Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

What did James say that pissed you off so much?

Posted on by

“What did James say that pissed you off so much?”

That was what Kevin asked me in email after reading my comment on James Kelly’s blog.

My response to Kevin, with some minor enhancements, follows.

There is his steadfast refusal to answer Just One Question. Oh, he answered–using numbers that were easily demonstrated as wrong. And when that was pointed out he just ignored it.

Then James said, “…the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned…”

I wonder how many people with a Glasgow Smile or similar wounds

regard not having the means to defend themselves “a minor disappointment”.

The battles at Lexington and Concord which resulted in our revolutionary war were fought because the arms of the colonists were about to be taken away from them. Surely they did not consider it a “minor disappointment” they were about to lose their guns. And what of the colonies that refused to sign the constitution unless the right to keep and bear arms was a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the constitution? Would it have been a “minor disappointment” had it not been there?

How many of those people involved in 2 million instances per year when someone in the U.S. uses a firearm in a defensive situation would regard it as a “minor disappointment” had they been forced by their government to face their attacker unarmed?

How many of those millions of men, women and children standing naked at the top of the ditches they had just been forced to dig–just prior to having a bullet rip through their neck regarded not having a gun in hand “a minor disappointment”?

The above irritated me. But what really pissed me off was I realized his “personal philosophy”, even completely disregarding the gun issue, is justification for genocide. And he is hypocritical about it. He believes people have a right to life but not the right to have tools to defend their lives.

His “cornerstone of personal freedom” is freedom from fear. If he is afraid of the blacks/Jews/homosexuals/whoever who live next door he apparently believes it is completely justified to bring the full force of government down upon them in a preemptive strike. Prevention of crimes not yet committed by infringement of a basic right is justified if someone is afraid. And it doesn’t have to be a fear based on immediate threat of severe injury or death. Just the mere existence of something, someone, sometime used in a criminal manner. It’s the very epitome of a victimless crime which must be punished. A crime where the “perpetrator” is not even aware of the existence of the “victim”. A crime where even the thought of injury to an innocent life need not be proved or hinted at. A crime where the true intent of the “perpetrator” is to protect innocent life and property is thought to be crazy because they want the tools available to protect innocent life should they ever need it. All because someone is afraid of something they have no experience with. And they call us paranoid.

The Germans didn’t begin implementation of the “Final Solution” until after the U.S. got into the war. They were afraid the Jews, who “controlled the U.S. as well as the banks, the U.S. media, etc.” would punish them for the mistreatment (but there were no mass killings yet) they had received up to that point. So they started killing them to eliminate the problem. They were just implementing James Kelly’s “cornerstone of personal freedom”–freedom from fear.

What he doesn’t understand is there cannot be a “right” which is given or implemented through the force of government. Rights are which those things which preexist government and can only be protected or infringed by government. He is an advocate for infringement and calls it freedom.

His “cornerstone of personal freedom” is the basis for the deaths of tens of millions of people and he doesn’t see the logical inconsistency or the impossibility of that being a functional basis for a civil society.

The QOTD is aimed at James Kelly.

Quote of the day–United Nations Development Programme

Posted on by

Many governments recognise a connection between armed violence and the uncontrolled, or loosely controlled, trade in and possession of arms. There is also growing awareness that most of the problems posed by the availability of SALW and misuse are ‘civilian’ – meaning most firearms (both legal and illicit) are owned by civilians, and most perpetrators and victims of armed violence are civilians.


United Nations Development Programme
Chapter 3, page 21.
How to Guide
Small Arms and Light Weapons Legislation
[Yes, I’m sure that “many governments” do recognize most perpetrators of armed violence are civilians. Such governments as those in Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany come to mind. And people who are capable of simple arithmetic will realize “many governments” are wrong. I can only conclude that simple arithmetic is beyond the capability of the people who wrote the “How to Guide”. H/T to /sennin/ in the comments here for pointed this document out to me.–Joe]

A Night at the Opera

Posted on by

While at Hood Canal in WA State this weekend, my father in-law, who collects movies, treated me to the classic Marx Brothers film, A Night at the Opera from 1935.  It was supposed to be funny I guess, but I found it entirely unfunny yet instructive.


