Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Insanity defense

Posted on by

As I understand it a person charged with a crime can plead legal insanity if at the time of the crime they lacked the mental capacity to determine that what they were doing was illegal.

I keep wondering if the Joyce Foundation allows a plea of that type with the people who spend their money. Some of the things the anti-gun people have been saying and doing lately is just nuts.

Of course if the parallel to our legal system were to remain true they would still be required to spend time in a mental hospital and that isn’t going to happen. A more likely result is that once the Foundation money runs out they will get jobs in the ATF as gun experts.

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

The fatal shooting of Park Ranger Anderson was a bitter reminder of the human cost of appeasing the gun lobby – the Coburn Amendment passed two years ago legalizing loaded guns in national parks.

Dennis Henigan
January 11, 2012
Thousands Lit Candles Against The Darkness of Gun Violence
[Thirdpower already covered the lie about the numbers so I will ignore the lie in Henigan post title.

Let me get this straight… it was because it was legal to have loaded guns in national parks that Anderson was murdered? If that were true then doesn’t it follow that because it was illegal to have loaded guns at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech that those murders could not have occurred?

As was pointed out to me years ago by Rolf; If crime goes down after some gun law goes into effect the anti-gun people will claim it as proof we need even more strict laws. If the crime rate goes up after the law goes into effect then that is proof, to them, that stricter laws are needed.

As near as I can tell there are no facts that can be presented to anti-gun people like Henigan which will convince them any gun restriction should be repealed.

I must therefore conclude Henigan and his kind have crap for brains.

This is actually a good test to discover whether someone is worth your time to discuss the subject. Ask, “What would it take to change your mind? No matter how improbable, what data would convince you that some law restricting firearms should be repealed?” You will be surprised at how many people say there is nothing that will change their mind.

As you walk away suggest to such people that they look up the definition of “bigot” in the dictionary.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ColeenMonroe

Posted on by

Guns are good for one things and one thing only: Murdering.

ColeenMonroe
Tweet on January 9, 2012
[I guess that is why the police, military, body guards, armored car drivers, and my daughter carry guns. That means she either is profoundly ignorant or hasn’t thought things through.

She also says she is a pacifist. That makes her a freeloader.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jami Regs

Posted on by

Nothing like a bunch of beer guzzling, uneducated hillbillies playing with deadly weapons to prove just how ridiculous the 2nd amendment is.

Jami Regs
January 9, 2012
Comment to a post by Coalition to Stop Gun Violence about our video.
[I can’t speak for everyone in the video but I know that daughter Kim has nearly completed her accounting degree, Barron has his BSEE, I have a BSEE and a MSEE, one of our shooting buddies is the chairman of the University Chemistry department, and I don’t even like beer.

There is nothing like an anti-gun person talking about something they know nothing about.—Joe]

Peterson Syndrome example

Posted on by

We often complain about the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun people wanting more laws for the criminals to ignore. This sometimes takes the form of them expressing a need for another law to prevent criminals from breaking an existing law. When properly presented this subterfuge can be quite effective on those unfamiliar with the deception.

To pull this off, or perhaps even make it believable to the presenter, the plea for making the illegal “illegaller” some “time and space” is usually put between the existing illegal act and the new behavior they would like to make illegal.

It turns out this isn’t always the case.

I was reading the Brady Campaign report Exporting Gun Violence and ran into a sentence that really grabbed me. This sentence is, for all intents and purposes, self-contradictory:

ATF can only stop illegal conduct, and as long as it remains legal to sell unlimited quantities of military-style weapons or sell guns without background checks, the illegal flow of guns will continue.

I can’t read that sentence without an immediate jarring sensation. It’s like being slapped on the head or something. It does not compute and I immediately have to reread it to try and figure it out—and it can’t be figured out. I would almost give them a pass if this had been something said in a verbal debate where your brain isn’t working at full capacity and words sometimes don’t come out quite right. But this was in a lengthy report that was written by “Jonathan Lowy, Daniel Vice, Robyn Steinlauf, Amanda Koulousias, Sarah McLemore and Jordan Zlotoff, with assistance from Mary Boyle.”

If they were engaged in deliberate deception they would have put time and space between the contradictory elements of that sentence. I can only conclude it was not deliberate deception. Their brains have to be wired in some manner that is completely alien to me. They must have some strange mental problem in order to put something like that in a written report.

The Quintessential Republican

Posted on by

Sure; they know what you want to hear, at least for the most part, though they’re playing the Bible-thumper card a bit too heavy.  They know pretty well how to push your buttons, getting the applause at the rallies and so on.  As they see it, they know how to win over us stupid bumpkin Elmer Fudds in fly-over country (just throw ’em some red meat and watch them bark like dogs).

