This is in contrast to my usual type of gun cartoon because I was so annoyed about the cartoon I posted last night. Those people who claim “We’ve got to do something about guns!” and demand additional restrictions on the exercise of this specific enumerated right have crap for brains or evil intent. This cartoon illuminates the mental deficiencies and/or deliberate deception.
If the whole focus of your life is on getting everybody else to agree with you on every detail of your politics and adopt your plans for a perfect society, then you’re setting yourself up to be at war with most of the human race most of the time.
Which means an awful lot for the Angry Left to get angry about.
Robert Tracinski
March 26, 2015
Why Is the Angry Left So Angry?
[While this is a good start I think there is more to it than this.
Having spent a lot of years dealing with someone and their family who were angry much of the time I came to realize that anger was the primary means of communication for them. If you didn’t get angry they would not pay attention to what you were saying. I remember an instance where I coolly and calmly told this person, probably a dozen times over the course of a few days, that what they were doing was hazardous. They would agree, say they wouldn’t do it again, then, frequently, within a few seconds do it again.
Eventually I lost my cool. I yelled. They apologized, said they wouldn’t do it again, and they didn’t. Within a year I found myself getting angry with them with almost no provocation. They taught me to get angry to communicate. I finally realized this and starting thinking about what was going on. I then thought back to the first time I met this persons family. I was at the front door and the living room was chaos. Various people yelling at the same time and no one appeared to be listening to anyone else. My friend, happy to see me, walked through the chaos with a big smile. They were oblivious to the yelling and anger of everyone else.
The entire family communicated via emotions. The actual words weren’t that important. There were many times I would see different people in a conversation were talking about entirely different things but didn’t realize the other party to the conversation was “on a different channel”. Other times what they said was self-contradictory. It didn’t even make sense. Pointing this out to them was interesting. They would laugh and say it didn’t matter. I became sort of a joke to them because I couldn’t understand them. They made no sense to me but they were entirely happy with their babbling to each other and didn’t see what why I had a problem with it. “Oh, Joe, we’re just talking.” is an actual quote which came in response to my confusion about something not making sense.
When the topic of discussion was something of significant importance and it involved me I would sometimes insist they pay attention to reality and make sense. This would result in a fight. The claim was that “I had to get my own way.” But it wasn’t my way. It was forcing them to be congruent with reality and the laws of physics.
We see similar things with the left/progressives. They think they have accomplished something by holding a candlelight vigil. They demand a higher minimum wage and higher employment rate no matter how many time it is demonstrated you can’t have both for very long. They demand enhanced background checks because President Regan, Jim Brady, and a bunch of kids were shot—even though the shooters did, or would have, passed the proposed background check.
They use “hash tag diplomacy” and declare victory when bullets are the only viable option to effect change. They throw “reasons” like, “stand your ground”, and “war on women” around because they know our society requires at least some lip service be given to “reasons” even if the facts don’t support their claims. They don’t understand reason and resort to making reasoning noises. They cannot even tell you how to determine truth from falsity.
Emotion is their currency and their reality. If they feel something is true then, for them, it is true. This was driven home to me when I extreme frustration I once demanded, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” They calmly told me, “It depends on how I feel.”
I have been repeatedly told and after many decades of trying everything else I’m beginning to believe the proper approach to these people is to not get emotional. That is their “battle space”. When you get emotional it makes them happy because you become one of them. Then any emotion they care to use is justified because you are already emotional. Insist they be rational. They can’t. They only have emotions. Point out their logical and factual errors and refuse to accept their emotions as currency.
We do not share a common basis for communication or for determining reality. We share the same planet but they are in a different world. So of course they get angry with us. In their minds we are aliens in a turf war with them.—Joe]
The sniper is an incredibly efficient fighter, compared to the typical infantryman. Consider that in World War II, American infantry units fired 25,000 rounds to kill just one enemy soldier. By the Korean War, that figure jumped to 50,000 rounds, and the select-fire M14 and M16 infantry rifles of the Vietnam War only seem to have produced more misses, requiring the expenditure of 200,000 rounds to kill one enemy combatant. Nowadays, it’s a quarter million rounds of spraying and praying to kill a single Taliban. By comparison, on average, a sniper requires only 1.3 bullets to kill an enemy. During the Vietnam War, it was noted on many occasions that a handful of snipers accounted for more enemy killed than the entire infantry battalion (and sometimes even regiment) they were assigned to.