It’s a story about two talented, young, attractive and altogether wonderful singers who aren’t getting noticed because they’re not “famous” enough for the big operators who book a famous (and less talented) singer.  The Marx brothers “correct” the situation by employing fraud, physical force including assault and battery, trespassing and property destruction.  In the end, the two wonderful yet undiscovered singers are given a chance to prove themselves in front of a large audience as the result of the aforementioned crimes, and all is well and good.


It’s a perfect depiction of the mindset among today’s political Left.


Altogether lacking in the film was any imagination, respect for the successful, or respect for human rights.  The movie goes along with the apparent beliefs of that other more infamous Marx, and of the current Left, assuming that if one person is rich it means that someone else must be made poor.  If someone acquires a dollar, someone else must lose a dollar.  For one person to acquire a job, another must lose a job, and those who are successful must necessarily have stepped on some toes, etc.


The movie was an ugly, hateful stinker in that regard, and as such it received high praise from the critics.


In a free society, the young and talented singers might have gotten together with a few admirers, booked a small venue, and started the sometimes long and always difficult process of proving themselves to willing listeners.  The Marx Brothers, being talented musicians themselves, might have given the two youngsters a few tips and helped them along, to their mutual benefit.  In fact, the more wealth and success in a society, the more the opportunity.


For a realistic depiction of what it takes to “make it” in a free society, check out Will Smith in the movie, “The Pursuit of Happyness”.  Aside from the brilliant acting and the captivating story, it’s based on the real experience of Chris Gardner, who happens to be a pretty interesting guy himself when you see him on live TV.  I often find reality far more interesting than fiction.


Update:  For another amazing true story, check out the movie, “Broken Trail”.  Other than Robert Duvall, the actors are either fairly obscure or unknown.  I like that in a movie.  For example I can’t get past that fact that Ferris Bueller commands a regiment in the Civil War.  It’s too much for me, and I can’t get into the story.  Broken Trail is great in that respect.  It includes everything you’d expect from a good western, and more– Bravery, cowardice, strength and weakness, grit, determination, lust, true love, disappointment, and a fair amount of gun play.  As I recall I actually teared up (though I didn’t let on, and you didn’t read this.  Must have been something stuck in my eye) at the final stagecoach scene.  You know what I mean if you’ve seen it.

Quote of the day–Markos Moulitsas

Posted on by

When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk “revolution” and kill cops.


Markos Moulitsas
April 4, 2009
Twitter Badness: DailyKos Frontpager, Kos Joke About Pittsburgh Cop Shooting
[Typical leftest “thinking”. He is cherry picking the data to arrive at the desired conclusion. He “forgets” about last month when it was someone on the left praising the shooting of cops.–Joe]

Almost but not quite

Posted on by

Via Tam I found this article talking about the boom/bust cycle for the oil producers in Pennsylvania:



Even after 150 years of this roller coaster, we’re still far from implementing a better system to price this essential commodity.


An easy answer, and one often brought up in casual conversation, is some type of price control. The government would say oil prices can’t go below $50 or above $100, or some such number. Oil companies would have a guaranteed minimum price, and consumers would have a guaranteed maximum price. Everyone wins.


Wow! Just wow! Not only has that sort of thinking been shown to be a disaster in numerous countries around the globe for hundreds of years but President Nixon even tried it here in 1971 and it was a huge failure. Just think for a few seconds will you? To let that sort of thinking actually get to the verbalization stage shows a profound ignorance of reality.


The article eventually is skeptical of the idea but then goes on to only slightly obfuscate the fundamental flaw in their thinking and arrive at a conclusion that is equally ignorant:



A better alternative, experts say, is to encourage long term, stable policies that focus on both increasing supply and shrinking demand.


On the supply side, encouraging greater access to resources and a stable tax policy that gives breaks for oil production is what the oil industry is looking for.


On the demand side, stricter fuel efficiency standards, better urban planning, alternative fuels and a big tax on gasoline would help cut use.


“We’ve never had a real, long-term strategy to address the energy problem,” said Bruce Vincent, vice chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of American, an industry trade group. “We need to have a comprehensive strategy that works for America.”


More government intervention when you just got through coming to the realization that government price fixing probably wouldn’t work? They almost get it but not quite.


Now there is a government policy that would optimize supply and prices. And it would do that optimization in real time and completely without political favoritism. It’s a Free Market. But apparently they are too ignorant to have heard of it.

