Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

A work of satire

Posted on by

I was scanning my Bing and Google alerts and found a long discussion on a forum about a “New Study Links Guns, Sexual Dysfunction”. So I clicked on the link to the article/”study”. I didn’t record it with a stopwatch but I have a pretty darned good sense of time from all the shooting I do with a timer. I’m certain it took me less than a second to notice the article said, in bold print, “Notice: A work of Satire”. Even without that notice it should have been blindingly obvious after reading things like:



Some of the gun nuts are simply ‘wet noodles’ but many of them have a double-whammy, their private parts are so small we can’t even use the tongue depressors on them, we keep a supply of popsicle sticks on hand, and now we’re even having to resort to using those little tiny collar stays from men’s dress shirts. It’s like an inverse proportion: The smaller these guys are, the bigger the handguns they buy to compensate. It’s really weird.


Yet this forum went on and on about it. I didn’t read all the posts but I did a search for “satire” on all the pages without getting a hit. Read the “study” before you criticize it guys. It’s was just another confirmation of Markley’s Law.

Channeling the Jews from Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe

Posted on by

I have been reading some of the anti-gun people’s thoughts on the events in Egypt recently and a particular theme appeared.

From Colin and Andy Goddard:

If instead of staging peaceful demonstrations, Egyptian protesters been armed with guns, it is highly likely that the Egyptian military, equipped with billions of dollars worth of weapons supplied free of charge by our own government, would have retaliated. That would have produced massive casualties among both the armed and unarmed Egyptians.

From Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson:

If things had gone otherwise and the military had decided to side with President Mubarek instead of the people, what good would pistols and shotguns have done against tanks and machine guns? I say, not much. It would likely have elevated the violence and increased the potential for deaths and injuries.

This theme bothered me but I didn’t quite have the words to express my discomfort. Then I found them here. This is from Reuben Ainsztein’s book Jewish Resistance in Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe page 585:

The Jewish leaders, however, rejected the offer, arguing that if they behaved quietly the Germans might deport and murder 20,000 or 30,000, perhaps even 60,000 of them, but it was inconceivable that they should destroy the lot; while if they resisted, the Germans would certainly do so.

I fully agree that going to the street in a massive, anticipated to be peaceful, protest while being openly armed is generally not a good idea. I agree that making every reasonable effort to avoid violence is a good idea. It does not follow that the general population is better off without owning firearms the government is unaware of. It does not follow that once the government begins killing innocent people that non-violence is the best response.

The anti-gun people may be channeling the thoughts of the Jews prior to the Final Solution but the Jews hindsight is surely superior and it is those thoughts you should attempt to channel.

Democracy

Posted on by

de·MOC·ra·cy – Noun – 1. The takeover of a state government by a state employee’s union, often resulting in ever increasing tax rates, and the eventual bankruptcy of the state.


They’re actually shouting, “Freedom!  Democracy!  Unions!” as though the three were compatible, while the democrats refuse to allow a vote.  All this over a proposal that might get their 3.6 billion dollar budget deficit down to 3.3 billion.  In two years.


Via theblaze.com we find Noam Chomsky (yeah, that Noam Chomsky) wants what happened in Egypt to happen in Wisconsin, stating that the governor has “eviscerated” democracy in the state;



The blatant rejection of all reason is on parade.

Public Servants

Posted on by

The term has often been one that garners respect, as though the public servant is someone donating his or her time out of a sense of duty and purpose.  “Serving” the public and milking the public are somewhat different concepts though.  Someone who makes over $100K in a small town public school, for example, with a nice medical insurance policy and a nice pension is a “servant” while someone doing much the same thing in the private sector for half the pay and no pension, supporting himself while paying the taxes to support the Public Servant, is not a servant at all.  The private entrepreneur is “greedy”.  Right?  Greed and the profit motive are one in the same thing, right?  That’s what you’ve been taught, I bet.


What do you call a group of public servants, coercively funded, that has been organized, has huge political influence, and is currently helping to bankrupt several states?  Is that public service, or is it something else?


Some state governments are starting to realize that the gravy train for the selfless public servants is running dry– that something major needs to change.  The response from the selfless servants is that they’re taking to the streets.


