Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

The AR15: long may it wave

This one opens with one of the most deeply satisfying lines you’ll ever read.

Beto O’Rourke will never get the chance to take away the AR-15 kept in the home of Jeremy King of Lithia, Florida.

Or anybody else’s. The piece continues to recount the story of the King family’s ordeal with a couple of home-invader goblins; thanks to the intrepid, gutsy Mrs King, the family was saved from disaster by her handiness with the family AR. Thankfully, all’s well that ends well:

Police later found one of the assailants dead in a nearby ditch. This is just one of the many cases that happen every day of armed citizens saving lives with firearms, unheralded by the media.

The response time for a bullet from an AR-15 fired in self-defense is a lot quicker than calling 911. Other non-scary weapons are just as lethal and the AR-15 has been chosen by popular demand as the defensive weapon of choice.

Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season.

Damned skippy. Read the rest for more heartwarming stories of ordinary people protecting themselves, their families, and their neighbors from vicious predators with The People’s Choice For Self Defense: the venerable AR15. As Sobieski flatly states: it’s what the Second Amendment is all about.

Share

Viva Cruz

When he’s right, he’s right.

Sen. Ted Cruz is warning that President Donald Trump making a deal with Democrats on gun legislation might cause conservative voters to stay home in 2020.

“If Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights,” the Texas Republican said, “that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren.”

“We’re going to see record-setting Democratic turnout. The only element missing is demoralizing conservatives so they stay home. I hope we don’t do that,” Cruz told reporters at a Thursday breakfast.

He was responding to a question that specifically referenced a possible deal between the Trump administration and a bipartisan group of senators including Democrats Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, as well as Republican Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Rule Numero Uno: no deals with Democrat-Socialists—NONE of them, not EVER. Most especially on guns. As I said last night, they’re liars, not to be trusted as far as you could throw a flaming busload of the rotten bastards. If Trump doesn’t know this—and I very much doubt he doesn’t; he’s proven again and again that he just ain’t that stupid—then playing footsie with them on the 2A will prove to be a most painful way of learning the lesson. Ted’s political instincts are ringing all the right alarm bells on this one, and Trump would be wise to pay closest attention to the warning.

Share

2020: there will be blood?

Could be, could be.

Trump Wins
Those on the left will not allow a Trump victory, even should he win the popular vote and the Electoral College. They are used to getting what they want and like spoiled brats, have learned that tantrums work.

Should Donald Trump prevail in his bid for a second term, the left will go insane, deploying every “insurance policy” weapon at their disposal to negate four more years of the Orange Man.  What Obama, Comey, and Brennan et al. did to Trump in his first term will seem mild in comparison to what the left is planning should he win.

Antifa, the military arm of the Democratic Party, has not spent the last three years practicing and organizing merely to sit on the sidelines. They have used the interregnum to mobilize and learn tactics, while probing to find what government will allow, media will trumpet, and the public will endure.

The skirling “resistance” has morphed from pajama-boy blobs of perpetually offended little dictators and pussy-hat sporting shriekers into balaclava-wearing avengers who crave the opportunity to put deplorables in their place and give them the government they deserve good and hard. They will flood the streets after a Trump victory in their Antifa costumes looking to bust the heads of anyone near enough to become part of their 15 minutes of YouTube fame.

It will start in the cities — the Democrat-run cities, of course — where the political leadership will provide them a measure of protection against identification and arrest. Seattle, Portland, LA, San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, and Baltimore, among others, will become flashpoints of unrest. 

The riots will be portrayed by the media and the Democrats as a groundswell of support for deposing a racist president. They will bemoan the necessity of the violence, destruction, and loss of life, but remind Americans that “the people have spoken.” Some among the Antifa will be championed. In lockstep, both the New York Times and the Washington Post will run headlines calling them: “The New Founding Fathers.” People who fight back will quickly grow in number — even as the media label them “white supremacists.” Blood will be spilled.

And at that point, it probably ought to be. The next part is of more concern to me, honestly.

Trump Loses
The right will never believe the Democrats didn’t cheat their way to victory; in addition to understanding that a Democratic President will undemocratically implement policies by executive order that are inimical to their interests and desires.

Both their suspicions and their fears would be justified, too. Onwards.

Many on the right are weary of leaders who prioritize good press over good policy, and who prefer losing gracefully over winning ugly. They believe they did build that and that they have not yet made enough money and are fed up with being portrayed as ignorant and evil just because of political disagreements. Eight years of Obama and three years of watching his slow-motion coup have made them angry.

Tone-deaf to this silent majority and emboldened by victory, the new president will borrow Barry’s “pen and phone” and start issuing executive orders throwing open our borders, banning fossil fuels, and of course, implementing “common sense” gun control. Buoyed by media, the new president will start with universal background checks and a gun registry.

Eventually, the president will overreach, signing an order for gun confiscation, euphemistically called, “mandatory buybacks.”  Antifa and their ilk will flood the streets in support of seizing these “weapons of war.” Media will declare, “It’s the will of the people.”

And for the right, that will be the last straw (plastic or paper).

Ahhh, but there’s the rub: would it, really? I’ve long held that gun confiscation would indeed be the straw that finally breaks the American camel’s back; these days, though, I’m less certain of that than I once was. Already we’ve seen at least one gun owner killed by police in a red-flag-law confiscation attempt, without much more than a murmur from anyone. It will happen again; count on it. So what happens next time? The time after that? The time after that?

As I’ve said again and again: no sane, normal person wants to have to kill anybody, and will put up with one hell of a lot in order to avoid it. And the overwhelming majority of gun owners are more sane, normal, and above all responsible than most. Their perfectly justifiable reluctance to pull the trigger, especially on a cop, is one of the factors that make me doubt my previous blanket assumption that gun confiscation would amount to putting the match to the American powder keg.

I’m more inclined now to think that there’s actually but one thing capable of fanning the smoldering embers of Civil War 2.0 into full-on flame: hunger. Should hunger, for whatever currently-inconceivable cause, become a real problem in this country, violence must surely follow. No human being will just sit back and passively starve; even the most peaceful and law-abiding among us will be driven to extreme measures by hunger.

Worse, no man will tolerate seeing his children going hungry, not for very long. A man who would never dream of shooting a cop, even over a gun-confiscation raid, would be a lot less balked by the prospect of killing somebody, anybody, over food for a hungry young ‘un. A LOT. Should FedGovCo somehow come to be perceived as the cause of widespread hunger, FedGovCo will need to get its problem rectified, sharpish. Or else.

Most Americans long ago divorced themselves from high-minded Constitutional principle; liberty, self-determination, and such-like words are barely even a part of their vocabulary nowadays. Certainly tyranny is not something they have even the most rudimentary grasp of, and are not much bothered by it anyway. Not so with gun owners, of course. But I’m guessing as of now that, having seen the 2A rendered all but meaningless already by incremental encroachment, they’d probably be content to bury their arms in the backyard and bide their time for a while longer in preference to going all-out to defend the 2A. Not derogating them for it, mind. But if there’s really to be a Civil War 2.0, I no longer think it’s the 2A problem that will spark it.

Which puts a Democrat-Socialist theft of the 2020 election right out the window as a probable cause. I could be all wet, of course. But right now that’s how it all looks to me.

Update! Don’t think for a second that the Democrat-Socialists are NOT going to try to take them, either. Not for a single moment.

During the September 12, 2019, Democrat debate, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke confirmed his plans to take AR-15 and AK-47 rifles from Americans.

Beto O’Rourke was asked if he is ready to support confiscation, and he said, “I am if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”

He then elaborated on how certain bullets are meant to operate in military guns, but he never explained that an AR-15 is not a military weapon. It is a civilian, semiautomatic rifle that shoots one round each time the trigger is pulled. The military weapon, an M4, shoots semiautomatic or fully automatic and is designed to handle the heat and stress of being shot on a battlefield. An AR-15 is not.

After inaccurately describing  the AR-15, O’Rourke said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

As you would expect, Mayor Buttplug is, shall we say, all in.

In an interview with TMZ Live on Friday, Buttigieg was asked about the Twitter feud between former Congressman Beto O’Rourke and Texas Republican Representative Briscoe Cain.

After O’Rourke told gun owners that “Hell, yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15″ during the Democrat debate on Thursday, Cain dared Beto O’Rourke on Twitter to come and take his AR-15.

Buttigieg agreed with O’Rourke that Cain’s comment on Twitter was a “death threat,” and the South Bend mayor admonished Cain for failing to have a more intelligent conversation about gun issues.

Only if you try to come and take them, Buttplug. And lest you think Blotto and Buttplug are mere outliers:

After years of being told that we are paranoid for saying that the anti-gun Left wants to confiscate our weapons, the anti-gun Left is letting us know in no uncertain terms that they want to confiscate our weapons.

Last year, when the only constituency he was trying to woo consisted of residents of the great state of Texas, O’Rourke was still paying lip service to being a supporter of legal gun owners.

So much for that.

Kamala Harris got out in front of everything earlier in the year when she promised that she would almost immediately become an executive-action nightmare on gun control if Congress didn’t give her what she wanted.
While the Democrats keep referring to the AR-15 specifically, they also repeatedly use the phrase “weapons of war,” which puts the slippery in “slippery slope.”

“Weapons of war” is a catch-all that can also refer to sidearms, knives, and anything else ever used in a battle. They used to use rocks back in the catapult days, you know.

They naturally dismiss this idea as just more paranoia, even as they work to prove that none of us are actually paranoid.

Yep. The thing to remember about them—all of them, all of the time—is that they’re fucking liars. Well, that, and one other little thing:

The obvious takeaway from all of this is that we were right all along about the Democrats’ intentions, which provides a perfect example for future debates when they’re pretending to be anything other than what they truly are: Soviet-esque control-freak statists.

Annnnd bingo.

Bloody bloody update! Oddly, there’s no story beneath the Bee’s headline, just a picture. No matter, the headline says it all: “Beto: ‘Hell Yes I’m Going To Violate My Oath To Defend The Constitution.’” Ehhhh, big deal; every last one of them starts doing that about five minutes after being sworn in. Elsewhere, Insty chimes in in his usual concise, to-the-point manner:

THEY’RE UPSET BECAUSE ONLY LEFTISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN VIOLENCE IF THEY DON’T GET THEIR WAY: New Republic: Conservatives: We’ll Spill Blood to Keep Our Guns. “‘There would be violence’ neatly elides what’s actually being claimed: Some gun-rights activists would murder government officials who try to enforce a duly passed law. This isn’t an extreme viewpoint among such gun enthusiasts. If anything, it’s one of their central tenets.”

What part of Molon Labe don’t you get? Well, probably all of it, given today’s dismal education system.

