Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

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.

Stupid this bad surely hurts

Posted on by

While I am seldom surprised at the level of stupidity I observe I do see depths being reached. Here is one from “darren.russell” who claims to be from the UK.

Being from the UK i cannot understand that Americans feel they have the need to own guns.
The only thing a gun is good for is to kill or maim.
I know that it is one of the amendments or something but wasn’t the original misquoted that people have the right to bear arms when it was really meant that the army had the right to bear arm to defend the country?

“The only thing a gun is good for is to kill or maim”? First off, even if that was true what is the problem with that? The police and the military use guns to “kill and maim” and very few people advocate removing guns from their collection of tools. And second, if the statement was true then that would mean that the roughly 100,000 rounds I have fired were almost all failures because only five of them succeeded in killing or maiming (I used two on a rattlesnake, one on a deer, and two more on a deer I hit with Barb’s Jeep).

And finally, the most stupid thought is that the Bill of Rights would need to include a section preserving the right of the army to bear arms to defend the country.

I have to wonder if the people in the UK would actually claim him as one of his own and if being this stupid hurts.

‘Our Progressive Health Care Bill is Better Than Theirs’

Posted on by

Maybe you thought the newly elected Republicans would move to get government’s meddling, grubby hands out of the health care industry.


Think again, suckers.


How many times must we be treated to silver hairspray dude trying to act as though he genuinely believes what he’s saying?  That guy didn’t make it two and a half minutes without an edit, and he was reading from a prompter.  This is our leadership?  It’s an insult.


The least they could do is get these phonies a few more acting lessons, so when they’re bullshitting us to death, at least they’d do a good job of it.  I really wonder who it is they think will find that video appealing.  I think that guy came right off the set of the Lawrence Welk Show.


If you’re figuring on politics to help reverse this encroaching socialism, you’d better be working more locally, because the national-level Republicans are up to the same old Progressive tricks.

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

As household gun ownership has dropped dramatically since the early 1970s and America’s youth turn away from guns, the SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality to shore up its fading market and declining sales.

The SHOT Show will bring together hundreds of vendors – including Glock, a manufacturer of pistols used in multiple mass shootings, which markets its handguns as “pocket rockets” – and tens of thousands of attendees, as lawmakers in Congress are expected to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used in last week’s mass shooting in Arizona. The show comes at a time that most of the major gun manufacturers are experiencing a significant decline in demand and falling sales.

Violence Policy Center
January 13, 2011
SHOT Show an Example of a Politically Powerful Industry Desperate to Hide Its Decline
[“Fading market and declining sales”? At first reading of this you might question what planet they are on since 2009 and 2010 were banner years in terms of gun sales.

If you read a little closer you might notice the sentence doesn’t even make sense. “SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality”? Where did that come from? By reading further you discover that apparently the presence of Glock is the key to reaching that conclusion.

Reading VPC material is like listening to the rantings of the mentally ill. At first it sort of makes sense but as you look closer you find the most basic assumptions are wrong and the conclusions reached don’t even follow from the flawed assumptions.

Is anyone proposing legislation for mental health tests prior to posting on the Internet? Not that I think it should be done but I could see a case being made for that with the VPC as one of the prime examples.—Joe]

Quote of the day—American Mercenary

Posted on by

Joan, you are on the board of directors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership. You really need to start getting your facts straight before you marginalize even more Americans. Because, you DON’T have the public on your side, the NRA doesn’t issue us talking points, and your organization is in the hole for the exact amount of your President’s salary.

American Mercenary
January 7, 2010
Dumb but motivated
[Although at a cursor glance it appears she is (extraordinarily) dumb I beg to disagree. She is the defining case of Peterson Syndrome. Other than that AM has her pegged correctly.

But if it were something I could do without feeling ethically soiled I would encourage her to continue doing exactly what she is doing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

Drive-by shootings are just one symptom of the increasing lethality of firearms available to the general public. State and federal policies should focus on limiting the caliber and capacity of firearms marketed to the general public.

Violence Policy Center
July 2010
Drive-By America
[It’s statements like these that cause me to just shake my head. From the premise to the conclusion it simply doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like they know all the words but can’t form a logical thought with them. For example:

  • What is the justification for the claim “of the increasing lethality of firearms available to the general public”? Shotguns and their ancestor the blunderbuss are probably the most lethal weapon available for individual use and they have been around for hundreds of years.
  • How are drive-by shootings a symptom of increased lethality? I’m not sure I can even imagine a dataset that would make sense of that statement.
  • Even if they were constitutional how would laws limiting the caliber and capacity of firearms marketed to the general public affect drive-by shootings? One person in the back seat of a car with two double-barreled shotguns loaded with buckshot could put 35+ pieces of high speed lead into the air in a remarkably short period of time. In countries that have repressive gun laws double barreled shotguns have always been the last to be banned. I can’t imagine this country would have a significant difference in the order in which such attempts would be made.