I’ve been saying for years that public education, by its very nature and structure, was destined to become a de facto political party (which of course it is) with one of its goals being the indoctrination of the students to a certain political and world view amenable to the desires of the government/education complex.  It’s a given.  It’s an inevitability.  A guarantee.  A system based on coercive funding, that would teach and promote the principles of liberty, and the protection of property rights that are fundamental to liberty, would be in a perpetual conflict of interest.  That cannot last.  I did not last.


That has been considered an ultra-extremist point of view by many.  You just don’t say those things in mixed company.  I’ve also pointed out that the fastest way to lose a friend who’s complaining about his “small budget” or “low pay” in a public position, is to tell him he can always quit, get a job in the private sector and find out exactly what he’s worth.  You’d better step back before you say something like that, because violence will be on his mind.  Who’s more “extreme”; the person stating a simple truth, which is obvious to anyone who’s operated a business, or the person who wants to punch you in the face for saying it?  If a simple truth is now to be considered extreme, what does that say about the current state of our culture?


So it has came to pass, that the teachers have taken to the streets, bringing their students with them (and you said public education was never about indoctrination.  No; couldn’t be.  That would be bad, and we all know that teachers are saints) to demand more goodies from a state that they helped bankrupt.  To hell with the state government.  To hell with the governor who’s trying to keep the state out of bankruptcy.  To hell with everything and everyone; we want more goodies!  To hell with the public!  (Look at the signs they’re carrying)


These are our sefess “servants” who care about nothing in the world but the common good, and we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing from them.  It is an inevitability, where ever and when ever we have the arrogance to believe that WE can get away with having a coercion-based system, because WE can afford it, because WE are so very, very smart and compassionate.  This is going to keep happening as sure as you are reading this, and it is going to escalate.  This is the result of our “Compassion“.

Weapons of mass destruction

Posted on by

I can see why his name is “Nutter”:

Bad people will do bad things, but we can and must take steps to deny these criminals the weapons of mass destruction that have ripped apart families across the country.

…

President Obama has called for “common sense” regulation. Regulating magazine size is surely common sense. Large-capacity magazines can turn a semiautomatic pistol into a weapon of mass destruction, with some spitting out six shots per second.

Actually, as I demonstrated last week, even on an off day a middle-aged computer geek can do close to six rounds a second with only ten rounds in the magazine. The size of the magazine has nothing to do with rate of fire and no matter how many rounds are in the magazine it doesn’t turn the gun into a WMD.

Or is Nutter saying we really did find WMDs in Iraq?

Quote of the day—Jack Klenk

Posted on by

In the state of Arizona any felon or mental case can purchase an assault weapon without any restrictions.

Jack Klenk
February 14, 2011
NRA and ‘gutless’ politicians
[Like stupidity, ignorance has no limits.—Joe]

Conspiracy

Posted on by

Have you noticed that the very word “conspiracy”, like so many words, no longer means what it means?


Last night as I was listening to a conservative talk show, the host demonstrated this by saying; “This isn’t a conspiracy– it really happened”.


I may have to add an entry to the Left-Speak Dictionary.  Conspiracy – that which does not exist.  Something unreal.  Any irrational assertion.


The transformation is so advanced that even mostly rational, well-educated people are using it in the left-speak form.


It’s no longer necessary to include the “theory” afterward, either.  You use “conspiracy” by itself and it means the same thing; “Oh, that’s just a conspiracy” is now proper English in some quarters, for describing a ridiculous theory.  What are we to call a collaboration between two or more people then?  How about “fred”?  “It’s a fred, I tell you!  A fred!”  What are we to call an assertion that there may be a collaboration between two or more people?  A fred blop.  “I do not subscribe to your fred blop, Mr. Wilson, for the following reasons….”


Insurance against financial hardship in the event of an expensive medical emergency is how “healthcare”.  “Yeeahh; it’s a bummerrr, Dude– I don’t have healthcare.”  If healthcare is now insurance, what do we call insurance?


Make that two new entries.


I’d like to have a lot more gay (formerly cheerful and/or exuberant) intercourse (formerly any interaction, often especially conversation) with you here, but sometimes it’s difficult to get in the mood.  All the hope (formerly communist revolution) that’s been breaking out is getting me down.  I believe the evidence suggests that there is a greater-than-zero probability that it is the result of a collaboration between two or more people.  Does that make me “paranoid”?