And a law that violates the Constitution — which gun confiscation absolutely would — isn’t a “duly passed law.” It’s a usurpation of authority. Funny that all these people who have been yammering about #Resistance and punching Nazis seem okay with the idea of laws that violate the Constitution, laws that are — of course — themselves enforced with guns and violence.

But should it come to that, which I doubt, I suspect it wouldn’t be the cops and troops enforcing this who would be targeted first.

Well, it shouldn’t be, in fact. The targets of right ought to be the Democrat-Socialist would-be tyrants responsible for it in the first place. “Okay with the idea of laws that violate the Constitution”? Of course they are. That’s their bread and butter, it’s what they’re all about—Progressivism distilled down to its purest essence. Once you recognize that, everything they do suddenly becomes crystal clear.

Share

“How could they POSSIBLY have foreseen…?”

Leaving aside how that question, so frequently and smugly posed by the gun-grabbin’ Left in relation to the 2A, might also apply to things like modern printing and information re: the 1st, the truth is the Founders didn’t have to foresee anything at all. It was right there in front of them all along.

Philadelphia, PA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Many people try to claim that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of repeating rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. However, the story of Joseph Belton and his correspondence with the Continental Congress proves otherwise.

Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Philadelphia, claimed to have devised a new form of flintlock musket that was capable of firing as many as sixteen consecutive shots in as little as twenty seconds. After the gun had fired its consecutive loads, it could then be reloaded individually like all other traditional firearms of that era. He first wrote to Congress about his new invention on April 11, 1777, letting them know he was available to demonstrate his invention to them at any time.

Intrigued by Belton’s claim, Congress ordered 100 examples of his “new improved gun.” They authorized him to oversee the construction of new guns, or alteration of existing guns, so that they were capable of discharging eight rounds with one loading and that he “receive a reasonable compensation for his trouble, and be allowed all just and necessary expences [sic].”

Unfortunately for Belton, what he thought of as “reasonable compensation” in no way jibed with what Congress was willing to cough up, so after much maneuvering the deal was never done. Bottom line:

Despite the fact that Joseph Belton failed to convince the Continental Congress to outfit colonial soldiers with his repeating rifle, it’s still a very important story. Belton invented his gun in 1777. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until 1791. That means our Founding Fathers not only knew about repeating rifles 14 years before the creation of the Second Amendment, but that they thought highly enough of the idea to pursue further development and implementation of such technology. The fact that it proved to be cost-prohibitive is moot, as it certainly could have been done if Congress and Belton had agreed upon the definition of “reasonable compensation.”

So, the next time someone tells you the Second Amendment was never designed to protect the right to own a repeating rifle, or that it was only meant to apply to flintlock firearms, sit them down and tell them the story of Joseph Belton and his repeating flintlock musket.

Once again, it’s not that liberals don’t know anything. It’s that so much of what they think they know isn’t so. And on no issue does that rule apply more completely than on the 2A.

Share

Two-Day Rule still in effect

TOLD ya he was trolling ’em.

President Trump suggested Democrats have given up any defense of the Second Amendment and pledged that he will not allow Americans’ gun rights to be swept away on the “slippery slope” of gun control.

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

He observed:

The Democrats would, I believe — I think they’d give up the Second Amendment.  And the people that — a lot of the people that put me where I am are strong believers in the Second Amendment — and I am, also.  And we have to be very careful about that.  You know, they call it the “slippery slope,” and all of the sudden, everything gets taken away.  We’re not going to let that happen.

Breitbart News reported that Trump used weekend comments to shift away from background checks.

Politico reported that Trump was asked about the background check gun control push and he said, “I’m not saying anything. I’m saying Congress is going to be reporting back to me with ideas. And they’ll come in from Democrats and Republicans. And I’ll look at it very strongly. But just remember, we already have a lot of background checks.”

However staunch a 2A guy he may or may not be, he’s nowhere near stupid enough to be oblivious to how dangerous caving in to the liberal-fascist gun-grabbers would be to him. Look for the post-mass-murder clamor to quickly fade away without much further ado, like it always does. Might be a different story if HILLARY!™ was president; probably would, in fact. But she ain’t. Elsewhere, we have other heartening developments:

President Trump on Wednesday signed a memorandum directing the Department of Education to eliminate all federal student loan debt owed by tens of thousands of severely disabled veterans.

Trump signed the directive following a speech to AMVETS at the organization’s 75th annual convention in Kentucky. The announcement drew applause from those in attendance, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

“Nobody can complain about that, right?” Trump said. “The debt of these disabled veterans will be entirely erased. It will be gone. They can sleep well tonight.”

Trump said the memo will apply to more than 25,000 veterans who are “completely and permanently” disabled. Federal taxes will not be applied to the forgiven debt, he added.

It isn’t clear from the article whether FederalGovCo will be picking up the tab, but with any luck they’ll stick the colleges themselves with it, and expand the program further from there until the damnable liberal indoctrination mills are howling with pain. Another encouraging development:

The entire mass migration to our border and all its cascading ill effects can be traced to one thing: the Flores settlement’s expansion from children to family units by a single district judge. Flores is not a constitutional provision, a statute, or even a court ruling. It is a court settlement, designed as a temporary arrangement, that actually runs contrary to statute and has been used as a catalyst to undermine every bedrock law of sovereignty. After a full year of dithering, the Trump administration is finally using its unquestionable power to modify the settlement to finally end catch-and-release.

The Flores settlement, originally agreed upon in 1997 and modified in 2001, provided that government would only house alien children in “non-secure, state licensed” facilities or release them expeditiously until and unless the federal government writes a regulation to build its own licensing scheme ensuring the safe and sanitary conditions of the facilities. Given that there are no such state-licensed facilities, and the feds, until now, have not created their own scheme, it forced them to release unaccompanied minors expeditiously. In 2015, a California judge applied Flores to children accompanied by a parent as well, an order that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit the following year.

Until now, courts have lawlessly “legislated” a 20-day deadline for holding children without such certified facilities or else they have to be released. Moreover, Judge Dana Sabraw created a new edict last year contrary to law that children can’t be released alone once they come with an adult and that the adult must be released with them. Thus, the expansion of Flores and Sabraw’s ruling spawned the worst period of migration in our history, where primarily one adult would come with one child, the perfect scam.

With today’s change, the Trump administration is fulfilling one of the options laid out in the Flores settlement by publishing regulations governing the treatment of detained minors. Officials have created a process for certifying the conditions of various facilities they now believe fulfill the conditions of Flores and can be designed to hold children with their parents. Thus, no family separation – and no catch-and-release.

The reality is that very few people will wind up in these holding facilities in the long run, because the minute they hear the scam is over, they simply will not come.

Mo’ bettah still at the link. And the welcome news keeps right on a’comin’.

Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday that he plans to meet with Attorney General William Barr this week to discuss how best to roll out the SpyGate documents that will soon be released to the public.

“I’m going to meet the attorney general this week to talk to him about how best to tell the story,” Graham, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said. “I don’t want people to conjecture as to what happened. I want you to read it.”

The senator said he wants the American people to see the 302s (transcripts of FBI interviews with witnesses), the full Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications taken out against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and the transcripts of the “confidential informants” who spoke with campaign aide George Papadopoulos.

“I want you to hear in real time that the guy said ‘I’m not working with the Russians. If I were, it would be a crime of treason,'” Graham said, referring to the exculpatory information that the FBI left off of their FISA application.

Graham noted that the media will try its best to ignore the “damning and ugly” information when it comes out. “You’ll only find it on Fox. You may find it a little in the paper,” he predicted. “It will get ten percent of what the Mueller report got.”

He went on to suggest that investigators should start focusing on former president Obama if they want to get to the bottom of what happened.

His lips. God’s ears. Are we done with the good news yet? Why, no. No, we are not.

A judge has ordered the FBI to release the communications between Department of Justice lawyer Bruce Ohr and former British spy Christopher Steele.

The headlice dug so deeply into various pockets of Deep State resistance have been stonewalling, hoping against hope to outlast Trump until some way could be found to remove him. But now the ground under their dragging feet is beginning to crumble and crack. Too bad, so sad for them.

Share

Resistance: not futile

Don’t obey unlawful orders.

Once again, responding to a horrendous crime by inflicting knee-jerk, authoritarian restrictions on innocent people proves to be an ineffective means of convincing people to obey. Specifically, New Zealand’s government—which also stepped up censorship and domestic surveillance after bloody attacks on two Christchurch mosques earlier this year—is running into stiff resistance to new gun rules from firearms owners who are slow to surrender now-prohibited weapons and will probably never turn them in.

Officials should have seen it coming.

“Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuff reported at the end of May, based on internal government documents.

As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibitionon semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall.

That gun owners would, in large numbers, defy restrictions should have been anticipated by anybody who knows the history of government attempts to disarm their subjects—or who just glanced across the Tasman Sea to Australia.

“In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities,” wrote Franz Csaszar, professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, after Australia’s 1996 compensated confiscation of firearms following a mass murder in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Csaszar put the number of illegally retained arms in Australia at between two and five million.

Even here at home, gun owners in such presumably-cowed deep Blue states as Connecticut (15% compliance) and New York (5% compliance) raised a defiant middle finger and refused to stack arms when government demanded it of them, to their eternal credit. As Vox says:

The people of New Zealand have seen what has happened post-gun control in both Australia and England. The violence has gotten worse, not better. The governments have gotten more authoritarian, not less. And given the degraded demographic situation in all these countries, only a complete fool would comply with these intrinsically immoral laws and disarm himself.

Amen to that. The above article is over a month old; a commenter posts that the number of weapons turned in as of a few days ago is up to 15,511—still a paltry few, relatively speaking, most assuredly far less than the authoritarian authorities hoped and/or expected.

The dark cloud to this silver lining, obviously, is that those defiant gun owners are going to find getting themselves the requisite skill-honing range time a bit, shall we say, problematic going forward. A freedom that must be carefully concealed and never openly exercised ain’t no freedom at all. As Bracken always says, if you think it’s time to start burying the guns in the backyard, it’s probably time to start digging them up instead.

But still, resistance to the gun-grabbers is a good thing wherever and whenever it’s to be found, infinitely preferable to the kind of sheeplike acquiescence so disgracefully displayed by our once-doughty British cousins. So hats off to the good Kiwis; may the rediscovery of their balls not have come too late, and may their example provide a cautionary note to all those who would rule rather than govern.

Share

Call to arms

As the Left’s desperation grows, their unhinged refusal to abide by the results of any election they don’t win becomes more frenzied; their resolve to overthrow the duly-elected President by any means at all becomes more mulish; and their calls to revolution, disorder, and violence become less subtle, more open, and more dangerous.