Here’s an example of what they really think, gleaned from a rare moment of partial honesty.  Newt calls himself a “Realpolitik Wilsonian.”  Yeah; that Wilson.  Be sure to watch both videos on the page.  I don’t care what you think of Glen Beck.  Screw that.  Listen to the words.  The “Four Freedoms”.

That’s the Republican Party today.  You can’t mix the liberty talk with the Four Freedoms.  That’s a lie, and yet it represents everything the Party stands for.

Make no mistake.  We’re being offered what amounts to a plea deal.  Either we take the deal (vote Republican) or we’re sentenced to another four years with a Democrat in office.  Bleed slowly or bleed quickly.  It’s a threat you see– take a Progressive dirt bag (Republican) or else.  That’s how this works, and I’m not playing that game.  I’ll get interested in an election when liberty is on the ballot, but don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

The same industry that has given us armor-piercing `cop-killer’ bullets, plastic handguns, and assault weapons has now added caseless `phantom’ ammo to its litany of assaults on public safety. This is just the latest example of the failure of a system that allows a virtually unregulated industry to develop and market hazardous products without the pre-market scrutiny afforded almost all other products in America.

Josh Sugarmann
Violence Policy Center Executive Director
July 6, 1993
New Technology–Caseless “PHANTOM” Ammo–Could Devastate Police Investigations
[In what universe did almost all products receive “pre-market scrutiny” before being “allowed” to go on sale? Even as far back as 1993 Sugarmann lived in a different America than the rest of us.

The ‘cop-killer’ bullets did not and still don’t exist, the “plastic handguns” could and can be detected by airport metal detectors just fine, and “assault weapons” were and are used less frequently to kill people than fists or feet.

What I find somewhat surprising is that even after decades of being disconnected from reality Sugarmann and his organization still receive enough money to maintain their delusions.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Amos

Posted on by

It’s about feelings and self-identity for Progressives. They’re like monkeys. They’ve got enough primate brain to form tribes, but they just don’t use the higher faculties. So it’s no surprise that flinging crap is their modus operadi.

Amos
January 4, 2012
Comment to Well, your legislature asked for it
[The tribes thing stuck with me. They do have thing about about groups don’t they? The individual and individualism is denigrated. They say things such as “The good of society is more important than the individual.” And “It takes a village.” They put a lot of effort into masses of people into the streets without any clear rational message.

Yet it was individualism that created the tremendous advances in Western Civilization which other societies were forced to adopt (or attempt to destroy) lest they be left far, far behind.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jscottfur

Posted on by

Don’t waste a second thinking I give a crap whether you show up at my house this holiday. If you would rather stay home stroking your phallic toy than enjoying the company of family, then knock yourself out. Show the world that you are just a self-centered, paranoid freak who goes through life either expecting or hoping for an opportunity to kill somebody. Get a life Ramboid.

Jscottfur
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

It not just an astute observation, it’s Markley’s Law that the ignorant describe a specific enumerated right beyond their understanding in terms more familiar to their primitive social development.—Joe]

Quote of the day—HarpoSnarx

Posted on by

Poor dickless Gooper needs his power enhancer whereever he goes. I guess an essential of the Gooper lifestyle is hearing eggshells crunching as they strut around in their little master of the universe persona.

To such “timid, oppressed” souls, it’s a safeguard against being razzed about destroying America from a family librul. They pimp the 2nd Amendment to make us as dickless as they are.

HarpoSnarx
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Beyond this being a another example of Markley’s Law I can’t even make sense of this.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jane Fonda

Posted on by

I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would someday become communist.

Jane Fonda
August 2002
[In the 20th Century about 100 million people were killed, mostly by their own governments, trying to implement communism. So, tell me Ms. Fonda, are you volunteering your body to be thrown on the pile in the 21 Century?—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Carville

Posted on by

I don’t think there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun.

James Carville
October 2002
[If there had been a period after the third word in that sentence I would have totally agreed with him.—Joe]

Silly Me

Posted on by

Condition White.  I’d started a batch of pumpkin ale just after All Hallows Eve with the intent of shipping it to family and friends across the Fruited Plain that is this Land of The Free and Home of The Brave.  It took six weeks of doting over this ale– a recipe with a lot more than the usual four ingredients (water, barley, hops and yeast) that I’ve used before and it didn’t behave the same, so it took more fooling around.  It was well worth it because I ended up with what I regard to be a fine and unique product, perfect for a little Christmas indulgence and cheer with family and friends.

I didn’t know you were supposed to lie, so when the guy at UPS asked me if there was alcohol in the packages I went ahead told him the truth.