Make that three.

Hmm

Posted on by

When I heard of “ghost cities” I first thought of places like Detroit– a city essentially bombed out by leftist policies.  Instead there are all these stories of empty cities being built in China.


I don’t know what to think.  On one hand the stories could be a hoax, but then I realize that communists do the stupidest things imaginable already, over and over, and they never seem to learn anything.  Why not build an empty city?


That’s always the problem, isn’t it?  It’s hard to tell when a leftist is making fun of himself or being serious, or when someone parodying leftists or telling the truth about them.  There really isn’t any clearly definable difference.

Head in the vault?

Posted on by

I realize I’m far better informed on the state of gun laws than the average gun owner but it appears this guy has had his head locked in the bank vault for the last couple of years:

“Ownership should be earned. It’s a privilege,” said Dickson, vice president and branch manager at Stamford First Bank. “Anybody can easily buy an automatic assault weapon. There should be required training and extensive background checks before people are allowed to own a gun.”

The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is a privilege? How could any gun owner of not heard of the Heller decision? Anybody can easily buy an automatic assault weapon? That’s not been true since 1934 and since 1986 it has become significantly more difficult.

Someone needs to find the keys to safe deposit box where Dickson keeps his brain.

No one needs a magazine of bullets

Posted on by

Deb McMahon is exploring new depths of ignorance in regards to firearms:



The truth is that no citizen needs to have a magazine of bullets that can kill, maim and critically injure others.


The type of massacre that occurred in Arizona should never be repeated. I find it unconscionable that intelligent people would defend this kind of ammunition. There is a difference between responsible gun ownership and just giving carte blanche to anyone and everyone.


The NRA talks about hunters’ gun rights on its website. Hunters do not need a magazine of bullets to enjoy their sport.


I find it interesting that even though taken as a whole her writing is disjointed and nearly nonsensical each sentence taken by itself and out of context of the Tucson shooting comes pretty close to being intelligible. It’s as if her mind cannot span more than a dozen words and one concept at a time.


And I wonder why she thinks people have trouble distinguishing between responsible gun ownership and giving beer to anyone and everyone.

Professor admits he is an evolutionary loser

Posted on by

I find it interesting that the psychology professor’s logic is basically sound but somehow decides to become an evolutionary loser anyway:

You may call it foolish, but I for one will not get a gun. I will remain an evolutionary loser and a mentally deficient member of gun world, hoping that we will have the courage to become truly civilized and turn the tables on those who would lead us down their dark path.

Those in academia are frequently accused of living in an idealized world with only an occasional glimpse into the real world. This would appear to be a prime example of a professor who willfully ignores reality.

It should come as no surprise that Bernard Starr, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at City University of New York (Brooklyn College).

Three shots and out

Posted on by

Genius has it limits. Stupidity apparently has no constraints. John Otis demonstrates:

So on behalf of our citizens, in the name of ethics and/or sportsmanship and safety, and in support of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, I’m suggesting a modest proposal: that all private guns, long ones and short ones, be altered to fire just three rounds in succession before reloading with an exemption, of course, for the military and the police.

Such an alteration would be far from modest. It would be mechanically and financially infeasible, unconstitutional, and almost universally ignored. This is a prime example of the truth of Mencken’s observation which I posted yesterday.

Quote of the day—The Reporter

Posted on by

I find it hard to believe that anyone could think ammunition holders that allow multiple rounds to be fired before reloading are a wise idea.

The Reporter
February 4, 2011
SOUND OFF: More gun control is long overdue
[If this person finds it hard to be believe anyone would not agree with their suggestion to ban lever, bolt, and pump action firearms as well as semi-autos and even revolvers then they must have a very narrow ignorant mind. But what do you expect from a reporter?—Joe]

Shotgun Import Restrictions and the Federal Bureau of Sport

Posted on by

F-Troop wants to “study” the “sporting purposes” of some popular shotguns.  Maybe they’re desperate to justify their existence.  Maybe they’re just bored, or maybe they hate certain liberties enumerated in the constitution.  I don’t know, but it’s about time for Congress to look for ways to clamp down on F-Troop, and question the legitimacy of the Gun Control Act of 1968.  F-Troop, and federal gun restrictions, are relics of the 1920s Prohibition era, and it’s about time we explore ways to rid ourselves of that ugly legacy once and for all.  Short of that, we should at least be able to keep it from growing until we have the votes in Congress to eliminate it.