Maybe he practices being ignorant

Posted on by

From a letter to the editor in the Washington Post:



Mr. Cox took the usual NRA rhetoric to a new level with his suggestion that the “right” to own a gun is more important than the right to vote. Our founding fathers and all of those who worked so hard over the years to ensure the promise of freedom and equality for all citizens would find Mr. Cox’s claim to be contrary to everything this country stands for.


Uh… The writer, LASLO BOYD, is totally clueless about our voting history.

Central Committee in action

Posted on by

Now that we are all socialists our legislators have dropped all pretenses of being something other than the Central Committee. Via reader Rob I discovered the Senate reviewing how college football picks No. 1.

Enumerated powers? What’s that?

It’s not working so let’s do it again

Posted on by

Insanity:



Ammunition magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or more — the kind that Oakland parolee Lovelle Mixon used to kill two of four police officers — would fall under a stricter tracking system under legislation proposed Wednesday by two East Bay lawmakers.


Law enforcement officials currently have few tools to keep the dangerous ammunition devices out of the hands of criminals, said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, the author of the bill.


“This horrible tragedy will pinpoint for us some of the holes in our gun laws,” said Hancock, a member of the Senate Public Safety Committee. “There are a number of lessons from this, and I’m prepared to learn them all. We may need to have a hearing on the status of gun control. I’m very committed to looking at this.”


…


At a time like this, it’s important to find out what’s not working,” said Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland, a co-author of the legislation. “This could be the beginning of a new era of urban conflict. It’s an important warning sign to prepare ourselves for future conflicts that could expose officers and our community to extreme dangers. It’s very sobering. We have a clear responsibility to start taking action.”


It didn’t work. They realize it’s not working. So they want to do it again.


That’s insanity. The following, from the same article, is a blatant lie:



U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has also said that Congress needs to reopen the debate on the assault weapon ban, which President George W. Bush allowed to lapse.


President George W. Bush said he would sign an extension of the AWB but it was never put on his desk for a signature.

Quote of the day–Phil Mendelson

Posted on by

The Supreme Court in Heller struck a balance between the right of individuals to protect themselves and the right of individuals to be protected. If we so limit gun control as to favor individuals to protect themselves, but then disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police, what will we have gained for the public good?


Phil Mendelson
An at-large member of the D.C. Council and chairman of the council’s Committee on Public Safety & the Judiciary.
D.C. Vote: This Is About Safety, Not the 2nd Amendment
March 22, 2009
[People don’t have a right to be protected by the police. Nowhere in the constitution, the law, or in court rules can you find such a “right”. Just the opposite in fact. The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals. This is just the worst of the lies in this article. Read the rest and be sure to take your blood pressure meds first–Joe]

Monumentally stupid idea

Posted on by

It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to arrive at the same conclusion as Mr. Brunson:



Dugger was treated at the hospital after one of the bullets police say he was slamming with a hammer exploded, blowing shrapnel into his leg.


“If you get hit with something hot and fast and out of control, it’s going to possibly cause a problem,” said Travis Brunson, owner of Chiquita Guns.


The event was reportedly witnessed by several children belonging to Dugger’s roommate, who was already under investigation by the Department of Children and Families for inadequate supervision of the children.


“Anyone nearby could have certainly been hit by it. It’s such a monumentally stupid idea,” Brunson said.

Read your own references

Posted on by

Eric Boehlert goes on a rampage about gun control and cites some references to support his position:



After a mentally ill student, Seung-Hui Cho, had made a mockery of Virginia’s gun laws by falsifying his gun-store background check and killing 32 people with the guns he purchased illegally, CNN presented a debate in which an activist arguing that the United States needed to relax its gun-control laws was given equal time to an activist who urged that the country tighten its gun laws. The pro-gun advocate, who represented a radical minority in America, was put on the same footing as the gun-control advocate, whose views reflected the clear plurality of Americans, who have consistently called for stricter gun laws. That’s how CNN chose to frame the debate in the immediate wake of the Virginia Tech massacre.


…


Left unreported in that kind of gun coverage is the fact that relaxing gun laws in the United States represents a radical, out-there idea that’s supported by just a tiny fraction of Americans. Not even gun owners in America want to make the laws less restrictive. (Just 15 percent back the idea.)