PARIS—From Algeria to Hong Kong, Sudan to Puerto Rico, people all over the world have been turning out in the streets this year to confront policies and regimes that previously seemed all but invulnerable. And through relentless, largely peaceful protests they’ve had amazing success.

“Largely peaceful.” Uh huh. You’ll squeal like stuck little piggies when Real Americans finally get themselves a bellyfull, and some of that same mostly-peacefulness that far too many of us have already experienced from your side gets unleashed upside your heads for a change.

There is a lesson here. Americans disgusted by Donald J. Trump, disheartened by his control over the Senate and Supreme Court, demoralized by the consistent support he enjoys from two-fifths of the population, and appalled by his incitement of gun-toting racists, might want to take note.

The examples of mass demonstrations that have taken on, and in some cases taken down, terrible leaders show there are formulas that can be applied in many places, including the mainland of the United States of America. There’s even an illustrative equation.

Why have we not seen this kind of concerted, continuous combination of mass and velocity in the United States?

Maybe the American opposition to the Trump regime really isn’t as impassioned as many rants on Twitter might suggest. Or maybe those are just onanistic ends in themselves. There’s been a lot of obvious passivity: waiting for Robert Mueller to take care of everything, or pretending that the symbolic act of impeachment will squeeze the sleaze out of office.

Certainly, by comparison with the demonstrators in other parts of the world there’s a hint of sloth and even of cowardice.

When I broached some of these ideas on Twitter (where else?) one tweep complained impotently that “we” couldn’t even get Twitter to take down the president’s account, as if that would solve anything.

More than one suggested fear of Trump supporters with guns acts as a deterrent.

Glad to hear it; that means the Second Amendment, against all odds, is still working as intended. It also suggests there might actually remain some small hope, however miniscule, of you frothing fascists coming to your senses and stepping back from the brink before it’s too late. People like you are precisely whom the Founders warned us about; the 2A was written not to protect anybody’s right to hunt but to act as a deterrent to your kind, a last line of defense should you fail to heed its warning at last.

Your fear is wise and proper. May God grant that you never lose or dismiss it—for ALL our sakes.

Share

Gun Rights Cake

So in last night’s “die gun-grabbers die!” post, the Aesop excerpt included a link to LawDog’s classic “Gun Rights Cake” essay, one I’ve also mentioned here myself a time or three. But it suddenly occurred to me that some of y’all may not have seen it before, and probably passed Aesop’s glancing mention on by without a thought or care. And that’s too bad, because you’re missing out on a real standout of a gem of a prize: one of the most pithy, unusual, and well-put-together arguments against any further concessions to the maneuverings and manipulations of gun-grabbers who aren’t ever going to be placated no matter what we agree to give up—people for whom the word “compromise” has always meant “We win, you surrender.”

So as a public service, I’m gonna do y’all a solid and repost it again. There’s a comic-strip version which I’m all but certain I ran here a while back, and LawDog also helpfully provides a link to his own GRC repost which features some quite worthy additional material as well. But the Q&A discussion from the original text-only post is worth including a bit of, which I don’t believe I ever have put up here. So we’ll go with that one this time around.

Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?

Yes.

Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

The same way you banned guns in New York. The same way you banned guns in Chicago. The same way you banned guns in Washington DC. Duh.

Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? I believe that all law-abiding citizens are human, and thus, not perfect. That’s not a reason to ban their guns, though.

All good stuff, and there’s plenty more of it. And then comes the question that leads to the timeless and immortal “Gun Rights Cake” response.

Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn’t even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

Nope. It’s always been subterfuge, a diabolical stratagem that demonstrates what the Left learned from the unexpected failure of another of their pet projects, Prohibition. Incrementalism has been their preferred approach to stripping Americans of their freedom ever since, on just about any issue you care to name. The inch-by-inch, step-by-step approach ensures the frog stays in the pot, see, until he’s all boiled and done. But if there’s one core, take-it-to-the-bank truth about them, it is that they will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped.

Share

Warning order

Strong message follows. STRONG.

Dear Leftards:

You irrepressible commie halfwits think you’ve got the cards. You’re the idiot talking tough with the shotgun in your hand, and you’re about to get comeuppance. In Louis L’Amour’s memorable phrase, you’re about to have your meathouse torn down. With a mere couple of nutbags (mainly your own nutbags, nota bene) doing what nutbags do, you imagine you’ve got enough pull now to leverage your way into more asinine abridgments of the Constitution.

You haven’t, you won’t, and you really, really need to knock it off.

We’re really not kidding.

You’ve had all the slices of our cake you’re ever getting.

A lot of people thought we’d be facing ramped up anti-gun legislation long before now, because Shrillary and the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate looked like a shoe-in…until she wasn’t. 

And serious people were ready, then, to open the ball you’re itching for now.

If TPTB were to decide they could set the last vestiges of the Constitution on fire, there’s more than a few that would take it upon themselves as a point of honor, not to wait cowering inside their homes, but to go out hunting OPFOR, 24/7/365. And they’d get more than one scalp apiece.

In short, minions of Leftardia and Stupidia, you have blundered into a minefield, on a pogo stick.
Stop what you’re doing, tiptoe out, and pray to whatever deity you think appropriate that you get away with your skins.

Because if you insist on pushing your revolution, you’re going to get the war of which you cannot grasp, and the results of which you cannot even conjure in your wildest fever-swamp nightmares.

And your opponents, who’ve been stacking in supplies and loading magazines, are shifting from backing away, and hoping the fight you long for doesn’t come, and instead coming to a feeling of thinking it’s about time to roll up their sleeves, and end you.

Not your party.
Not your progressive communist utopia.
You.
For all values of that word
.

Every goddamned traitorous last one of you. Followed by your spouses, your children, your pets, your semi-domesticated illegal alien hordes, your schemes, your putrescent institutions, your metastasizing socialist programs, and every festering vestige of pustulence you’ve spewed onto a country you do not understand, didn’t build, and over which you and yours will never rule.

The comments-section discussion goes in all sorts of directions one might not expect, including a fairly devious gun-grab proposal from someone claiming to be “military intelligence” (but probably isn’t) and another claiming to be a “Real Conservative” (but DEFINITELY isn’t). In response to both of those fantasy-fascist douchebags—along with every other half-assed pantywaisted gun-grabbing Stalin wannabe all the way down to the umpteenth generation of ’em—I’ll just repeat my usual offer: Come and take them.

Enough talking. It’s your move, Lefty asstards. So make it already. Let’s all see how that works out for ya.

Share

Republican pounces!

From his cold, dead hands.

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15
Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.

“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”

Good on Lindsey for speaking up and all, but it was a futile effort; not one mind will be changed, not one gun-grabbing shitlib will see the simple logic and pause for a moment’s reconsideration. There’s only one answer to give them, it should be delivered like a good swift kick right square in the teeth, and Stephen Kruiser knows what it is.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn’t offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

“Because I (expletive deleted) want to.”

That’s really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn’t harming anyone else.

Fuckin’ A right, buddy.

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

You damned sure ain’t at that. Let Lefty huff and puff and beat and blow and weep and moan to his little heart’s content. Let him issue his demands and threats and be damned. More and more of us have reached the conclusion that we’ve conceded way too much ground already, and no matter how much we give it will never be enough. You don’t get another inch, gun-grabbers. Not just no, but HELL NO, with a big fat “fuck you” on top for garnish. That’s it—fini, omega, het-ay nde-ay. Come and fucking take them, you miserable worms. Do it, if you dare. Better bring help.

There’s another peril in play with this one, though, and it’s perched right on Trump’s lap.

Then there are the “red flag laws,” which is the left’s new approach to confiscating guns. These laws are unconstitutional three ways to Sunday, violating three of the rights within the Bill of Rights. These laws usurp the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment’s right of the accused to a speedy and public trial.

My home state of Colorado passed such a law this past April, one of the consequences of voters giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of a state. Other states have similar laws and there is now a push for a national red flag law. If President Trump is smart, he will see the color red before signing such a law, if it ever even makes it to his desk, as signing such a law may be a large red stop sign in his quest for a second term as president.

Red flag laws will have the effect of disarming those best able to stop a shooter. But that’s not the real goal of these laws. Instead it’s a new approach to thwarting the Second Amendment. President Trump is hopefully thinking long and hard about signing on to such measures, as this has the potential to be his “read my lips, no new taxes” moment.

Hopefully, he’s not thinking about it at all. If there’s any single unforced error almost certain to reverse Trump’s currently solid re-election odds, this is the one. As staunch a Trump supporter as I am and always have been, a needless cave to the Left on this would drive even me to the sidelines—me, and a whole hell of a lot of others too. No, I wasn’t happy about the noises he made in the aftermath of last week’s shootings. That said, I am also fully cognizant of Vox Day’s Two-Day caution: on any seemingly worrisome Trump statement, wait at least two days to see what actually transpires before deciding that all is lost.

Happily, that has proven to be sage advice time after time. Tossing a rhetorical hook out as bait to misdirect Democrat-Socialists into a false bargaining position based on anticipation of concessions he has no intention of making has been a useful enough ploy for Da Prez that I can’t quite see him abandoning it now. Nor do I think the record suggests that Trump is out of touch or naive enough to be unaware of how his most loyal supporters would react to a betrayal of that magnitude. Quite the opposite, actually; it would be completely out of character for the man to make such a boneheaded move.

But who knows, stranger things have happened. Only one thing is certain: should he falter this time, the cost of his blunder will be steep—not just for him personally, but for all of us.

Trump appeal update! Expanding the base. Note the final pic, which is what puts it into the “related” category for this post.

Shitlib has Teh Sadz update! Reassuring words of gun-grabber despair from the hoplophobic com-symps at the New Yorker. Naturally, it’s full of phony statistics, cooked polls, and outright fabrications, so I ain’t gonna recommend you read it all. But I can’t help but be encouraged to see that even these devious pissants aren’t holding out much hope.

Also, it is Trump we are dealing with, and he is notoriously averse to crossing rural and suburban gun owners, who make up a key part of his base. Even if the polls currently show overwhelming support for expanded background checks and other measures, Trump will be sensitive to a possible backlash, especially if the opposition includes some of his right-wing media outriders, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that Trump will try to tie any gun-control measures he endorses to immigration-law changes that Democrats oppose, such as lengthening the period for which asylum-seeking families can be detained after crossing the border. In a tweet on Monday, Trump suggested “marrying” immigration and gun control. On Thursday, the Times reported that he has toldsome advisers that he “would like a political concession in exchange” for acting on gun control. If he insists on this linkage, the chances of getting any legislation passed are slim.

From your lips to God’s ears, asswipe.