ETA; Hat tip to Uncle for pointing to the NSSF article.

‘My Gunsmith Says…’

Posted on by

I’ve put off saying this for about ten years, but it’s gotten to be too much.  “Sorry” to you good gunsmiths.  I know you’re out there.  I’d say that you know who you are, and I’m sure you do, but the problem is; the bad ones also think they’re the good ones.  They’re super good, even.  That’s always the way it works.  I began to realize this some time in the 1970s when I was in the early stages of my career as a musical instrument mechanic with an alternate career as a live sound mixer (“technician” or “engineer”, respectively, for those who feel it needs to sound exciting and hard to reach).


The really smart sound engineers could quote you all the specs of every piece of gear they had.  They could recite from memory the center frequencies of all 31 bands of a graphic equalizer, for example.  After they had everything all set up and the system response tweaked using the pink noise generator with the front-of-house EQs, monitor EQs and active crossovers, when the performance actually started (which is when the real job of actually making it all sound good actually begins) they’d turn around satisfied, sit down, and have a sandwich and a little chat about sweet nothings.  Man, those guys were really smart, and they often made sure everyone around them understood that they were smart.  Why, they went to college, and stuff, don’t you know?


It seems we get an inordinate proportion of failed or stalled UltiMAK mount installations, an inordinate number of misunderstandings of how the system works, from, you guessed it– gunsmiths.


Apparently, they know and understand far too much to be bothered with reading and following the instructions.  Even when they contact me about this or that perceived problem, they are too smart to accept my explanations.  They, you see, understand mechanics better than the person who designed the system, built the first prototypes using hand tools and common power tools in a musical instrument shop, did the majority of testing, wrote most of the patent claims, and used the system for over ten years.  They tell me all the reasons why it can’t possibly, ever work, why my hands-on experience is wrong, why the experience of over ten thousand users of a single model is all wrong, and how I’m being a dumb jerk for suggesting they might just go ahead and follow the simple instructions to the letter anyway and then see how it goes.


Since an inordinate number of damaged mounts have come from such gunsmiths also (again, because they are smarter and more experienced) I have to wonder how many of them go on to become politicians, city administrators, professors, or left wing community organizers.  There is an uncanny set of parallels.

The Smart People Should be Running Everything

Posted on by

That’s the assertion of all leftists (communists, socialists, Fascists, Nazis, the KKK, Progressives, or whatever it is they prefer to be called this week).  Here’s one of the super duper smart people (Chuck Schumer) discussing the horrible things (naturally) that will ensue if the socialists don’t get their way, and the Three Branches of Government that all have to get along.  Rather than imbed the video, I link to Schumer’s comment here, to show that Reasoned DiscourseTM has broken out on YouTube (at the time of the this post, comments are turned off there).


To summarize the ultrasmart senator’s comments; our creditors want us to go farther in debt, and the three branches of government are the House, Senate, and the President.  Oh; and we have to “…pay the debt ceiling…”  Well it’s good to know that the smart people are in charge of ordering us around.  I’d hate to be pushed around by a fool.


This, says I, is why we can’t allow the smart people the power to make our decisions for us.  Don’t tell anyone (it may be too uncomfortable for some of the sensitive types) but some people are so stupid that they actually believe they’re smarter than most everyone else.  What is it that’s said of those who have such problems– that they’re usually the last to know?


I suppose New Yorkers like Schumer because he brings them lots of booty.  Or they think he does.

Quote of the day—Linoge

Posted on by

If there is no proof, it is not “obvious”.

Alternatively, if it is so very “obvious”, present the proof.

Linoge
January 30, 2011
Comment to A problem with diversity
[This was in response to MikeB302000 who was attempting a proof by vigorous assertion. “It’s obvious” or “It’s just common sense” is not proof but some people just don’t get this. In this particular case MikeB302000 admits he doesn’t care about truth or falsity, causation or correlation so it really doesn’t matter what you say, the data you present, or the logic of your proof. All that matters is that you share his delusional view of the world.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tamara K.