It turns out you can’t ship alcoholic beverages unless you’re an “authorized shipper”.  Apparently someone is afraid that someone else, somewhere, might enjoy themselves.  For years I thought (correctly) that people were shipping booze right and left all over the place, but now I know they have to lie to do it.  It’s a free country, sure, so all you have to do is lie here, or break the law there, and you can do anything a reasonable person would want to do.  So Prohibition is still very much with us, which I knew.  I knew for example that you couldn’t make a legal business out selling alcohol without The Mob getting its piece of the action.  I just didn’t know it was still quite so much in effect until tonight.  I probably broke the law just by trying to ship this wonderful home brew to loved ones to enrich their Christmas experience, so come and get me.  “Attempting to ship alcohol in violation of federal law such and such, sub section such and such, sub, sub section such and such, apendices B through W49z”.  Add to that “Attempting to ship alcohoil while armed”.  I’ll have the evidence all consumed before you get here, and besides; you’ll never take me alive, coppers!

So to those of you I’d promised pumpkin ale; You’re more than welcome, but you’d better get over here quick if you want some.

Prohibition is actually in full force (more than full if you compare now to the 1920s) when it comes to certain other drugs, and naturally there is a lot of money and power to be had as a result if you happen to be in organized crime (either free-lance or official).

On a similar note; I spent several hours talking with my teenaged daughter yesterday and the subject of Mary Jane (pot – that’s what the cool kids called it in the ’60s) came up.  I had to kick myself because I got side-tracked talking about the relative dangers of this or that chemical indulgence, but it turned out even better that way–  “But none of this is on point” I tolder her.  “The point is that in a free society the government has no authority to tell an emancipated adult what to put in his body and what not to put in his body.  I’ve I allowed myself to be side-tracked here by the ‘relative dangers’ arguments.  Those are entirely bedside the point.”  She understood perfectly and she appreciated the rare and wonderful experience of finally being exposed to clarity on what was previously a matter of cloudiness confusion.

Quote of the day—jumkey

Posted on by

What, only 3 dead children?

Gun owners had better step up their war on elementary school-age children and babies. They’ll never get them all only shooting three at a time.

jumkey
December 17, 2011
Comment to Sheriff: 5 dead in Ill. murder-suicide
[I don’t think any comment beyond the post category of “Crap for brains” is necessary.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Linoge

Posted on by

The anti-rights cultists’ logic fails: on the one hand, we are supposedly high-strung, hair-trigger murderers just waiting for any and all excuses to “whip out our pieces” and go on a shooting rampage, but on the other hand, “gun control” extremists feel quite comfortable insulting and attacking us on a regular basis.

Linoge
December 12, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—lonewolfwisconsin.
[Made QOTD at the suggestion of Windy Wilson.

It’s a good point but I’m sort of dulled from the continuous expose to the irrationality of anti-gun people. These people live with one foot into an alternate universe where the potentialities of their active imaginations are just as real, if not more so, than reality itself. I wish there were a way to make it sink in that potentialities are not actualities.

We are constrained to live in the real world. Neither the utopia they try to legislate nor the “gun-owners will start shooing over parking spaces” universe they imagine are supported by the evidence gathered from all the different legislative experiments run in all the states and the Feds in the last several decades.

Being unconstrained by reality is probably good for art but makes for very poor public policy.—Joe]

Can Someone Please Explain

Posted on by

…in short, sweet, straight-forward detail, the “conservative” position on immigration?  I’ve heard vitriolic disagreement and angry attacks toward any policy proposal that even remotely smacks of “amnesty” and I’ve heard demands for building a wall around the country (like that ever works) but I’ve never heard what the attacker actually wants, exactly.

For the record (and I know this is off-subject as it doesn’t answer the question, because I have no idea as to the answer, which is the point of the post after all); In principle, I believe it should be easy to get into this country, and to become a citizen.  The problem as I see it is the socialism – the goodies – people coming here for a share of the loot.  Turn off that loot spigot and the problem, such as it is, evaporates overnight.  “Heal the World – Outlaw Socialism” would be my bumper sticker if I ever got ’round to putting one on my vehicle, which I probably won’t.

Outlawing socialism would include doing away with labor laws, minimum wage being a big one at play here.  The other loot spigot in play was also manufactured by our government– the “War On Drugs” and we all know for certain that Prohibition failed the first time due to human nature, and that human nature dictates that it will fail just as catastrophically every time, which is what we’re seeing every day.  But we can’t separate it from imigration policy.  Because we’re sniveling cowards.

“They’re takin’ Our Jobs!” (Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!”) is an idiotic assertion.  So forget it.  When the Europeans first started coming here in the late 1400s and early 1500s, they took all the jobs from the “Indians” very quickly, so there haven’t been any jobs here since then anyway, right?  I mean, if you figure that the “Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!” argument has any validity whatsoever.  IF people coming here from other places “takes jobs away” then the peak in the number of available jobs in North America would have taken place before Columbus’ voyage (or much earlier – before the migration out of Siberia during the last Ice Age) and as the Euros et al started coming in, the number of jobs available would have been shrinking constantly ever since.  QED.  So there.