Frank Jardim
February 27, 2015
History of the Sniper
[250 K rounds to kill one Taliban? Can anyone who has actually “been there and done that” recently confirm this? It seems like a lot.
And of course bullets and kills are not necessarily the appropriate measure of battle efficiency. You could consume 0.9 bullets per dead enemy by firing nine rounds for ten kills where one bullet killed two of the enemy and lose the battle because your enemy fired 10,000 rounds and killed 1000 of your troops.
Or you could roll your 1000 tanks supported by 10K troops into your enemy’s capital and the enemy gives up without firing a shot and no one dies.
But still, there is something to be said for one person being able to take out a selected enemy at will with a good chance of escape. This makes moderate numbers of individuals without a lot of infrastructure supporting them very powerful.
This is Why Boomershoot.—Joe]
So that moron who keeps spewing garbage – and doesn’t seem like he’s even listening to your responses – may actually be a bot.
George Washington
March 23, 2015
Propagandists Use Automated Software to Spread Disinformation
[We have suspected this for some time now. The anti-gun people are just so dense they could be replaced with a bot without any degradation in perceived intelligibility.
Our time is probably better spent taking new shooters to the range than it is engaging in battle on Twitter.—Joe]
In what universe is this cartoonist living in? If anything like this were to be true then it would also be true at the gun stores of today. There also have been lots of guns printed and I’m certain nothing like this has happened, let alone the first time a gun was printed.
This guy wants to make people think that only cold blooded killers would want a gun. This, of course, is demonstrably false. But the bigger the lie the more likely is it to be believed.
U dickless fucks R broken & fuckd in head.
Donnie Brasco @D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
The fact is the US has no gun control and the fact is Americans don’t want gun control because they’re largely illiterate on the topic.
Bob Puharic
March 11, 2015
Comment to The NRA Wins Again on Armor-piercing Bullets, But Common Sense Was Already Lost
[Wow!
I consider myself only semi-literate on gun control laws in this country because I haven’t begun to read all of the estimated 20 to 30 thousand laws we have.
Puharic is a stunning example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.—Joe]
holy shit kill yourself.
You realize the only people who want these are those who can’t legally get guns, right?
I can say this honestly: I hope you or someone you love is shot.
Sir Malta
January 6, 2015
Comment to 3D-Printed Guns Are Only Getting Better, and Scarier
[There are many legitimate reasons why one would want a gun without it being registered with the government. Sir Malta with his desire to see you and/or your family dead or injured is one of those reasons.
Via email from Jack M.—Joe]
Via a post of Alan Andrews on Facebook we have Davenport employer offers cash bonus to conceal carry:
DAVENPORT, Iowa (KWQC) – Getting paid extra, to carry a firearm.
A local attorney said he is giving his employees a $50 bonus each month if they choose to conceal carry.
Not only does this help normalize the carry of firearms it probably is going to induce aneurisms in the anti-gun crowd.
We need more of this.
If you track the scoring, and the graded topics, over time it becomes clear they are publishing their own obituary in slow motion.
Matthew
March 17, 2014
Comment to Gun Control ‘Humor’ in regards to the Brady Campaign’s gun control “scorecard”.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We frequently hear the some large percentage of the public is in support of universal background checks for firearms sales. But it is easy to demonstrate that a large percentage of the public is either ignorant of the effectiveness of background checks or has evil intent.
Basically the problem boils down to a large percentage of the public has opinions on things they really don’t know much about. Brother Doug pointed out a great example recently:
A … survey in January conducted by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics found that 82 percent of respondents supported mandatory labels on GMOs. However, 80 percent of respondents also said they supported mandatory labels on “foods containing DNA.”
This is the reason we have a representative democracy with enumerated powers for the government rather than a direct democracy. Our representatives are supposed to carefully study and debate any potential laws and only enact laws that are beneficial to the majority of people and do not infringe upon the rights of anyone.
Popular opinion can easily be shown, see above, to be a very poor way of determining, well, almost anything.
That is beyond disturbing! He should be locked up for child neglect!
Sandra Gonzales
March 9, 2015
Facebook comment on the CSGV page in response to this photo found on Shyanne Roberts Facebook page:
Shyanne, a ten year old competitive shooter, posted the picture with the following comment:
Teee Heee the first shipment of ammo from my sponsor Steel Ridge Ammunition showed up today !! So I decided to forget about snow angels and make an ammo angel instead !
VERY, VERY happy and cant wait to hit the range, thanks so much to the entire team at Steel Ridge Ammunition!