What I find interesting is the first reference he cites says this:



  • Just about 4 in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with gun laws in the country, while half are satisfied.

  • The pressure to make gun laws stricter appears to be mitigated. Just slightly more than half of Americans support making laws covering firearms sales more strict, at its lowest point since 2002.

  • More than two in three Americans oppose the government completely outlawing the right to possess a handgun.

  • Nearly 6 in 10 of Americans now say the government should enforce current gun laws more strictly rather than passing new laws. This percentage is up this year, similar to levels previously measured in 2002.

  • The public has grown slightly more likely to say that having a gun in the home makes it a safer, rather than a less safe, place to be. The opposite was true previously from 2000 to 2004.

    • This has a completely different tone than Boehlert’s rant. Boehlert had to really stretch to use it has justification for his conclusions.


    In the use of his second reference he overlooks the fact that just 51% of the public thinks the laws should be made more strict versus 47% (2% have no opinion). And that 4 point difference is down from 14 points in the previous year and down from 60 points a few years before that! The trend is definitely in our favor.


    And what does this guy think the “other side” of those in favor of more restrictive gun laws would be? Apparently he is of the opinion the two sides are “more gun control” and “no more gun control for a while”. This is like trying to work out a compromise with your would-be rapist by asking him to wear a condom.


    I’m of the opinion even the “pro-gun” position mentioned is not really “the other side”. A public opinion poll, which didn’t even ask the right question to find out how many people are on “the other side”, can’t possibly define it. I’ve explained the middle ground before and so won’t do so again here. But suffice it to say Boehlert should be thrilled “the other side” chosen was as close to his viewpoint as it was. Had it really been “the other side” he would have had an aneurysm.

    Needs help

    Posted on by

    I got the following email this morning. My response follows:



    From: tjif tjaf
    Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:36 AM
    To: joeh@boomershoot.org
    Subject: need help


     


    Hi


     


     


    Do you know a way to blow up a house just enough so nobody can live in anymore.


    I mean the exploision must be big enough so it creates a hole or crack in the wall.


     


    Why? whell nobody is living in it for now but it is located in a extraordinary forest with
    som very rare birds and they dont like the be disturbed. so now is the chance to get rid


    of this builing before somebody buys it and want to live in it. i thought to put a propane tank
    in the bassement but i don’t know if it is enough or even explodes.


     


     


    thanks


     





    Uw e-mailcontact koos voor Hotmail en profiteert van een enorme opslagruimte! Maak ook een gratis Hotmail-account aan


    From: Joe Huffman
    Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:47 PM
    To: ‘tjif tjaf’
    Subject: RE: need help


     


    I haven’t worked with propane tanks much. Maybe someone on the Belgium Explosive Ordinance team would know the answer.


     


    I don’t have any contacts in Belgium but I have put some of my contacts in the U.S. (Susan and Crystal with the ATF) on the Bcc: line in hopes they know how to contact them for you.


     


    -joe-


    —–

    Yes, they are that stupid

    Posted on by

    About a month ago when I posted about how stupid one anti-gun bigot was some people wondered if maybe it was a rhetorical question or a clever tactic.


    There is more evidence to indicate that some of them really are that stupid:



    The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun). In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders — three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee — or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

    The guys with the guns make the rules

    Posted on by

    Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign again demonstrates he just doesn’t get it or again thinks he can fool most people. Yesterday he blogged about something the NRA said:



    …Wayne LaPierre was over the top.


    He explained to all of us in America that “the guys with the guns make the rules.”


    Most of us believe that in a democracy, the voters make the rules.


    And how is it do you think you maintain your right to vote Paul? You apparently want to overlook The Battle of Athens for example. And then there are the little things like how German Jews, Russian farmers, and millions of others who lost their ability to vote and live in the past few decades when they didn’t hold on to their guns.


    Soap box, ballot box, jury box, and as a last resort the cartridge box.

    Another back-door registration scheme

    Posted on by

    Sometimes, as with the “one gun a month” schemes, it is a little difficult to see the sneaky way the anti-gun owner bigots try to get universal gun registration. But with this one they only barely lower the profile:



    Local Law “A” for 2009 would tightly regulate “in the interests of public safety” all ammunition sold in Albany County. Not just ammo for handguns, which already is closely monitored by state law, but all rifle and shotgun ammunition as well. Hunting and target shooting ammo, basically. Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, would have to show identification, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the ammo seller. The buyer would have to state his intent of use, and could be refused the purchase. The ammo seller, at the same time, would be required to keep records for 10 years.