Share

How it all starts

There’s a bad moon on the rise.

Senator Kneepads is about to get an education on delusional grandstanding.

“I also have as part of my background and experience working on this issue, when I was attorney general [of California], and we put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists — a list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others and another list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership,” she added.

Harris commented that she would send law enforcement door-to-door to confiscate guns from illicit people.
“Those lists were combined and then we sent law enforcement out to take those guns, because, listen, we have to deal with this on all levels, but we have to do this with a sense of urgency and we have to act. Enough with the talk,” she said.

Let’s be clear here, if you’re a felon in possession, or you’ve failed a court hearing on your sanity, with counsel present on both sides, I have no problem with this. But Sen. Kneepads isn’t talking about that. Those people should have ALREADY had their guns taken away. She’s talking about doing this with “Red Flag” laws, which violate all constitutional and common law, and every rule of jurisprudence going back to before Magna Carta. (Common Core grads, look it up.)

That illegal abomination of ideas is going to get Officer Friendly a face full of buckshot, and he’ll deserve it, every single time. And I hope it happens, until the cops wise up and tell the politicians they’re under arrest for violating everyone’s civil rights.

As I said in Aesop’s comments, Officer Friendly already knows all about that face-full of buckshot, he doesn’t care for the idea, and so has gotten himself busy in several at-risk locales to officially announce his desire to be included out of the festivities before they commence (examples here and here, with further common-sense analysis from a Utah LEO here). Now, not all cops are as bothered by the prospect of betraying their oaths and finishing the Constitution off for good, of course. Maybe even a majority of them aren’t, I dunno. However it works out, though, I’m confident that, for whatever reason, enough of them will sell their souls to Gun Grabber Satan as to create a real mishegoss of a mess of a clusterfuck when we get down to nut-cutting time. So, in sum:

This is not going to go like they planned when the entire country goes all Flight 93 on them.

The look of surprise on their faces will be priceless, and the last thing that goes through their minds will likely be 158 grains of lead.

Minds? Hell, if they had those, we wouldn’t even be talking about this crap at all.

Share

There they go again

It’s tragic and sickening, but liberal ghouls have themselves some new coffins to shamelessly climb up on for gun-grabber pep rally purposes. Here are a couple of hefty buckets of cold-water reality to splash in their purpled, frenzied faces, not that it will do a damned bit of good.

A common myth you can expect to hear a lot in the coming days and weeks is that the United States “leads the world in mass shootings” and therefore we must pass some law that will do nothing to stop future mass shootings, but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

What you might not hear is that this claim is completely bogus.

Sure, if you following conservative media, you’re probably aware of this. Townhall, The Daily Signal, Bearing Arms, FEE, The Washington Examiner, and others have all previously reported on how the myth that the United States leads the world in mass shootings is based on a deeply flawed study, which has been debunked by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Yet, the myth remains alive and is sure to be regurgitated endlessly again.

Yep, count on it. Even Barry “Obama” Soetero interrupted his recent public-spotlight vanishing act—probably taking time out to sweat the slow exposure of his many crimes related to the sudden unexpected collapse of the Mueller witch-hunt—to weigh in with an unwelcome dollop of his habitual moronic duplicity featuring the bogus claim. They’ll squawk about this and they’ll squawk about that, in most careful and diligent avoidance of examing the REAL root causes.

It’s quite tiresome, really. In truth, the main underlying cause of increased mass-murder events — and so much evil in general — is a severe philosophical/spiritual malaise besetting our nation.

Were gun control the remedy here, mass shootings would be rare. Not only were there fewer firearm laws many decades ago, but in 1940s and ‘50s New York City, boys would often take guns on the subway because they had rifle clubs at school. So is access to firearms really the problem’s root cause?

As for the El Paso shooter’s motivation — our immigrationism combined withleft-wing environmental concerns — there are people who will do evil in a cause’s name regardless of its nobility or ignobility. The real question here is, boiled down: Why are we seeing so much more evil in America now than in bygone days?

Say what you will about TV, the Internet, video games, violence, or mass murder, it can’t be right or wrong if there is no right or wrong. It’s the ultimate self-evident reality: How can you build a moral society when its shades-of-gray people don’t even believe in morality?

Not that I’m trying to argue with the basic assertion he’s making, but I remain convinced that a far more important aspect of any serious root-causes examination would have to be the way shitlib culture has treated America’s young men: by viciously attacking them; shaming them; denouncing them as “rapists,” every last one of them. Ordinary, healthy young men are to be regarded as sexist, misogyist, thuggish primitives, guilty of being fundamentally incapable of reining in their violent and antisocial impulses until proven otherwise. They are denied any healthy outlet for the natural masculine urge for competition, for earning their rightful place in a clearly-defined hierarchy built around physical achievement and ability. The term “toxic masculinity” itself ought rightfully to be banished as a hate-crime, if we’re going to have to put up with such folderol as the asinine notion of “hate crime” at all.

Our young men are being beaten down, harrassed, and horribly scarred by a ruthless campaign to emasculate them—to remake them in compliance with a truly toxic Progressivist design for their “improvement.” After decades of such abuse, how could any of us be surprised when the more fragile among those poor, wrongly-scourged souls finally do break and lash out against a world that so cruelly tormented them?

Over to Larry Correia’s timeless 2012 masterpiece for the bottom line:

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.

Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

Larry includes absolute reams of statistical, historic, and factual backup for his argument here; if you haven’t seen this one before, do NOT fail to read every word of it now. There are many fine points to be made in support of the individual right to self-defense with legally-available tools best suited and adequate to the task; Larry makes most of ’em in this piece, and makes ’em quite well too.

None of which will change a single damned thing, as I said, nor move this now-pointless and intractable shouting match forward so much as an inch.

The Leftist position on guns can be filed under one of two overall categories: well-meaning, or ill-intentioned. For the well-meaning, their view is founded entirely on ignorance, emotion, irrationality, and assumptions that are in error. Some small few of these people are in fact amenable to persuasion by our side, to whatever degree. Most aren’t. They have been thoroughly propagandized, their indoctrination facilitated by a total lack of any experience with or exposure to guns, along with the terror inspired by that ignorance. They don’t think beyond the immediate feel-good rush from new legislation, restrictions, or even bans and confiscation; assuming as they do that all problems can be legislated away, the practical impossibility of actually implementing their “imagine no guns!” fantasy never occurs to them. Their hearts break at the suffering of the victims and their loved ones; they’ve never had any use for guns in their own lives, and can’t even begin to imagine a good reason why anyone else would either. They’re afraid of guns, so you should be too. Anyone who actually likes the evil things might as well be an alien from another planet. In a sense, they are.

The ill-intentioned, on the other hand, may or may not be ignorant of the facts…which doesn’t matter even slightly, because they don’t care. Their opposition to private ownership of firearms and the 2A springs not from a desire for a safer, more civilized world, nor from compassion or empathy for the victims. It comes from an unslakable thirst for ever-greater power and control, just as Larry says above. For them, neither truth nor logic enters into it in any way, and are really either irrelevancies or impediments. Their interest is not in protecting, shielding, or safeguarding anybody, and the only thing they want to put an end to is the ability to resist or defy them.

So what are we left with, then, as we watch every last law-abiding American gun owner slandered in the press yet again—as Enemedia despicably uses hysterical, terrified kids as props in pursuit of their tyrannical agenda? The arguments have all been made. There is little if any productive discussion to be had here, not a whole lot left to talk about. It’s all rapidly boiling down to the one thing, and either they will or they won’t.

So: come and take them, Leftards.

Full stop, end of story update! LawDog spells it out:

And — again, gods and little green apples — my inbox comes up with emails starting with: “It’s time for …” or “Common sense …” or “You have to agree …”

Let me stop y’all right there.

The answer is “No.”

No, I’m not going to give up my guns.

I don’t care. I’m not giving up my guns.

I didn’t murder anyone. My guns didn’t murder anyone. My friends haven’t murdered anyone. My friends guns haven’t murdered anyone.

80 million American gun owners didn’t murder anyone.

I am not going to be punished for some pustulent little bridge-troll deciding to vomit his evil into a Wal-Mart in El Paso.

And, yes, taking my guns away is punishing me. I will not be punished for the evil of someone else; evil that I had NOTHING TO DO WITH.

This is not up for debate. We’ve tried debate at the national level and the only thing debate got us was incremental chunks of our gun rights taken away by you faithless dacoits.

I am no longer going to engage in a debate in which I lose every time. Sod that for a game of soldiers.

So, let me stop you right there, Scooter. The answer is “No.”

Cut, print, that’s a wrap, people.

(Via Aesop)

Share

There’s always a workaround

Don’t have an Instagram account, and never wanted one. Until now.



Now that I have everyone’s attention, the backstory:

When Kimberly Matte captions an Instagram post “suns out, guns out, buns out,” she mostly means it. The sun may be out, but she’s inside. Her buns are definitely out, because she’s wearing a lime-green thong. Technically, there’s only one gun out, but it’s an AR-10 battle rifle, so she’s still overdelivering.

Matte has more than 84,000 followers on Instagram and recently founded her own social media marketing and modeling agency. She grew up in Windsor, Ontario, one of seven children — a fan of skateboarding, dirt-biking, four-wheeling, soccer, and tree forts, and not of guns. The first time she held a shotgun, she was a kid, “65 pounds soaking wet.” Her dad and brothers thought it would be funny to let her shoot it. “They didn’t tell me it was going to basically rip my shoulder off,” she says. “I was like, I’m never touching a gun again.”

But then three years ago, she moved to Michigan to be with her American husband, who’d recently retired from the military. Now they shoot guns together, and arrange assault-weapon-centric lingerie photo sessions for Matte and her clients. She makes good money for her part, doing sponsored posts for brands both firearm-related and not — assault rifles one day, teeth-whitening treatments the next. For $100 and some free products, Matte will post a “selfie and shoutout” on her Instagram grid; she gets paid thousands of dollars per month for recurring endorsements.

Matte’s feed is a mix of guns and rough-cut firewood and laser-cut underwear. She doesn’t let anyone shoot guns on her property because her yard is an unofficial foster home for wild deer, several of which she personally nurtured through infancy when their mother was hit by a car. She loves the president, hates the “free-for-all negativity” around him. She is extremely charming. Her platform, she tells me, is a place to preach love.

It’s actually a damned interesting article, albeit an unexpectedly long ‘un. Plenty more pics of several of these lovely gun-bunnies too, bless their hearts. Via MisHum, bless his heart too.

Share

Looks like another one I’ll be stomping the whole concept of “fair use” over

Fortunately, it’s an unusually long ‘un, so I don’t feel quite so bad about it. Kurt sets the stage with an intriguing first-person recounting of the 1992 LA riots.

