s his criteria for the preservation of a specific enumerated right? So as long as you get permission from the government to checkout your single shot .22 rifle once a month at the gun range and use it under close supervision before checking it back your right to keep and bear arms hasn’t been infringed, right?

Let’s test this concept with some other rights:

  • Your right to freedom of speech hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you are given a “free speech zone” a mile from the nearest person that might be offended.
  • Your right freedom of religion hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you tithe 10% to the one government approved church regardless of which of the other two approved religions you more closely align with.
  • Your right to not have government agents quartered in your home hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a month without them.
  • Your right to be free from involuntary servitude hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a week to yourself.

I would like to suggest that O’Mara review the concept of “strict scrutiny” in regards to constitutionally protected rights. But I fear his ability to think rationally has vanished altogether.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Zack Beauchamp

Posted on by

There is no longer any defensible argument for a constitutional right to own a firearm, if there ever was.

Zack Beauchamp
February 20, 2014
Ban the Second Amendment: Imagine the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and try arguing for a constitutional right to gun ownership. You will fail.
[H/T to Kurt Hofmann.

Self defense, one of the easiest ways to argue it to most people is dismissed with:

The second argument in favor of untrammeled gun ownership, a right to self-defense, is equally incoherent. For starters, there’s no reason that, in a civil society, the right to defend yourself implies the right to defend yourself however you’d like. A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others; assuming the absolute right to self-defense constitutes, in Alan Jacobs’ evocative phrasing, “the absolute abandonment of civil society.”

Here you can see some of his incredibly scary mindset. “A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others”. Wow!

It’s that same old prevention instead of punishment argument. In my mind one of the characteristics of a free society is that you are free to make mistake, or be evil, it’s just that you will suffer the consequences of your actions if you do. Except in extreme outlier cases, such as true weapons of mass destruction, the government should not ever be granted the power to prevent ordinary people from doing whatever it is they want to do. In terms of citizen/citizen interaction government power is only granted to punish those that infringe upon the rights of others.

Beauchamp’s mindset is that of one who yearns for an all powerful, all seeing, all protective government. A government with widespread informants which interrogates and tortures people in response to anonymous or torture induced testimony. That is the only way you can even hope to approach a preventive model for citizens hurting others.

Beauchamp should study history rather than yearn for an utopia who’s quest has resulted in the murder of 10’s of millions by their own government in the 20th Century.—Joe]