    Registration of guns and gun owners over the years has cost people billions of dollars (two billion in Canada alone in the last decade or so) and about 100 million innocent lives (in genocides from Africa to the Ukraine). The number of crimes solved through the use of gun and gun owner registries is asymptotically close to zero.


    In Canada if you ask the gun grabbers how many crimes the police have solved through the use of the gun registry they will subtly change the subject and say, “The registry is used thousands of times each day.” or some such thing. Yes, the registry get a thousands of hits each day by the police. But it just part of a standard query on a person. That doesn’t mean it provided any useful data. And it certainly doesn’t mean it helped solve a crime. John Lott spoke at the 2000 Gun Rights Policy Conference and told us that in Hawaii the police estimate they spend 50,000 hours per year of police time involved in registration efforts. Most of which is paperwork. Yet when you talk to the police they can’t identify even one crime where this has helped. Guns are virtually never left at that crime scene. It’s not in my notes but I recall Lott telling us that when pressed hard enough Canada can support the claim that there was one crime solved through the use the registry which has been, in one form or another, in use for decades.


    So if a gun registration scheme has literally only a one in a million (or less) chance of solving a crime what do you think the real reason the gun grabbers keep pushing for registration? I can only think of four possible reasons:




    1. They are ignorant


    2. They are stupid


    3. They are insane


    4. They want to confiscate the guns

    In regard to #1, they have been told again and again. Any ignorance on their part is incredibly willful.


    In regards to #2, if they are smart enough to count votes they are smart enough to count crimes solved. It is not because they are that stupid.


    In regards to #3, this might be true in some cases. They are so blinded by grief over the loss of a loved one that they are not thinking rationally. But this is not the case for the vast majority of gun grabbers.


    In regards to #4, this is the only answer I can come up with that makes any sense. Those that want to register firearms and/or their owners so they can enable the elimination of gun ownership.


    Molôn Labé.

    Facts? Who cares?

    Posted on by

    From a reader submitted editorial:



    But in Iowa, when a gun discussion was brought up, it referred to hunting and those scraggly guys wearing the camouflage and driving the rusted Ford pickup. Instead of hearing about which person got shot over the weekend, I was hearing something along the lines of “Boy, I ‘m going to gut that coon I shot on Sunday and hang it up in the garage!”


    Great stereotype you got there buddy. Did you learn all about the validity of stereotypes while you were attending Klan orientation?



    The Brady Campaign is a U.S. organization that supports both gun control and gun owners’ rights.


    Can anyone name just one gun control law the Brady Campaign opposed? Does the KKK support both n****r control and civil rights? How can this person think that is even possible?



    If Obama is able to pass stricter gun laws, hunters will suffer and be at an uproar. If Obama doesn’t change anything in regards to gun control, those grieving mothers and communities will be screaming in his ear, asking why he hasn’t done anything about it.


    The classic bolt action deer rifle and shotguns used for bird hunting are the furthest down on Obama’s list and as a class of guns are probably the least used in crimes. I don’t expect Obama will even hint at restricting them. Rifle ammo, maybe. But not the firearms.


    Such ignorance! Why aren’t they embarrassed to have their words seen or heard in public?

    Substance or Hypocritical Posturing? Which one works for you?

    Posted on by

    The following started as my comment at Say Uncle, but I decided it needed its own post.  It’s in response to the now age-old maneuver of calling for more enforcement of existing anti-gun laws rather than passing more, and considering ourselves clever negotiators.  It doesn’t matter who said it recently.  It’s been said for many years;


    “…should enforce existing laws rather than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second Amendment rights.”


    Additional laws “could” infringe?  What; existing laws couldn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights?  Not a single one of them?  Next time someone’s house is busted into, guns are confiscated and destroyed, lives are turned upside down over a technical violation when no one has harmed or threatened any other person, you’ll be perfectly OK with that?  It’d be great, so long as no one bothers you with more laws?  You thought Ruby Ridge was cool, and you want more of the same, so long as it’s convenient for you?  You want to keep innocent people in jail over paper-work errors, or over an inch of barrel length or a quarter inch of buttstock?  Would that make you a proud supporter of the second amendment or a sadistic and immoral jackass with anti American tendencies?  You decide.