I was a first-year law student, back a year from the Gulf War, and I had just joined the California Army National Guard. My unit was the 3rd Battalion, 160th Infantry, and we got called up early the first night and were on the streets for three long weeks. Making it even more delightful was the fact that the unit was in Inglewood, which was pretty much on fire. They burned most everything around, except our armory – that would have gone badly for them – and the Astro Burger.

My battalion commander grabbed then-First Lieutenant Schlichter, and we went all over the city in his humvee as he led his deployed and dispersed troops. Our soldiers came, in large part, from the areas most effected by the riots, and they were notably unpleasant to the thugs and criminals who quickly discovered our guys had no patience for nonsense. One dummy discovered that the hard way when he tried to run over some Guard soldiers from another battalion; he had a closed casket funeral.

The city went insane. Order simply ceased to exist. It was Lord of the Flies. I remember a cop totally breaking down because everything was completely out of control.

But I had a M16A1 – a real assault rifle – and I had a bunch of buddies with M16A1s. The regular folks … not so much. The decent people of LA were terrified, and with good reason. See, the dirty little secret of civilization is that it’s designed to maintain order when 99.9% of folks are orderly. But, say, if just 2% of folks stop playing by the rules…uh oh. Say LA’s population was 15 million in 1992…that’s 300,000 bad guys. There were maybe 20,000 cops in all the area agencies then, plus 20,000 National Guard soldiers and airman, plus another 10,000 active soldiers and Marines the feds brought in. Law enforcement is based on the concept that most people will behave and that the crooks will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of officers. But in the LA riots, law enforcement was massively outnumbered. Imposing order took time.

And until then, our citizens were on their own, at the mercy of the mob. Betting that the cavalry was going to come save you was a losing bet.

LA’s Korean shopkeepers knew that. They operated many small businesses in some of the least fashionable areas of Los Angeles, and they were already widely hated by activists, being scapegoated for problems and pathologies that long pre-dated their immigration to Southern California. So, they became targets for the mobs.

Bad decision by the mobs.

See, most of these Koreans had done their mandatory service in the Republic of Korea’s Army. Those ROK soldiers are the real deal – the Norks are not a theoretical threat and the South Korean army does not spend a lot of time talking about feelings. They were some solid dudes. So, when the local dirtbags showed up for some casual looting, they noticed the rooftops were lined with hardcore guys packing some serious heat, including the kind of scary rifles that the Democrats want to ban.

The Rooftop Koreans.

It did not take long for the bad guys to realize that the Rooftop Koreans were not playing games – they were playing for keeps. The mob went away in search of softer targets.

There’s a lesson there.

Boy, isn’t there. Isn’t there just. The denouement:

It’s your duty to be prepared to defend our community. Your duty. Yes, being a citizen of a free country is sometimes hard. Too bad. Tighten up and be ready and able to pick up a weapon. Whether it’s a riots and disaster, or whether it’s some scumbag who decides to shoot up your house of worship or a shopping mall, it’s on you.

You have a job to do when chaos comes – no shirking your responsibility and outsourcing it to the local police or the Army. Being a citizen is not a spectator sport.

Now, the left does not see things that way. The mere idea of a good guy with a gun makes them wet themselves. The left hates the notion that we citizens might take personal ownership of, and responsibility for, the security of our own country – that we might act like citizens. See, citizens are unruly. Stubborn. Uppity. We’re hard to control at the best of times. Armed, 300 million of us are impossible to control, unless we consent to it.

Now, the Founders, who enshrined the natural right of free men to keep and bear arms in our Bill of Rights preceded only by the rights of free speech and freedom of religion, knew this. To them, an armed citizenry that is prepared, mentally and logistically, to respond to threats to the people is a feature.

To the liberal elite, it is a bug.

And there’s a reason for that, too, which can easily be inferred from this picture of how the minions of exactly the kind of socialist shitrapy people like AOC, Buttplug, Omar, Obama, Pelousy, HILLARY!™, &C intend to inflict on us respond to even peaceably-expressed dissent:

Venezuela-victim.jpg


Gee, wonder if that poor bloody wreck at left might wish he and his fellow protesters had been armed.

Share

Dysfunction

To NRA or not to NRA, that is the question.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Stop the NRA shutdown,” a “critical update” in the latest American Rifleman urges.”New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has launched an all-out crusade to destroy NRA and put us out of business forever.”

No doubt the insufferable totalitarian wannabe would like to try. But as events unfolded over the weekend, resulting for the short term with Oliver North’s ouster as association president, it appears the greatest danger comes from within.

Not that Wayne LaPierre prevailing, for now, is a “win” for membership. Nor would it be had North succeeded. This was a coup attempt by NRA’s long-term PR firm Ackerman McQueen to replace former gravy train riders with current ones. There are no clean hands here, and with the weekend battle “won” by current management, don’t expect dramatic changes in the way things are run as long as they’re in power.

That means concerns being expressed by an increasing number of woke and angry members will continue to be glossed over by Fairfax “leadership.” We’ll continue to see NRA endorsing “compromise” infringements, with carefully-crafted statements giving de facto green lights to bump stock “regulations” and “red flag” confiscations, and with just enough weasel-wording for plausible deniability damage control when things blow up. We’ll continue to see dishonest political grades and endorsements that come back and bite gun owners. We’ll continue to see deliberate indifference to holding those politicians accountable for the single greatest threat to future “legal” recognition of the right to keep and bear arms – the overwhelmingly Democrat-favoring “pathway to citizenship.”  And we’ll continue to see an organization that puts more energy into “Enforce existing Intolerable Acts” than it puts on “shall not be infringed.”

And of course, we’ll see continued appeals for money, no matter if the flacking is outsourced or increasingly done in-house. Someone’s gotta pay for the salaries and perks.

A meme that’s being increasingly parroted by the gun-grabbers as a way out is that NRA must “return to its sportsman’s roots.” Understand that this is being done by people who really do want to take your guns. Don’t think for a moment they’re saying this to be helpful, any more than Democrats urging Republicans to be more “centrist” are concerned with helping the Party regain appeal. Surrenders simply mean there will be fewer battles that the enemy (what do you think those who want to disarm you are?) will need to win.

Those calling for such a return want NRA out of politics and focused on being Fudds. They really just want to be able to pass disarmament edicts, elect gun-grabbing politicians and appoint anti-gun judges without any significant organized opposition. Curiously, although unintended by those offering such “advice,” returning to its roots is exactly what is needed.

Codrea goes on from there to make a strong historical case for the idea. Herschel, for his own part, seems pretty disgusted with ’em.

So first there is the issue of exactly how an elected board of directors along with an elected president can demand the resignation of a bureaucrat, and be rejected by said bureaucrat outright and that organization continue to function. It can’t. I assess that the NRA is a completely dysfunctional organization and has been for a long time.

Leaving aside the issue of Ackerman McQueen, and $200,000 of wardrobe purchases by LaPierre, the bylaws, people and organizational structure aren’t sufficient to rid the group of ne’er-do-wells, whether LaPierre or the cretins who are financial liabilities and parasites to the organization. A board of directors who doesn’t direct may as well quit and go home. If there are too many bad apples in the mix, then it’s appropriate for the entire group to go down in flames, suffering the personal, legal and financial loss attending their malfeasance. Membership on the board of directors means legal and fiduciary culpability, as it should on any board.

But can this situation be salvaged? Should it be salvaged? I said a few days ago that the NRA had supported the NFA, the GCA, the Hughes Amendment, the bump stock ban, and red flag laws. It’s all true. This is an incomplete list. Via David Codrea, this list adds to my own.

The real issue with the VNRA isn’t corruption or not doing enough to push rights. The problem is what the group actively does to violate rights. NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86. Everyone knows those. It shows how long the rot has existed.

They tried to keep HELLER from going to SCOTUS. They actively killed constitutional carry legislation in New Hampshire. They wrote an “assault weapon” ban in Ohio. They sabotaged an RKBA/free speech case in NH.

I had forgotten how many open carry fights the NRA has sabotaged, and it’s also true that the NRA didn’t want Heller going to the SCOTUS. I consider Heller only a partial win because of the wording Scalia put in there supporting gun control at the local and state level, and the weakness of it leading to McDonald, which still isn’t recognized by lower courts. But Alan Gura snatched a modicum of victory from the jaws of defeat.

The point is that in almost every case where retreat was possible, the NRA has led the way. Then oftentimes, as with Heller, they claimed credit for what small victory the SCOTUS gave us. In every exigency in life, a man must make functional judgments. Whom to marry, where to work, how much to save, with whom to be associated.

In this case, the analysis is quite simple. If an organization is working against your interests, it’s an easy decision to jettison support for said organization. It makes no sense to support people who intend harm to your liberties. If this is considered on a tactical level (retreat might be a good option now), then it is incumbent on our detractors to explain how said retreat will be reversed and good use made of it rather than sling accusations. I see a lot of hand-wringing, but I see no detractor channeling Sun Tzu. If you want to be a general, then learn to lead and learn to win.

Kinda makes one yearn for the great and glorious Charlton Heston, don’t it?



CA leaves little room for doubt as to where he stands on the NRA issue: he’s done with ’em.

The Lairds of Fairfax are Beltway critters, and have been behind every single major 2A infringement on the national level since NFA34.

Screw them all, then dump them into the Morbark.

He recommends a few alternative courses of actions to consider, too.

Share

No more talk

Just do it.

On Tuesday, Democratic president candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell took aim at the NRA, taunting them that they wouldn’t debate him. But NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch had a swift and blistering response, quoting from Val Kilmer’s immortal performance as Doc Holliday in the film “Tombstone” and firing back, “I’m your huckleberry.”

Swalwell was responding to Loesch pointing out that Swalwell had “dodged legitimate questions about his gun confiscation-and-jail policy for quite some time.” Prior to that salvo, she had stated, “You said you would jail law-abiding gun owners if they didn’t turn in their lawfully owned firearms. How do you plan to confiscate guns?”

Swalwell responded, “Ms. Loesch — I see you’ve spent another day blowing up my Twitter. Thank you for following! But here’s the deal, you’re an @nra mouthpiece. I don’t aim down, so I don’t debate mouthpieces. But send me your president, @OliverLNorth. I’ll debate him anywhere.”

Good on Dana for stomping this asswipe and all, but my unalienable 2A rights ain’t up for debate—”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” remember?—and I care not one lonely damn with whom Swallowspunk might or might not prefer to flap his cockholster in public about the issue. No talk, little man. Come and take them, if you dare. We’re all out here…waiting. Practical advice for ya: better bring help. Lots and lots of it.