Anyhow;  What, exactly, is the “conservative” policy on immigration – the one that won’t get the pundits, the self appointed Representatives of Modern American Conservatism (the RMACs) all pissed off?  I maintain that there is no such thing, which is why I brought it up.

I figure Newt has a four thousand page preliminary proposal, submitted by his Provisional Committee on Immigration Policy Proposal Research Exploratory Studies, complete with thousands of cross-references and cross-cross-references to the cross-references, which means he doesn’t have a clue and is desperate to avoid clues as it would mean standing for something meaningful and concrete which is to be avoided at all cost.

My explanation for the absurdity is that the Republicans believe in the all the negative stereotypes that the Democrats have created for conservatives– racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes….ad infinitum, thumpin’ a Bible and cryin’ ’bout Jeezus! and so the Republicans are trying, like frightened little kids faced with putting out a house fire, to pander to the Saturday Night Live stereotype “conservative”.  They have no idea how to please us stereotype bigot buffoons without getting into trouble.  They’re scared and frustrated, but they know they have to at least pretend to try, because that’s on the list of things to do to get elected.  So it’s a contest to see who can come up with the most plauseablely meaningless proposal that will offend the least people and will never get enforced anyway.  It makes for good theater all ’round I suppose.

We know for certain that outlawing socialism would be among the most frightening prospects ever presented to a Republican.  Right?  The planet being wiped out by an asteroid would be bad, but at least it wouldn’t leave them blinking in the lights in front of a camera babbling like idiots, knowing they’d have to face the criticism for it the next day– they could die right along with the rest of us and that would be much more comfortable as it wouldn’t require any acts of courage or any application of principles.  It would let them entirely off the hook.

Quote of the day—Conservative4Ever

Posted on by

I had to go talk to my guns just now to let them know If I let them walk that they will be responsible for the violence they cause.

Liberals kill me by their complete lack of logic and reasoning abilities. They are like children.

Hence my talking to guns like they were children.

Conservative4Ever
December 9, 2011
Comment to Gunwalker goes “legal” … again
[He is insulting children. By the age of four my children had better reasoning abilities that some of the anti-gun people I’ve dealt with.—Joe]

You can’t fix stupid

Posted on by

This post is essentially all plagiarized from various people on the email discussion list at work about this event (more details can be found here):

A pistol discovered in a passenger’s carry-on bag was accidentally fired inside the Atlanta airport, grazing a police officer, authorities said on Monday.

Security screeners at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport spotted the .22-caliber pistol Sunday via an X-ray machine and notified Atlanta police, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Jonathan Allen said.

Authorities said the gun was loaded with five rounds of ammunition known as “snake shot,” which typically is used to kill small animals. As a police officer tried to remove the rounds while pointing the weapon at a screening table, the gun was unintentionally fired, according to an incident report.

…

The passenger, a 43-year-old Georgia man, was arrested on weapons charges and remained in jail early on Monday. He told police that he “travels to Florida often on business and keeps the weapon on him for protection, not to kill anyone but in an attempt to scare people off,” the report said.

It was stupid to attempt going though the TSA screeners with a firearm. It was stupid for the police officer to fire the gun. It was stupid to carry snake loads for self protection against humans. It was stupid to carry a firearm to only scare people.

Quote of the day—Christopher Merken

Posted on by

Guns are designed with one purpose only: to kill. Ending a life is the purpose of a gun. The argument that it’s preventative, that it’s the “well it’s either me or the guy coming through my door” mentality, or that guns create a safer society is just plain wrong. Guns are designed to kill. A specially designed piece of metal, slotted into another piece of metal and projected at incredible speeds at another person is designed to kill. There is no way to deny, refute, or get around this simple fact. So why are guns allowed? Why do we as a society accept these dangerous weapons into our community?

Christopher Merken
December 8, 2011
Another Virginia Tech Shooting, and What Should Be Done About It: It’s time to take a stand against gun violence
[Heavy sigh. Here we go again.

I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns without killing anything but two deer and a rattlesnake. By his logic my guns must have malfunctioned with nearly every shot.

He offers no studies to support his assertions. The best he can do is proof by vigorous assertion.

He asks, “Why are guns allowed?” as if that which government does not allow is forbidden. He apparently missed out on the high school government class where it was taught that government is only allowed certain enumerated powers and the people retain all other rights and powers. He has it exactly backward.

He’s got crap for brains.—Joe]

Percentages

Posted on by

This is one of my pet peeves too:

Percentage Points

People often think that if you decrease something by 50% then increase it by 50% you end up with the original value. It’s surprisingly difficult for people to grasp this is not true. I found it works better if you use 100% reduction followed by a 100% increase. When they say, “But that is different.” I just walk away to avoid the nearly irresistible urge to do some minor cleaning of the gene pool.