Posted on by

It’s just word salad; you’re not really missing anything. If you want a precis, just take your index finger and bounce it across your lips while making “Blub! Blub! Blub!” noises.

Tamara K.
January 28, 2011
In email when asked by Say Uncle for a short version of what Brady Campaign Board Member Joan Peterson posted.
[Robb Allen had a pretty good synopsis too:

Yeah, ‘word salad’ is as good of a descriptor as any. I can’t make heads nor tails of what she’s trying to say. It’s almost like “My side is losing because people are using legal terms and saying mean things and then there’s … SQUIRREL!!!!”

I sort of wondered if there was alcohol or some other mind alternating drug involved. Other than the normal intoxicating effects of hoplophobia of course.—Joe]

We don’t need no stinking facts

Posted on by

I sometimes wonder if people who get published in newspapers believe what they write or if they are actually this sloppy with the facts:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence estimates that each year, 100,000 people in this country are killed by firearms. Spend an hour on the organization’s Web site, and you can watch the day’s total tick unnervingly up.

The writer is confusing injuries with deaths and doesn’t seem to care how many of those were justified, or even praiseworthy, shootings.

Yet recent studies suggest that, far from protecting people who keep them, guns increase the odds that their owners or innocent bystanders will be harmed.

That was pulled out of thin air. Unless “recent” means going back to the discredited 1986 Kellerman study or one of the highly questionable follow on studies.

The U.S. has, far and away, the highest homicide rate of any affluent democracy, and guns are the method of choice.

Historian Jill Lepore notes that in Europe, the annual murder rate is well below 2 per 100,000 people; here it is around five.

This ignores the murder of 10s of millions by their own governments during the 1930s and 1940s. It also ignores the significantly higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland compared to their neighbors while having a murder rate of about 0.7/100K. The same is true of Norway with a murder rate of 0.6/100K.

The murder rates per 100K in some other countries in Europe and nearby (from here) include:

  • Germany: 0.86
  • Spain: 0.9
  • Denmark: 1.01
  • Greece: 1.1
  • Ireland: 1.12
  • Italy: 1.2
  • Poland: 1.2
  • Portugal: 1.2
  • United Kingdom: 1.28
  • Hungary: 1.38
  • France: 1.4
  • Belgium: 1.49
  • Luxembourg: 1.5
  • Czech Republic: 2.0
  • Georgia 7.6
  • Russia 14.9

All of those are greater than Switzerland and Norway so to blame it on gun ownership laws is deceptive at best.

Either the facts are irrelevant to these people or they know they have to lie to have any chance of winning.

No clue

Posted on by

Politicians must hold the all records for reaching the greatest depths of stupidity while simultaneously being considered functional members of society. Representative Peter King provides the latest example:

Defying those who assert the right to bear arms at town halls, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) Wednesday introduced strict new gun-control legislation that would bar people from taking firearms to public events attended by elected federal officials.

The bill would create a 1,000-foot gun-free zone around the event – not just around the lawmakers as King originally proposed…

Does he not realize that people routinely shoot at much smaller targets at much greater distances than 1000 feet? At Boomershoot the closest targets are over 1100 feet away and are only four inches square—much smaller than your average elected federal official. This fact alone makes the proposed law nearly pointless.

Okay, suppose there is no line of sight to the official from greater than 1000 feet. How does King think this law would be enforced? Does he think that a barrier will be erected 1000 feet and everyone would have to pass through metal detectors to get closer? If that is the case then the area would have to be evacuated and swept for firearms prior to the official visit. A 1000 foot radius is a minimum (this is assuming a single point rather than the perimeter of a building for measuring the 1000 feet) of 72 acres that has to be made gun free prior to the event. Add in the surface area of a multistory building and you quickly realize this isn’t practical even if the perimeter of the 1000 foot area could be made secure.

Hence, either enforcement at the perimeter isn’t what King had in mind or he believes that the criminal that would violate the laws and morals against murder will suddenly obey the law against a firearm within 1000 feet of the official. In either case he is totally without a clue or has some other motivation for his proposal.

I’m betting the answer is Representative King has no clue.