Swalwell, apparently afraid to take on Loesch, sidestepped, “Here’s a prediction: the @nra is afraid to have its president debate me. They talk so tough on Twitter, but when challenged to a debate to defend their advocacy for unrestricted weaponry it’s just crickets from @OliverLNorth. #NoFear.”

“Afraid”? Of the likes of you, and whatever sob-sister army composed of like-minded pissants you might scrape up? It is to laugh, until the floating ribs part from their moorings. I say again: come and take them. Here’s a helpful historical review of what you’ll find waiting.

Someone once asked how many men were needed to start a revolution.
Apparently, 77 is enough to get the ball rolling.

Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” – Captain John Parker, Lexington militia

Throw down your arms, you damned rebels!” – British officer, 4th Regiment of Foot, on Lexington Common

And then the F**k-Up Fairy landed, someone pulled a trigger, and the genie was out of the bottle.

Tally at the end of the day:

Colonials:
49 killed
39 wounded
5 missing

British troops:
73 dead
174 wounded
53 missing

The British troops, formed of disparate clumps of men and officers from a dozen regiments (which made command and control even more tenuous throughout the day) after brushing aside what was always intended as token resistance at Lexington (the colonial militia was on the common, not blocking the road at all, and made no move to impede the far superior British forces, all the colonial leaders and stores of weapons having been removed or hidden long before the Redcoats’ arrival), marched on to Concord bridge, where they searched the town for weapons until noon, mostly to no great effect, but upon their attempted return to Boston got a much different greeting than at Lexington, and then began an all-day long fighting retreat that left every British officer from the original expedition injured or wounded and unhorsed, all of them exhausted, nearly out of ammunition, and all but surrounded and captured as they straggled back to the safety of Boston city limits. The British in Boston were subsequently surrounded and besieged by tens of thousands of enraged colonial militiamen, which troops then formed the seed of what became the Continental Army.

And with blood shed in strength by both sides, no way any longer to put back the cork to the genie’s bottle.

Lesser lights in modern times, agitating for both gun control and confiscations, and shilling for an open conflict in the midst of civil society, should learn a lesson or three about being careful for what you wish.

Yessirreebob they should. So…any time you feel froggy, Swallowspunk. Any. Fucking. Time. One of Aesop’s commenters brings up the amazing story of Samuel Whittemore as further food for gun-grabber thought.

On April 19, 1775, British forces were returning to Boston from the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening engagements of the war. On their march, they were continually shot at by colonial militiamen.

Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat. Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British Grenadiers of the 47th Regiment of Foot from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols, killed a second grenadier and mortally wounded a third. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment had reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked. He was subsequently shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found by colonial forces, trying to load his musket to resume the fight. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival. However, Whittemore recovered and lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 96.

Let me reiterate that for you: at just short of 80 years young, this true American hero was still spry enough to be reloading after having been shot in the face, bayoneted, and left for dead. He wasn’t done with his enemies quite yet, see; aged as he was, gravely wounded as he was, having already done more than his part to resist, he was still unswervingly determined to have another go at killing as many of those Redcoat gun-grabbers as he possibly could, by any means he could contrive.

And if you think they just ain’t building Americans that way anymore, well, you just try us. You’ll learn, to your horror and dismay, that there are still a good few out here even yet. And they’re all done talking.

They’re out here…waiting.

Share

Gimme sanctuary

Oh, it’s a Red Flag all right.

More than two dozen counties in Colorado have taken a page from the left’s playbook by declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuary counties” in anticipation of the passage of a bill that allows local governments to seize people’s guns without due process.

In February, Democrats in the Colorado legislature introduced HB19-1177, commonly known as the Red Flag bill.  The law allows the government to seize firearms from a law-abiding owner after as long as a petitioner “establishes ” by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun owner “poses a significant risk to self or others.”

The subhed calls Red Flag “an insane idea ripe for abuse,” which it is. But abuse, of course, is the whole point.

The petitioner only has to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. It basically asks whether the petitioner’s proposition is more likely to be true than not true. This is the same standard that kangaroo courts for campus sexual assault and harassment rely on, per the guidance of the Obama administration.

Second, the Red Flag bill ensures gun owners, not their accusers, bear the burden of proof, and makes it very difficult for the gun owner to defend his or her constitutional right to bear arms. The owner is completely unaware a petition has been filed against him until the police show up to confiscate all his firearms. Since a search warrant is issued at the same time a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) is issued, the police may search the house even after the owner surrenders his firearms.

There’s more, and worse, from there. But then comes the good news.

In anticipation of the bill’s passing, more than two dozen Colorado counties, including Douglas County, the seventh-most populous county in Colorado, passed “Second Amendment Sanctuary” resolutions. Many did so at the request of their duly elected sheriffs.

These counties affirm their support for their sheriffs “in the exercise of his sound discretion to not enforce against any citizen an unconstitutional firearms law.” They also promise not to appropriate government funds to build storage facilities for firearms seized by law enforcement. More counties are either considering similar measures or, like Arapahoe County, the third-most populous Colorado county, waiting for the final wording of the bill to decide the best course of action.

Facing increasing opposition from counties, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weise, a supporter of the Red Flag bill, dismissed the resolutions as something that couldn’t override a state law.

But state law can override the US Constitution, huh? I see, I see.

He said sheriffs in those counties should resign if they refuse to follow the law.

As should all elected officials responsible for turning illegal-alien “sanctuary cities” and states into shit-strewn, disease-ridden Third World hellholes, amIright? Ohnononono, of course not. That’s diff’runt.

It’s interesting that the left now pushes back against gun sanctuary counties by using similar language to what conservatives have said about immigration sanctuary cities—”Our nation and state depends on the rule of laws” and “Everyone must obey the law.”  But there is a fundamental difference between sanctuary on the left versus that on the right.

The left supports illegal immigrant sanctuary because they don’t want to obey federal laws they don’t like. They choose to protect law-breakers who may pose security threats to communities and law-abiding citizens. The left supports the Red Flag bill and opposes the gun sanctuary counties because they oppose gun ownership and Second Amendment rights. Once again, they rely on a state law to disobey federal laws they don’t like.

Basically, the Left wants its way, and is perfectly happy to pervert, debase, and ignore any law, precedent, or principle to get it. They’ll deal with the chaotic dysfunction they create later—maybe. Just let ’em get us all under control first, then they’ll see about “fixing” things for us.

Colorado isn’t alone in this fight. A similar Red Flag bill is working though the New Mexico legislature right now. Twenty-nine out of 33 sheriffs there signed a letter disapproving of the bill, and 24 counties have passed a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, affirming their support of their sheriffs not enforcing what they view as unconstitutional gun control legislation.

What’s happening in Colorado and New Mexico has national implications because similar Red Flag bills passed in at least eight blue states in the United States in 2018, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, David Kopel, a Constitution scholar at the Independence Institute, said “Nearly a third of such orders are improperly issued against innocent people.”

Conservatives in these blue states have been looking for ways to push back against aggressive gun control legislation that they believe infringes upon their constitutional rights. Now Colorado and New Mexico have shown them what they can do.

As good a move as this one is, I’m afraid we’re all going to have to step up and do a lot more before a whole lot longer. Until it’s shown to be painful—even fatal, most likely—for them to mess with us, they will NEVER stop doing so.

Share

Book burners gotta burn books

How you lose a war. Not that what we’re talking about with our endless War On Something Or Other in Muslim shitholes actually IS one, mind.

On January 7 of this year, I published an article at PJ Media about Amazon removing doormats featuring Qur’an verses from sale because the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found them offensive. In that article, I asked:

How long will it be before Hamas-linked CAIR starts demanding that books that criticize jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others also be dropped by Amazon?

The answer turned out to be 51 days.

It’s the British government and the BBC, rather than CAIR, that are likely behind this, but Amazon has just dropped the book Mohammed’s Koran by the renowned British activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin — and apparently only because its censors dislike Robinson. In the last two weeks, Robinson spectacularly embarrassed the BBC by exposing the bias and dishonesty of its reporter John Sweeney. The retaliation has been swift and severe: Robinson has been banned from YouTube and Facebook, and now his book has been withdrawn from sale.

This is an extremely ominous development. Amazon and Barnes and Noble — which is also not carrying this book — have a virtual monopoly on book sales. When these two giants refuse to carry a book, that book effectively does not exist. If they are now going to ban books that are critical of Islam and opposed to jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, then an Islam-critical perspective will be almost impossible to find anywhere.

Which is the whole idea.

Mohammed’s Koran is critical of Islam’s holy book. It endeavors to illustrate how violent jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings — and that’s all. Robinson and McLoughlin call for no violence. Their book is accurate.

Anyone who has written a book that is critical of anything should read the writing on the wall and realize that once this censorship begins, it won’t end with Tommy Robinson or Qur’an-critical books. But they won’t. PEN, the international organization that is supposedly dedicated to defending the freedom of speech, is made up of hard-Leftists who won’t utter a whisper in defense of Tommy Robinson’s book, or a murmur of protest that it is not allowed to be sold.

They don’t realize that what is being done to him can be done to them. But it will be.

Ahh, but will it really? By whom, pray tell? Because I’ve seen little or no indication to date that the Fascist Left faces any opponent willing to turn their own despicable tactics back on them.

Update! Okay, so there are some admirable exceptions to that last statement of mine:

A rapidly growing number of counties in at least four states are declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, refusing to enforce gun-control laws that they consider to be infringements on the U.S. constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Organizers of the pro-gun sanctuaries admit they took the idea from liberals who have created immigration sanctuaries across the United States where local officials defy the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce tougher immigration laws.

Now local conservatives are rebelling against majority Democratic rule in the states. Elected sheriffs and county commissioners say they might allow some people deemed to be threats under “red flag” laws to keep their firearms. In states where the legal age for gun ownership is raised to 21, authorities in some jurisdictions could refuse to confiscate guns from 18- to 20-year-olds.

The sanctuary movement is exposing the rift between rural and urban America as much as the one between the Republican and Democratic parties, as small, conservative counties push back against statewide edicts passed by big-city politicians.

Kick it up to a national scale and that last paragraph provides as good a lesson as any on why we have an electoral college, and why it must be—MUST be—vigorously, even fiercely defended.

Share

They’re coming

Believe it.

So many times, the things we thought could never happen did. If gun advocates continue to respond to these tragedies with the answer, “do nothing,” then I would not be surprised if in a very short time, guns are seen differently than they are today, and making them all illegal becomes a possibility. The NRA is strong, but even the NRA can not spin these massacres and buy-off enough politicians, when we’re dealing with an endless pile of dead children.

People think guns will never be taken away. But there is a tipping point and I think we’ve reached it. The time for half measures is long gone. And now guns will be banned.