It reminds me of a conversation I once tired to follow. Things just weren’t making sense to me and I stopped them and pointed out that the most recent statement was completely at odds with previous statements which weren’t exactly clear to me either. I was told, “Oh Joe, it doesn’t have to make sense. We are just talking.” That was when I decided find a comfortable chair in a corner and take a nap until it was time to go home.

If the VPC weren’t trying to influence government policy they too could be ignored. As it is they need to be ridiculed and driven into political extinction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joan Peterson

Posted on by

O.

Joan Peterson
Brady Campaign Board Member
December 16, 2010
Response to the question, “How few murders have to be committed with firearms before the push for new, more restrictive laws ends?”
[Thanks to Bob S. and others for setting her up for and catching this.

I presume she meant “zero” rather than “Oh” but I’ll give her a pass on that. I remember when some typewriters didn’t have the digits ‘1’ and ‘0’ because you were supposed to use a lower case ‘L’ and a capital ‘o’ for them. I will not give her a pass on the intent.

Zero is not possible as long as people and guns exist. No matter how lives are saved with guns, not matter how successful “gun violence prevention” programs are, no matter how many court rules there are that the right to keep in bear arms is a specific enumerated right, this Brady Campaign Board member will demand evermore restrictions on that right.

What she is saying is that guns are somehow different than other tools used to commit murders. If she were to advocate for a position like this in regard to sticks, stones, fists, or feet she would be hauled off to the loony bin. But somehow with a constitutionally protected right at issue there exists an organization that makes her a board member.

The whole lot of them are essentially politically extinct at the Federal level because more and more people are getting a clue as to just how disconnected from reality these people are. We just need to drive them into extinction at the state and local level.—Joe]

If You’re Clueless, Take a Poll

Posted on by

The NRSC sent out a mass e-mail this week, linking to a web-site poll they have going.  Seriously, guys; you haven’t been listening all year?


It may just be that poll-taking is a pet peeve of mine, but really; if you came into the field (any field) not knowing what you want do and why you want to do it, why are you there at all?  You ran for office, in this case, and really, really wanted to win.  You spent tons of money and long hours getting elected, and now you don’t know why you’re there?  Whiskey…Tango…Foxtrot?


As usual, the poll questions are multiple choice, and as usual the answers could be easily interpreted in opposite ways, depending on the observer.  Unlike many polls however, there are places to enter comments.


They start with; “What do you think should be the first legislation addressed by the new Congress?”


There are four choices, plus “Other”.


I left them all blank and then entered this comment;



It’s really quite simple; if you understood the American Principles of Liberty, you wouldn’t need to take a poll.  The fact that you’re asking tells me you’re fishing for a position, trying to figure out what it is you should PRETEND to believe.  Crack a history book or two and figure it out, then run on those principles, actually stand for them in practice, and win big.


Then came; “Please rank in order of importance to you personally, the following issues” and there were nine choices, starting with abortion (really?) plus “other”.  I left them all blank, and filled in the next comment box;



Regarding #4; See, there you go again.  I don’t see liberty on the ballot.  Never have.  Hence the problem.  This isn’t rocket science, people.  Defeat the left.  Go for the jugular and drive them and their programs into political extinction.  Get Progressivism out of the Republican Party so we can win more elections, shrink the federal government (I mean real, meaningful contractions, and closure of departments) and “promote the general welfare” BY  PROMOTING LIBERTY.  It doesn’t work any other way.


Do we demand perfection immediately?  Of course not.  1; There is no such thing as perfection, and 2; things take time.  The point is; if you have the Ideals, you naturally trend toward them.  If you don’t have the Ideals, stand aside and make room for someone who does.


But after you submit the poll, you’re taken directly to a donation form.  Chances are, no one’s interested in the poll (it’s a piece of jr. high school crap anyway) so much as they’re interested in the raising of funds.


Here’s another (bonus) message for you Senate Republicans;



I’ll consider sending you money after I see some results.  I’m tired of supporting mushy, confused Republicans who can’t decide what it is they should pretend to stand for.  Been there, done that, and I’m never doing it again.


You know about all those eligible voters who sit out election after election?  Yeah; maybe that’s a clue you’re still not getting, and maybe, just maybe, it’s a sign that there are millions of votes available to someone who will, for once, actually stand for American ideals rather than simply jabbering about them during campaign season and hoping we’re still dumb enough to fall for it.  Time is running out.


Really?  You guys didn’t see the spontaneity and scale of the tea party movement?  You really didn’t understand a bit of it?

Don’t bring a knife

Posted on by

In Washington State it is legal to carry a pistol openly (or, with a license, concealed). But an apparently brain dead lawmaker (Representative Appleton) wants to make it illegal to carry a knife with a blade greater than 3.5 inches long.

This is entirely consistent with the Seattle ordinance that prohibits public carry of Airsoft guns and slingshots while real firearms are allowed.

I guess this could be considered the legislative command “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight” but I somehow don’t think that is what she had in mind.