[Would they also want someone laying on a stack of Bibles locked up for child neglect? Or is it just the exercise of Second Amendment rights they find disturbing?—Joe]
We face destructive hyperbole from an agenda-driven fear-mongering group in the nation’s murder capital, where obtaining even a government permission slip to keep and bear arms is virtually impossible. They get extensive “news” coverage, instead of ridicule and a demand for an apology. If such preposterous outrage were to appear over race, gender or any other civil right the media would howl with alarm. Instead, we find the lunatics are truly running the asylum. Guns save lives, stop crime and help keep you safe. The media should start covering that missing angle.
Alan Korwin
March 15, 2015
BRADY CAMPAIGN INSULTS ARIZONA BADLY
[This was in response to the Brady Campaign video I posted here.
I have nothing more to add.—Joe]
Uh oh, the #tinycockclub aka nra lapdogs, are losing their shit because I called them on their insecurity. Score. #gunsense #fuckthenra
Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
This is what the cartoonist thinks of supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. They believe we are insane criminals who should go to prison for the crimes of others.
I dream that one day, every woman who goes to the gun range in time of need will meet a person there who has both the willingness and the skills to teach her what she immediately need to know, with the expectation that she will in time be prepared to turn around and help spread that knowledge to others.
Kathy Jackson
March 13, 2015
I have a dream
[The only thing I would change about this dream is to remove the specific gender. Both men and women have times of need.—Joe]
This is a Brady Campaign video (the comments are disabled—of course):
They claim that a criminal can buy a gun without a background check in Arizona and Nevada then sell it in California because AZ and NV don’t have universal background checks. This makes AZ and NV criminal paradises of some sort. But CA is a bad place for criminals because they do have universal background checks.
But if CA is such a bad place for criminals then why would criminals be motivated to sell guns there? And why wouldn’t these lifesaving background checks in CA prevent the criminals from selling guns to criminals in CA?
And if background checks make a difference in violent crime why is the 2013 violent crime rate in AZ (416.5/100K) and to a certain extent NV (603.0/100K) not all that different from CA (402.1/100K)? And why did they choose AZ and NV to talk about lack of universal background checks? Why not all states without universal background checks or maybe Idaho or Washington which in 2013 had violent crime rates of 217.0/100K and 289.1/100K? It is clear that background checks do not and cannot have a significant influence upon violent crime rates. But they do draw resources away from law enforcement that could have been used to put and keep violent criminal in prison. But facts like this are not something they want well known even though they know it themselves.
There can only be one explanation. They are attempting to deliberately deceive the public with sloppy thinking and cherry picking of data to gain support for the infringing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They have a demonstrated history of a culture of deception and it doesn’t appear to be changing even though they have had many changes in leadership during the last decade. I believe they know that they have to lie to have any hope of winning.
The cartoonist has to be incredibly ignorant or deliberately deceptive to claim the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. They have to have completely ignored or want you to ignore, the first part of it. One of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment is the security of a free state. It is not the right to hunt animals. It is the right to hunt tyrants and their minions. If this was not true then why would the U.S. Supreme Court rule that unless the arms have:
…some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
It is specifically military weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Also, as Weer’d Beard has often said, George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware River to get to his duck blind.
One might think it is odd that anti-gun people will claim we ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment (“well regulated”) but then they do that themselves when they claim it is about hunting. But what you have to understand is that these people have serious mental issues.
Who in their right mind thinks of owning guns as a human right?!
Scott Peterson
March 11, 2015
Comment to The NRA Wins Again on Armor-piercing Bullets, But Common Sense Was Already Lost
[One might conclude that Peterson is of the opinion that the entire U.S. Supreme Court and the majority of the U.S. population should be sent to the psych ward.
If this is true then I would like to suggest Peterson take point on that endeavor and see just who it is that ends up occupying the psych ward.—Joe]
I’ve been in a restaurant that offers a discount to “gun-toters” multiple times and have never seen anything like this happen. I also been in restaurants hundreds of times while I and/or others were carrying and not once have I seen anything like this happen.
The cartoonist has an extremely wild and error prone imagination and/or is prejudiced against gun owners. What would be the response if some cartoonist hypothesized some equally outrageous consequences for a restaurant that welcomed people of color or alternate sexual orientation?
Bigotry and prejudice is never pretty regardless of the target. People should explain this to the cartoonist and the media that propagate this sort of thing.