    Lets put this into perspective; “The Justice Department should enforce existing laws against negroes rather than propose additional laws that could infringe on Civil Rights.”


    That sounds stupid as all hell, doesn’t it?  How many people would take that as a pro Civil Rights stance and call for more of it?  Yet we have been conditioned over the years to think that’s perfectly acceptable language when discussing second amendment rights.  Any politician says something stupid like that and we think, “Yeah, Baby!  You tell ’em!  That guy’s on OUR side, Man!”


    Oh, how far we have fallen.


    Would we sit idly by and accept a federal department of alcohol, tobacco, negroes and explosives (BATNE)?  Do you like the juxtaposition there?  Lovely, isn’t it?  Should anyone sit by and accept such a thing as an inevitability, and proudly claim that as a clever, politically “reasonable” stance?


    If you reject the idea that gun restrictions equal crime control, and instead believe (as do I) that gun laws are not only counterproductive to their stated goals and an attack on liberty, but unconstitutional, you don’t call for more enforcement of them.  What would be the point in that, unless it’s an unprincipled attempt to appear “reasonable” to people who know nothing of the issue and nothing of the constitution’s history?  For that matter, what law enforcement officer who has taken an oath to the constitution could in good conscience enforce any gun laws against peaceable citizens?


    Are we trying to appeal to the sensibilities of idiots at the expense of our credibility, at the expense of the constitution, at the expense of reason, at the expense of public harmony, and at the expense of liberty?  Yeah; that makes us look like geniuses.  Sure it does.  Or cowards.


    It’s hypocritical.  It’s McCainian (to perhaps coin a new term).  It’s relying on ignorance for public support.  It’s what Republicans do when they listen to their super-smart advisors.


    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to clean my guns.  And to “fondle” them.  You know, ’cause I have a small penis or something.

    Quote of the day–Alan Korwin

    Posted on by

    The congressman’s media release about his letter uses the tired tirade about this being a “no-brainer… requiring no legislative action,” to “protect our brave police,” and a “market flooded with imported, inexpensive, military-style ‘assault’ weapons.” He fails to note that assault is a type of behavior, not an imported product.


    The public is able to get the fine value-priced merchandise as kits, parts imports, reassembled models with some American-made parts, and as curios and relics. Criminals found with the firearms, which even the New York Times has said are bulky and unpopular with street gangs, are subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment — completely apart from gun type or nation of manufacture.


    Part of a larger racist scheme to ban guns for anyone but the rich, it is a new twist on the discredited and now abandoned “Saturday Night Special” schemes (remember those?), and “junk gun” schemes (remember those?) that would outlaw firearms in poverty-stricken neighborhoods, largely populated with people of color, where they really need the guns for self defense and protection against rampant government-sponsored crime from its war on some drugs.


    Alan Korwin
    March 1, 2009
    Affordable Rifle Ban
    [When someone says something is a “no-brainer” in relation to gun laws they are usually right. No brains were involved.–Joe]

    Words have meaning

    Posted on by

    You would think that professional writers would know words have meanings and this is nonsensical unless you also believe the Robocop or Terminator movies represent reality:



    The U.S. State Department said on Friday that U.S.-purchased or stolen weapons account for 95 percent of Mexico’s drug related killings, and that Mexican cartels are increasingly carrying out contract killings in the U.S.


    But of course from the following it’s apparent facts are irrelevant to this writer (gun shows have the same laws and most state do not have registration):



    Mexican cartels often pay U.S. citizens to purchase assault rifles or other guns at gun shops, then sell them to a cartel representative at a U.S. gun show, where registration rules are much less stringent and the gun sale can’t be easily traced.


    I have to conclude the writer is clueless, has an agenda against the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights or both.

    What if he said he was gay?

    Posted on by

    Via Say Uncle I found out some college professors will call the police if you advocate exercising your Second Amendment rights to defend innocent life:



    On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.


    Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.


    That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.


    They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.


    That’s all it takes to have someone call the police on you? And furthermore the police didn’t tell the bigot, “Get over it.”? What if a student had announced they were gay? That could have made some people “scared and uncomfortable”.


    I wonder if the college has some sort of policy against “creating a hostile environment” that could be applied to Professor Anderson.