Making heroin and meth illegal hasn’t worked, why would it work with guns?

That feels like a silly talking point. Are guns addictive? Can high-speed, high capacity assault rifles be grown in backyards and fields like drugs? With no high level machining, manufacturing knowledge, and capital?

Comparing guns and drugs doesn’t work. It seems like this kind of “logic” is why gun owners have lost the high ground. We know that guns can be eradicated, because it’s been done before. Many countries have drastically reduced the amount of guns in the possession of both citizens and criminals, bringing death rates from gun violence to almost nothing.

“Many”? Name three, idiot. Hell, name one, for that matter.

No reason to bother fisking this tripe point-by-point, of course. She’s full of shit, we know she’s full of shit, and it ain’t like she or any of her kind will listen to a single factual, statistical, logical, or reasonable word refuting her spurious, tired, dishonest twaddle. We’ve done so countless times already, and still they go on. The facts don’t dissaude them. The Constitution certainly doesn’t. Any notion of an inborn human right to effective means of self-defense doesn’t; resistance to tyranny damned sure doesn’t, tyranny being their ultimate goal—a feature for them, not a bug.

So at this point, there’s nothing more to discuss, and no reason whatever to waste more time and effort trying. All’s any of us can do is gird our loins, stiffen our resolve, load our mags…and wait.

As WRSA says: These people are your neighbors. They are all around you—around your corner, down your block, across your street. And sooner or later, they will come.

Share

Wait, this blatherskite is still talking?

And here I’d thought all this time that Progressivists were all about Rule By Expert. Apparently not.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, gun-control activist David Hogg claimed those who own AR-15s and similar rifles are not interested in self-defense but in hunting human beings.

“The truth of the matter is weapons like the AR-15 have an effective range of over 1,500 meters,” Hogg said. “If you’re using a weapon with an effective range of over 1,500 meters, you are not defending yourself. You are hunting a human being.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the firearms industry, estimated last year that more than 16 million AR-15 and similar rifles had been produced or imported to the United States over the past 25 years. Still, Hogg said no civilians should be allowed to possess those kinds of firearms.

“I don’t think any civilian needs to have their hands on a military weapon like that,” Hogg said.

Aww, ain’t it adorable? This footling brat believes what he thinks means a damned thing to anybody except himself.

As for that “effective range of over 1,500 meters” horseshit, well…no. No, not quite. Might want to consider removing your foot next time before opening your fat yap about things you know absolutely nothing about, bright boy.

Share

“My answer would be, ‘It’s none of your fvcking business'”

Wrong answer. Mine would be: NO, I do not. It might be a lie, but when some meddlesome asshat is trying to pry into business not his own with me, I don’t feel the slightest compunction about telling said asshat anything at all, and let him try to sort truth from fiction if he can.

Boston city officials plan on pushing legislation requiring doctors to ask patients whether or not they possess firearms in their homes.

Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s administration said Wednesday that the step would be taken to help health care providers statewide “play a larger role in addressing gun violence” by identifying red flags or patients at risk of suicide or domestic violence.

“We’re just asking them to help identify ways to save lives,” Boston Police Commissioner William Gross told the Boston Business Journal, adding that the legislation won’t suggest that doctors should solve crimes and that owning guns won’t be included in patients’ medical records.

Yeah, you go straight to hell, y’hear? It’s a safe bet that the medical-records bit at the end is just a straight-up lie itself, or soon will be. Actually, if I’m not mistaken the AMA has been urging doctors to ask their patients the same thing for several years now, but I could be wrong about that. MisHum closes with:

Why not ask about knives, rope, cars, baseball bats, booze and pills while you’re at it.

Don’t worry, they’ll get around to it soon enough. Count on it.

Update! Bill explains why “none of your business” is a mistake:

Don’t tell your medico anything you don’t want the government to know about if you can help it.

My doctor in SF once asked if I owned any firearms.  I told him no, which was a flat lie.  But telling him it was none of his business would have told him too much.

Exactly. This is just one of the many horrible side-effects of socialist tyranny: the complete erosion of trust, even in places where trust can be vital, and ought to be a given. But then, the eventual degeneration of beneficial, healthy community relationships into Hobbes’s War of All Against All is another of those features-not-bugs baked right into the collectivist cake.

Oh, and it would seem my memory didn’t quite fail me just now on the asking-about-guns thing. Or not entirely, anyway.

Share

Definitions matter

And the contrived term “assault weapons” still means: all of them.

According to gun ban advocates, “assault weapons” have been claimed to include: air guns and paintball guns; most handguns; all semiautomatic rifles; most shotguns; all slide action shotguns; any semiautomatic the Secretary of Treasury wants to ban; guns listed by name; and guns with certain features, such as adjustable stocks.

The very heterogeneous group of so-called “assault weapons” has only two things in common. First of all, none of them are automatics or machine guns. Gun prohibition advocates have very effectively created and then exploited public confusion on this point. Second, none of the guns are “assault rifles,” as that term has been defined by experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency. An actual assault rifle is capable of selective fire, meaning that it can fire automatically or semi-automatically with the flip of a selector switch; examples include the U.S. Army M-16, the Soviet AK-47, and the German Sturmgewehr.

In short, “Assault weapon” is just an epithet to stigmatize the largest possible number of guns and gun owners—the breadth of the definition of the moment depending on the politics of the moment.

Yep. They won’t stop till they’ve grabbed ’em all, and they’ll use any trick they can to get it done.

Share

The divide

It’s real. And bridging it is neither possible nor desirable. First, a bit of old-school fisking for the Left side.

The wheels are not off the bus. The kids, and the rest of us, are going to be all right. Come the new year, the country will switch from the Trump Show, where our president hears voices on Fox TV and does what they say, and move to Court TV. That channel will play a police procedural akin to Law & Order where an elite squad of dedicated detectives, known as the Special Counsel’s unit, investigates especially heinous crimes and a team of attorneys prosecute the offenders. The rule of law, not the vagaries of politics or Ann Coulter, triumphs.

The rule of law has already been trampled by Mueller’s contra-Constitutional farce, and it’s the “vagaries of politics” that have driven it from the start.

In this setting, the president’s tweets can and will be used against him. Throw shade on law enforcement (they’re all enemies out to get the White House), poison the jury pool (Michael Cohen’s a rat, Michael Flynn’s a patriot), and otherwise flick sand into the wheels of justice (appoint attorneys general who’ve pre-judged the case), but justice will still grind on. There is always decorum in the court. One lie, much less 7,000, can send you to prison.

Oh, so Tweeting is illegal now, is it? The president’s tweets will be used against him right enough…and so will absolutely anything and everything else the Mueller Coup crowd can dig up, every bit of it well outside his “Russia collusion” mandate—itself nothing but a subterfuge. Law enforcement entire is not “out to get” Trump, which he knows quite well. But the corrupt FBI and DoJ most certainly are, a home truth that only a diehard-shitlib asshat could deny. Justice isn’t going to “grind on”; it’s going to be ground under the wheels of the Deep State juggernaut.

With the first phase of police work just about over—the search for the real colluder, or colluders, hundreds of hours of FBI interviews with all the lying under oath that suggests, grand jury appearances, arrests and indictments, witness flips and plea deals—the main action moves to court.

The “real colluders” have already been found—Obama and Hillary. That “action,” alas, will remain closeted and is never going to “move to court,” although if we still retained anything resembling “rule of law” it assuredly would. “Hundreds of hours of FBI interviews” suggests not “lying under oath” but politically-motivated harassment of a despised outsider by a rogue, overly-powerful bureaucracy—an open attempt by DC Swamp creatures to preserve their undeserved power and privilege by nefarious means. Because, y’know, that’s what it is.

Problem for Flynn was that Sullivan can tell the difference between out-of-control prosecutors and Robert Mueller, who is completely in control. In the Trump investigation, all the misconduct is on the defense side, with the president’s unconscionable attacks on the FBI, cooperating witnesses, and Mueller’s staff, whom he labels as biased Democratic hacks.

It’s Mueller, whose very office is at best Constitutionally questionable, who is “out of control.” He long ago skipped gleefully over the boundaries of his limited official mandate and never looked back, now jailing people for things that aren’t even illegal (Cohen) and piffling, decades-old technicalities that previous Obama officials were guilty of but never questioned about at all, and which have nothing whatsoever to do with “Russian collusion.” “Biased Democrat hacks”? Nearly EVERY ONE of Mueller’s henchmen are, umm, Democrat-Marxist donors. Not party members, mind, but donors, and big-money ones too. They are the very living incarnation of “biased hacks.”

Sullivan won’t hear all Trump-related cases, but he’s involved in many. When he learned last spring that a mother and child were being flown out of the country while their case for asylum was pending, he ordered prosecutors to “turn that plane around.” And he threw a wrench into Trump’s unilateral changes to our asylum laws at the end of December.

There are complex rules for refugees and asylum-seekers, both national and international. The US is under no legal obligation whatsoever to accept them (or anybody else) willy-nilly, according to the whim of weepy liberal media propagandists, without reference to those procedures. That was so before Trump, and it’s still so now, no matter what some sniveling, hankie-soaking Citizen Of The World might wish were the case.

Trump will soon find himself as burdened by the law and order as he is by Democrats refusing to build his wall. His foundation has been charged in New York as a slush fund that took money in but gave not much away.

*cough cough* Clinton Foundation *cough cough*

Although our founding fathers were unlikely to imagine a frequently bankrupt casino mogul as president, they protected us against him. They didn’t stop at two branches of government. In their enduring wisdom, they created a third, which sits astride the law and punishes those who think they are above it but are not.

Sorry, but the Founders were not only LIKELY to imagine the bloated, tyrannical abomination insidious termites like Carlson have replaced legitimate government with, they actually DID. They spelled out their abhorrence of the kind of government favored by shitlibs starkly and unequivocally…in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, among many other writings.

As for the courts, they aren’t supposed to “sit astride the law.” Neither are they supposed to alter it, modify it, or make it up from any “emanations and penumbras” that suit them. Their role, strictly and specifically limited as are those of their co-equal branches, is to interpret it: in the case of the Supreme Court, to ponder its concordance with Constitutional requirements, and either approve it or strike it down as is appropriate. In the lower courts, to apply it fairly and without bias. That’s all.

I could easily dismantle this wet-brained liberal balderdash further, but enough of the bint’s tiresome, specious nonsense. There’s no point in bothering further with it; like the rest of her ilk, Carlson is wholly divorced from reality, not amenable to or interested in logic, truth, or reason. Instead, via Doug Ross, let’s have a look at some 24-karat truth from the other side of our Great Divide:

Trump was elected not based on any single issue, but because Americans believe that we are no longer citizens of a republic; that we are subjects of an elected aristocracy, composed of a self-absorbed and unaccountable permanent political class, which serves international interests at the expense of the American people.

They maintain their authority by an ever-expanding and increasingly intrusive government and use a compliant media to manipulate public opinion in order to maintain the illusion of democracy. The size and pay scales of the federal government now exceeds much of the private sector but is unconstrained by regulation and, ever more frequently, by legality.

It is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies driving the inanity emanating from Washington, D.C., but a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political establishment versus the freedom and well-being of the American people.

It is a conflict between those who want to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and “they,” who wish to continue the practices of political expediency, crony capitalism and a two-tiered system of justice.

It is a choice between a government of the people, by the people and for the people or “elective despotism” when lies, corruption and tyranny are embraced by the political-media establishment.

The election of Donald Trump was not the consequence of colluding Russians tapping on keyboards in darkened basements, but one of hope based on a single proposition, the possibility of honest, representative and effective government.

Three years before the start of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said a government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free — that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Likewise, a government separated from the people cannot stand.

Nor should it. That’s the burden of responsibility the Founders laid on We, the People. That’s the test we’ve failed, by tolerating the ongoing Leftist campaign of undermining, uprooting, and destroying instead of crushing the pestilential insects when they first infested the national garden.

These two posts are perfectly adequate and accurate summations of the viewpoints balefully staring each other down across the Great Divide. Can any reasonable person possibly imagine a way to reconcile them that doesn’t amount to capitulation and defeat? In light of the relentlessness and duplicity demonstrated by the Left, can any but a purblind, dimwitted naif hold out hope for an acceptable compromise with them? Kurt hammers the point home:

Every day that they refuse to allow the man we elected president to fulfill the most basic function of a national government – securing its national borders – they make a deliberate choice to accept more dead Americans. Oh, and more crime, poverty and welfare costs too. They are willing to let it all happen because their power means much, much more to them than your prosperity, your security, or your life.

In a country where the ruling class gave a damn about those it governs, the scumbag who murdered Corporal Singh would never have snuck in, and if he had, he would have been tossed before racking up two DUIs. But he wasn’t. California is a sanctuary state. It’s just not a sanctuary for citizens like you.

When they want to strip American citizens of our Second Amendment rights (and, not coincidentally, our ability to resist them), they howl that disarming all of us would be worth it if it saved just one life. It’s a stupid talking point with regard to the Bill of Rights, because even if rights were subject to a costs/benefits balancing test (they aren’t), the fact is that only a fraction of a fraction of the 300 million-plus arms that our citizens keep and bear will ever be used in a crime.

But what about saving just one American citizen’s life from murderous foreigners who, as opposed to our freedom-preserving weapons, are not even   supposed to be here? Unlike the American patriots exercising their gun rights, every single illegal alien is a criminal just for illegally entering and/or remaining. Then they also need fake IDs to function. Identity theft is a crime, at least for you and me. Then there’s the voter fraud, the welfare fraud, the property crimes, and the violent crimes. Oh, not all illegals are violent criminals, but every single one spits on our laws, laws we the people enacted via our elected representatives.

So what do you call it when the government ignores the law, which is the will of the people expressed through the legislature we voted for? It’s sure not “a republic.”

In order to keep those illegals flowing in, our miserable elite is as willing to let democracy die as it is to let you die.
Who thinks this will end well? Anyone?

The American people are not blind. They see the truth, and they are not going to be denied justice forever. The election of Donald Trump was not the worst case scenario. It was the first case scenario. What comes next, if the elite keep denying the will of the people, will be even more disruptive, even more divisive. They might win today’s skirmish over the wall, but tomorrow there will be new corpses and greater anger.

The elite’s selfish and cruel sacrifice of the lives and lifestyles of America’s citizens risks tearing apart the United States.

So? That’s a-okay with them; their plan all along was to dismantle and replace it anyway, and to replace its uncooperative patriots, the ones the brainwashing didn’t take root with, by whatever means they find convenient.

Either a bloody, desperate fight is coming or we resign ourselves to slavery, oppression, and injustice. It’s a godawful fix we’re in, but I can’t see any other alternatives left to us other than those two.

Share

“How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans?”

ALL of it, of course. They’d prefer that anyway.

My question for Congressjerk Eric Swalwell is pretty simple: “How many Americans would you murder to achieve your goal of disarming us?”

It’s a fair question. 

Now, we know that some Americans would resist this kind of tyranny. People all over the world are resisting the elite’s commands. The Brits Brexited. The French are rioting because they don’t want to sacrifice their livelihoods on behalf of the global elites’ weird weather religion. And a decree that the Second Amendment is not a thing anymore would certainly provoke some serious pushback here.

The Brits ain’t “Brexited” shit yet, and aren’t likely to, more’s the pity. The French, on the other hand, look like getting their act together at last, on which I hope to have more in a bit. But I still think Kurt is right about the likelihood of at least some pushback in the event of a serious gun-grab, although whether it would end up with full-on insurrection is something I’m not quite as confident of as I was before Black Tuesday.

Rep. Swalwell, some people are going to fight rather than cave in, so what’s the number of bodies you would be willing to pile up to win? Let’s put aside the right or wrong of resistance; it’ll be a thing. It’ll happen. You’re from near San Francisco, so you don’t know any real Americans, but even though I am from that hellhole too, I’ve met a few Americans in my travels. They are an ornery people who don’t give in to the kind of bullying you advocate. So, you’re going to have to kill some people to do what you want, and I just want to know how many you’re prepared to off to achieve your goal.

After all, it’s not as if you Democrats don’t already have a history of killing people for having guns you disapprove of.

Remember Waco? The raid on David Koresh’s compound was because his weird band of misfits allegedly had scary, outlawed guns. That’s why Democrat Janet Reno initially decided to send in the troops. The government got four of our ATF agents killed, then slaughtered the resisters, including women and kids.

I’d guess Kurt wouldn’t much like this sentiment, but I can’t say the loss of the ATF agents in the course of doing their “duty” of murdering men, women, and children at the behest of Leviathan is anything I ever lost any sleep over, or ever will. And while we’re at it, abominable government hitman Lon Horiuchi ought to have been pushing up daisies a long time ago himself, instead of looking forward to a nice cushy federal pension after he retires as a true FBI “hero.”

Now, Congressman Strangelove properly took a lot of grief for suggesting nuking fellow Americans, but even if you accept his backtracking about how this was a joke – nothing’s funnier than suggesting the mass murder of fellow Americans! – he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest.

So, Congressman, what means of destructions are still on the table to use against fellow Americans who refuse to allow you to strip them of their Second Amendment rights because you Bay Area liberals want to show those hicks in Jesusland who’s boss? Is shooting them okay? Shelling them? Bombing them, just not with nukes?

Again: all of it, plus whatever else it might take to get the job done. This is why:

Understand that the leftists with Swalwell’s mentality are not driven by notions of justice or reason, but by cold hatred for Normal Americans. We’ve been disobedient. We’ve been defiant. We’ve refused to surrender our means of defending our own sovereignty to our elite overlords, and that is intolerable.

Exactly. Which is why, as Kurt concludes, anybody who still thinks of them as “our fellow Americans” needs to get woke, and fast. There are a lot of Swalwells out there—a LOT, probably more than any of us dare to imagine—with government schools churning out more of them every day.

Share

Mask, off

One of them finally said it, so Correia runs the numbers in response, and it’s truly a thing of beauty.

Last week a congressman embarrassed himself on Twitter. He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buyback—which is basically confiscation with a happy face sticker on it—and when someone told him that they would resist, he said resistance was futile because the government has nukes.

And everybody was like, wait, what?

Of course the congressman is now saying that using nuclear weapons on American gun owners was an exaggeration, he just wanted to rhetorically demonstrate that the all-powerful government could crush us peasants like bugs, they hold our pathetic lives in their iron hand, and he’d never ever advocate for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil (that would be bad for the environment!), and instead he merely wants to send a SWAT team to your house to shoot you in the face if you don’t comply.

See? That’s way better.

We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe.

But basically it boils down to one side making the argument: The idea of the 2nd Amendment resisting a tyrannical government is obsolete, because the federal government is too overwhelmingly powerful, and has too many advanced technologies.    

Which, especially in light of Kill ‘Em All Swalwell’s oops-did-I-say-that threat to nuke 2A-supporting Americans, pretty neatly provides confirmation of everything we’ve been saying all along. But never mind that right now, on to the really good stuff.

First, let’s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.

This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, it’s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when there’s a republican in office and an election coming up.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. We’ve used Apaches (that’s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I don’t know how many thousands of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say they’re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and we’ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.

And yet they’re still fighting.

Okay, so let’s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying fuck you, this means Civil War 2, instead we’ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.

In fact, let’s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, let’s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.

That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams don’t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but I’ll get to that too.

Let’s be super generous. I’m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say won’t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progress…  These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.

And there are 650,000 of them.

To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.

And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.

In one of the bluest states in America, the New York SAFE Act only has like a 4% compliance rate. And that’s mostly just people choosing to ignore an onerous law. Because the further you get away from the major cities, the more people just don’t give a crap about your utopian foolishness. Its benign neglect, and most Americans are happy to ignore you until you mess with them. You start dropping Hellfire missiles on Indiana? Fuck you, its game on. And that 1% is going to turn into 50% damn quick.

So just by the numbers, it’s an insurmountable problem, but we’re just getting started with how stupid this idea is.

And, incredible as it seems considering the level of stupidity already dispersed and put to rout here, Larry’s right—he is just getting started. Really, though, this bit is what it mostly boils down to:

In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because “we kept the gloves on”, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas.

You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns? But I don’t think unrelenting total war against everyone who has ever disagreed with you on Facebook is going to be quite as clean as you expect.

Probably not, no. It certainly shouldn’t be, anyway.

But that’s what we’re dealing with here, isn’t it? It’s a completely child-like, petulant, spiteful outlook, one wholly divorced from anything resembling reason or reality; it wants what it wants, because reasons, and it expects to get it toot fucking sweet, too. Or else.

Believe it or not, Larry has plenty more yet, and it’s…well, it’s reassuring, is what it is—more so than anything I’ve come across since Black Tuesday, in fact. Disastrous and dark a portent as the midterms were, some small hope still remains to us, a hope tightly interwoven with America’s gun culture and its 2A devotees. Which, I can’t think of anything more fitting, more right, than that. Conclusion:1““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““1

To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once.  In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.

No reason it can’t be both there, Larry. But it ain’t just math they suck at; as I always say, it’s reality that’s always been their biggest problem.

(Via WRSA)

Share

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix