RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Dec
30
2008
Another GFW Opens Mouth, Proves He’s A Fool.
Posted by: in Democrat Arses, Gun Fearing Wussies, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Stupidity Gone Wild, Useless Nitwits12:01 PM
Did you know that the Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when they wrote into the Constitution that we had right to bear arms? Yep. They obviously thought that we would be enemies with Britain forever and forgot to read those tea leaves they dumped into Boston Harbor. Now that we’re allies with the Brits we don’t need those nasty guns anymore.
It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
~Abraham Lincoln~
Entries (RSS)
That is to say, they didn’t look back until about, oh, 1812. Or again when they invaded and burned the Capitol in 1814. This idiot has obviously never picked up a history book.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:10 PMUsing
- First, actually, it’s only a small, clearly identifiable segment of the population. The CONSTITUTION grants citizens the Right to Bear Arms. Until a Constitutional Convention crafts an Amendment denying citizens that Right AND the Congress approves AND the majority of the citizens of this country vote FOR the Amendment, it stays a Right. Deal with it.
- OK, here we have someone mixing apples and pomegranates. 3,006 children and teens were killed then you further qualify those killings as young, black, inner-city men (thus easily recognizable). Last time I looked, the inner city (let’s use Detroit as an example) makes Fallujah look tame. These youngsters run in packs, deal in illegal drugs, commit drive-by killings, routinely pop a cap into some innocent person for fun or just find themselves painted with a target. Besides, as seen in the supposedly gun-free UK, when goblins want guns, goblins get guns whether it’s legal or not.
- OK, using 3,006 as the baseline number for 2005, we get an increase of 1,202 (40% of 3006) young black men over two years. That sounds like an overall decrease in per year numbers.
Black on Black crime has ALWAYS been a problem and it is up to the Black ‘Leadership’ to come up with a solution. It’s YOUR problem, YOU deal with it. Once the crime scene gets down to a civilized level, maybe, just maybe, business will start coming back.
Oh, I would not consider exporting black on black crime as black on white crime outside the urban centers. There are people out here that have MUCH bigger weapons, know how to use them to maximum efficiency and don’t like their friends and families threatened.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:13 PMUsing
It never ceases to amaze. There’ll always be somebody out there singing that same tired, naive “ban guns and there won’t be any more guns” refrain. What a dope. Yet, he seems to fit right in on that site. On the same page, there’s another contributor who calls herself “Bonnie Bucqueroux” and she’s making fun of Sarah Palin’s grandson’s name. Another one named “Libby” is, of all things, bashing Bush and his “apologists”.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:25 PMUsing
SeniorD sez:
Actually the Bill of Rights and the Constitution recognizes that the Right To Bear Arms is a G-D Given Right. The Founding Fathers acknowledged that there are certain inalienable rights that even they themselves as the authors of our Government could not grant nor take away. The reason it was even written into those documents was because they knew that there would be tyrants that would attempt to do otherwise. Therefore even if the Constitution were to be amended, it would be not change the fact that we as human beings have the right to protect ourselves, our families and our property. They can make it against the law, but that doesn’t make that law justifiable or legitimate because it is attempting to take away something that they themselves don’t have the right to confer or eliminate from our society.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:31 PMUsing
MRS,
I agree in principle. However both documents establish the rule of law (which for some strange reason ignores God). Thus, if the Constitution was Amended, the entire body of law providing that Right is moot.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:35 PMUsing
SeniorD @ #2:
Ah, Yes - MuscleDaddy-The-Elder used to teach in Detroit, and had an oft-repeated phrase related to programs for “at-risk” students - went something like this:
I actually went to the trouble of registering over there, just so I could point out that these guys (for instance) would be singularly unimpressed with his “ban”….
Leaving only those who deal with weapons-smugglers…armed (and everyone else at the mercy-for-which-such-people-are-known).
Jackass.
- MuscleDaddy
December 30th, 2008 at 2:16 PMUsing
Imperial Tobacconist™ LC&IB M @:
I was thinking the same thing. War of 1812. Another reason this douche-nozzle lacks any credibility.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:18 PMUsing
Too late.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:23 PMNot to mention, we’ve lost exactly what by his description of the principle death type? We do not need thugs and gang-bangers anyway. I’ve often thought we should airdrop weapons and munitions into that sort of neighborhood.
Using
I do have a question for this jerk……a gun ban, huh?
December 30th, 2008 at 2:30 PMYou gonna’ start with black inner city youth? Go ahead, pass your silly national gun ban, but pray tell, just who do you have in mind to enforce it? :em96: :em01:
Using
Its even better than that. As a resident of Detroit, you might think that he would at least be dimly aware of US and British warships mixing it up on the Great Lakes during that second conflict. Or the fact that Detroit was actually British territory for part of that conflict, as was much of the state, and had a seat in Parliament in Ottawa. I’d call him an idiot, but that really wouldn’t do justice to idiots.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:34 PMUsing
look at Mr. Smith’s profile . it explains the ignorance displayed in his article.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:34 PMUsing
Well I got as far as the title: “Ban All Guns” and that was about it. Does this asstard have any influence?
December 30th, 2008 at 2:36 PMUsing
Caveman, this is the same kind of fool who would bitch endlessly about the tragedy of black men being thrown in prison for long sentances for violating the ban he is lobbying for.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:36 PMUsing
“The right to bear arms is killing all of us. In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods. And CNN reported yesterday that black-on-black murder of young black men is up 40 percent from last year. The harder the times get, the higher these statistics will go.”
So ban guns for black people. It makes as much sense as anything he’s saying.
Also, how many kids drown in pools every year? 15K? Ban those too.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:42 PMUsing
L C hilljohnny @ #11:
Let’s see… Born in the year of “Octo” (is that a scientologist-thing?), Last voted for Kerry, and can’t stand “Chaney” (apparently the VP in the evil Star Trek parrallel universe).
Yup - that about covers it.
- MD
December 30th, 2008 at 3:07 PMUsing
LC MuscleDaddy, Имперский Заключительный Ответ @6 & 11:
I read the comments over at that blog. I must say, your post was a thing of beauty, approaching the surgical precision of a daisy cutter. Hats off to you!!! :em04:
I bet “Chaney” has a goatee, too…. :em01:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:13 PMUsing
Beat me to it Aggie - Muscle Daddy, that was an excellent post. Since the comments there were pretty much running entirely against the guy, I’m not going to bother. Other people are doing a great job putting the moron in his place.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:16 PMUsing
If you thought that guy was stupid, read the other columns. It goes downhill from there.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:19 PMUsing
Large urban settings have some of the most draconian gun laws there are in America. That hasn’t stopped those 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods from shooting each other. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. :em98:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:20 PMUsing
Pardon me while I hijack this thread. Blago named Roland Burris to the Senate. Blago seems to be throwing it in Obama’s face when he had at the news conference Bobby Rush to defend the nomination. Rush was a ‘Black Panther’- think of him as a kindred spirit to Ayers. Bobby Rush claimed that because the only black in the Senate was elected president it would be racist not to confirm Burris.
I’m telling ya- this is like watching a train wreck,, you just can’t keep your eyes averted. Basically, Blago is telling Obama if Burris ain’t confirmed it would be because Obama ain’t black enough. :em01:
Ah this is shadenfrude!
December 30th, 2008 at 3:20 PMUsing
L C hilljohnny sez:
amen to that Brudda, I liked what he put for his movie that he has to watch at least once a year…..
Oliver Stone
:em01: :em99: :em93:
(said in my best Yoda voice):
“ohhhhh, strong is the stupid in him”
December 30th, 2008 at 3:22 PMUsing
The author also forgot about the British Twit Invasion. :em02:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:27 PMUsing
The Lone Haranguer sez:
see, that’s where I’m deeply conflicted Haranguer, back in the 70’s I had hair down past my shoulders but hated hippies and the anti-war crowd. And I LOVED the music, especially the Beatles. Yeah, did my share of drugs and such but never embraced that culture…..I usually bought pot just to take with me on my many trout fishing trips up in the Colorado rockies..
I think the real twits were the hysterically screaming girls who were too busy having aneurisms from their screaming to hear that excellent music….
December 30th, 2008 at 3:41 PMUsing
So, I went over there, read the article, read the comments, and this idiot has ZERO support. Not one. :em41:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:54 PMUsing
L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter @ #20:
WooHoo!
Roll Tape!
- MD
December 30th, 2008 at 4:03 PMUsing
Hail Rotts :em04: :em04:
@ Jaybear:
I had long hair and loved the music of the Beatles.(My favorite Band) Then……sometime around 1980, I figured out that all of the hippies were commies and proceeded to cut my hair. None of this changed the fact that The Beatles were awesome artists, even if politically not correct. I loved John Lennon, I just disagreed with his politics. I can certainly relate to where you are coming from.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:05 PMUsing
LCs Aggie Sith & AnnieMcPhee @ 16&17:
Thank you Evah-so-much! :em93:
I know I’ll probably never go back there again, but sometimes I get all ‘motivated’.
- MD
December 30th, 2008 at 4:07 PMUsing
You forgot about the fact that the colonies never stopped trade with Britan for the most part.
I guess the only solution is to completely disarm the black community.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:17 PMUsing
LC MuscleDaddy, Имперский Заключительный Ответ @15:
Hmmm….quick search finds several possibilities:
Octo- prefix for “eighth”, so maybe he was born in the eighth month, or August…. Octo, short for October….or even http://www.octo.org , the home for the Orange County Transporter Organization….
Of course, being so ethnically inclined, he should have typed “ashta”, Sanskrit for “eight”.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:30 PMUsing
LC MuscleDaddy, Имперский Заключительный Ответ @27:
If that was “motivated”, I would LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to see you really fired up!!!
:em01: :em99: :em01:
December 30th, 2008 at 4:33 PMUsing
Imperial Tobacconist™ LC&IB M sez:
Uh, technically speaking, we were the aggressors in the War of 1812. America declared war on Britain in response to the British harassment of American shipping, which, in turn, was a response to the technically neutral America carrying on trade with the French, which was making it a lot harder for Britain to fight Napoleon.
Let’s say America is fighting a nation that is stronger than it (lets call it Nation B). Nation C is constantly sending supplies to Nation B, and it is well known that Nation C is no friend of America’s, and what’s more, Nation C, America can beat Nation C in a war. Now I know this lot would be calling for war against Nation C, yet Nation C declares war against America?
The War of 1812 was a result of a still-bitter America thinking they could humiliate their old foes by aiding a tyrant trying to take over Europe. Britain wouldn’t have looked twice at America if America hadn’t tapped them in the back and slapped them in the face. Hell, part of our decision to declare war was based on the fact that America wanted to take over Canada.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:14 PMUsing
LCRedneckProgrammer sez:
George Harrison was always my favorite Beatle, I liked John but his politics and that no talent skag of a wife of his always turned me away from him.
I kept my hair pretty long up until about 1998, that’s when I lost enough of it that long hair in the back looked pretty stupid with nothing on top. Hell, I had shoulder length hair when I worked for the DoD, you wouldn’t believe the crap I got when I went on base somewhere like Ft. Hood or Knox….but it was all good natured, especially when I told them that if they kept it up I wasn’t buying the first round anymore.
I have to look around the politics of a lot of the bands back then, bands like Steppenwolf…CSNY…and Steve Miller. I have to do it because the music is so damned good. But what I find funny is that a lot of the stuff they were talking about back then is so relevant today, stuff like fighting against an authoritarian government, excess taxation, oppression by big brother….you know, pretty much the entire DNC playbook.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:18 PMUsing
The guy says his hero is Gandhi. I left him a nice Gandhi quote that I bet he won’t like.
Also, what in hell is it to be born in the year “Octo”? Wtf is an octo?
December 30th, 2008 at 5:29 PMUsing
Interpretive Clog Dancer @ #31:
I think you’re going a little cart-before-the-horse there…
The trade situation with France hadn’t changed significantly (or at least, not in any unpredictable way) since England recognized America’s independence in 1783.
If “Country C” (US) is friendly and doing business with “Country B”(France), …
and “Country A”(England) gets into a war with “Country B”…
Does “Country C’s” continuing to do business with “Country B” constitute ’starting a fight’ with “Country A”?
I think not.
Now, should “Country C” expect “Country A” to try to cut off that pre-existing trade with “Country B” - for the sake of the war they’re trying to win?
Of course.
That’s still not picking a fight - it’s accepting that to continue on about your own business-as-usual is likely to bring the fight to you.
Whole different matter.
- MuscleDaddy
December 30th, 2008 at 5:29 PMUsing
Since the British are no longer forbidding political speech by Americans, or mandating the Church of England as the state church, the First Amendment is no longer needed, and can be done away with.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:30 PMUsing
MD, That comment was a thing of beauty but
Fixed it for ya :em93:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:33 PMUsing
Deathknyte @:Dk, I have been saying in many related post’s lately that when the “wheels come off the bus” on the national level, it is going to start in the metropolitan areas. I doubt that it is going to start in the high-rise deluxe apartments IYKWIMAITTYD. Taking the guns away from “everyone” really means getting guns out of the hands of those most able to pose a credible defense against further incursions into our freedoms. It would be like cutting the floats of the anti-shark nets during a freeding frenzie. I have thought that we should airlift guns into the inner cities, wait three days, go in and bury the losers and arrest the winners. :em95: :em95: :em69:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:34 PMUsing
Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:
well, historically you’re a little off. By 1812, Napoleon was retreating from Russia and was close to being exiled to Elba. He would resurface in time to lead the 100 days campaign in 1815…culminating in the Battle of Waterloo and his final permanent defeat. Technically, he was through as a threat to Europe..He still had enough fight in him to wage the battle of the nations in 1813 but after that, he got penned in in France with the allies actually taking Paris and rethroning the Bourbons.
The war was over free trade and British impressment of American seamen to serve on their naval vessels. The Brits actually preferred American seamen over their own, because they considered them more independant minded and “better stock” than the native sailors they pressed into service from the dregs of English society.
That was part of it, but England and France were already fighting over claim of Canada AND the West Indies. There was a lot of trade there that was necessary for both countries, most notably the lumber in Canada and the northern American territories which both countries needed to expand, upgrade and maintain their naval fleets. England had pretty much deforested itself building a world class navy, the only two sources of the right timber were the Baltic countries and The northern parts of this continent. The War of 1812 was a side theatre in the world war going on in Europe.
There’s a lot more to the story than your portrayal of a jingoistic America out to prove itself.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:36 PMUsing
Azy,
I believe MuscleDaddy and I were referencing the Star Trek episode, “Mirror, Mirror”, although SG1 also had that damn mirror thing in a few episodes.
Damn Machello…. :em01:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:39 PMUsing
LC MuscleDaddy, Имперский Заключительный Ответ @:
Was it just me, or did this guy sound like either a massive stroke victim or a VERY heavy user of pharmaceuticals? And the scary part is these people are running our government.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:41 PMUsing
[emphasis mine]
See? That just PROVES that guns kill people!
December 30th, 2008 at 6:24 PMUsing
Posted in reply
Dear Mr Smith:
I live in a nation with lots and lots of gun laws and gun bans. As we speak a man is holding three people hostage,and he is armed with a shotgun.
We have had armed robberies galore, shootings, murders with guns, home invasions with guns, carjackings with guns, and a few months ago we had a gangland shootout in the middle of a shopping mall.
NINETY THREE PERCENT of all gun crimes committed are with illegal guns, and I might also add that our police add suicide in as a “gun crime”.
Two days ago a man held up a bank with an illegal gun.
Day before that, a man shot a woman with an illegal gun
Week before that, 200 rounds were pumped into a house.
We have gun crimes in this city every single day, and speaking as someone who knows, I defy you to prove to me in any way shape or form that a ban on guns will result in anything else other than a massive rise in crime.
The NSW police have admitted openly that they are helpless to prevent the flow of illegal guns, up to and including machine guns and..I kid you not..rocket launchers, into the city.
Meanwhile the citizens are banned from even carrying a knife for self protection.
Ban all guns, and only the criminals will have them.
Go ahead, argue with me. I live in a nation that is acting the way you want, and the citizens are prisoners in their own homes.
You, sir, are a fool.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:26 PMUsing
Um, what’s a GFW?
December 30th, 2008 at 6:55 PMUsing
“Um, what’s a GFW?”
Gun Fearing Wussy. :em93:
December 30th, 2008 at 7:08 PMUsing
The guy is a stupid reject from the shallow end of the gene pool and should die of dysentery.
Is it really too hard to realize that our right to bear arms does not stem from any government, or any document, but from the very fact that we are human and our life is our highest value? The right to LIFE is an individual’s fundamental right, because without life, WTF is he? Therefore, we have a right to defend LIFE. That’s it. End of fucking story.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:34 PMUsing
jaybear, Colonel of Imperial Ancient Artillery sez:
You know something? They’re not the people our parents warned us against. They’re the people they warned us against. :em98:
December 30th, 2008 at 7:44 PMUsing
As Jaybear said, America declared war because the British were basically kidnapping American sailors from the ships they were stopping to inspect.
Sarcasam, you missed it. I am well aware that the only guns they get will be ones from people willing to obey the law.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:03 PMUsing
That asshat is SO fat that the fat cells have migrated to his head and pushed his brain out of his left ear!! :em01: :em99: Man, if you could put a tax on stupidity, he’d be paying out the wazoo!! :em99: :em01: :em41:
December 30th, 2008 at 8:14 PMUsing
LC MuscleDaddy, Имперский Заключительный Ответ sez:
Yeah, but then Country C is the one who declares war? I agree its not picking a fight to continue about your business even if you know whats going to happen. What is picking a fight is if you know whats going to happen, do it anyway, and than declare war over it.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:16 PMUsing
Up in the early comments someone said something about the stupid being strong in this one. Truer words were never spoken. This guy is aggressively stupid, not just passively stupid like so many of his ilk.
That’s what we need. the Tantalus device and Leonard Nimoy and his funny ears ready to push the button on this idiot.
Princess,
Simply beautiful, I bow to your logic.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:20 PMUsing
jaybear, Colonel of Imperial Ancient Artillery sez:
I despise hippies. Hippies then. Hippies now.
However, it remains an incontrovertible FACT that hippies make the best music. It may be unfortunate, or frustrating; but it is nevertheless true.
jaybear, Colonel of Imperial Ancient Artillery sez:
Lately, I often find myself humming the first verse of “I’d Love to Change the World” by Ten Years After.
I agree that you can’t bother with the politics of your favorite bands. This is like boycotting a movie because of a particular actor’s politics — you’d end up foregoing ALL movies altogether. There’s just no way that you could limit yourself only to movies made (and acted) by conservatives — there aren’t any. Likewise, why worry about the retarded leftist politics of, say, CSNY - Suite: Judy Blue Eyes is still an awesome song.
There’s just no denying it: Hippies make the best music.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:49 PMUsing
Some cheeseball had to do it; & I’m that cheeseball:
When they tear them from my cold, dead shoulders!
December 30th, 2008 at 8:58 PMUsing
actually, this one’s better
December 30th, 2008 at 9:02 PMUsing
Maybe, just maybe, them powdered wig guys were asserting that our ‘right’ (not scare quotes) to keep and bear arms was based on the fact that we did. And as long as we do, bearing affirms our right to keep them.
Whoa. Scary to the GFW’s for that exact reason. We keep ‘em, They fear them. Ergo, they fear us.
Works fer me.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:16 PMUsing
Sorta off-topic, sorta on-topic; but the degree of hypocrisy in this story is unbelievable - had to post it:
Hell, just read the headline:
the rest of the article here: http://apnews.myway......896O0.html
At first I figured that they must be talking about some other “Bay Area”; but, no. The Libs in San Fran are upset about too many of those damned blacks moving into their neighborhood.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:27 PMUsing
Isn’t the terrible increase in “black on black” crime a sign of systemic racism??? :em96: Oooops……that argument won’t work.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:10 PMUsing
mighty aphrodite sez:
Of course it does:
“Teh Man” forces the poor blacks into ghettos, then cuts them off from any economic opportunity forcing them to prey on one another.
See “black on black” is totally because of racism.
Please excuse me, I need a lot of vodka after forcing my brain that far to the left.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:29 PMUsing
All other aspects of this topic having been so well covered, I’ll simply repeat…
Molon Labe!
Their end game is impossible. There are not enough thugs to disarm 30 or 40 million Americans if even 10% of us are unwilling to be disarmed.
Molon Labe!
Oh, and uh, ICD? Your pretense to expertise in historical analysis is exceeded only by your willingness to select and color the facts to fit your agenda… and your lack of credibility, and relevance, and significance and….
You come by these traits ‘honestly’ though… it’s how you’ve been trained by the example of those you follow.
Wise up. Or fuck off and die. Those really are your only choices.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:51 PMUsing
What kenashimame said, plus a little something: it’s also because of “internalized racism” which is something like that old saw that if someone tells you you suck you’ll start to believe it and become a drunk or something. So yes it is whites’ fault. See also “internalized misogyny” which means that when women do horrible shit to other women or to children it’s men’s fault. And when they kill men it’s also men’s fault. Same principle.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:51 PMUsing
Er: the views above are not my own but the unfortunate result of too much reading of feminist/leftist material.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:52 PMUsing
Ya Think?!
The lefties only approve of blacks moving into areas where they don’t live. Unless they are rich blacks, or know their place in society.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:14 AMUsing
I’m sure as hell not the brightest flame in the candlabra, but, I sure as hell know WHY the second is there. :em96:
December 31st, 2008 at 1:10 AMUsing
Or they could, you know, just try to do away with the federally funded housing in the area.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:20 AMUsing
No one noticed my little note? He wont be able to argue with someone who is telling him the cold hard facts from a country that did as he suggested….
December 31st, 2008 at 2:05 AMUsing
Indeed Brendan, I noticed. Your statement, however, is so inarguable as to be blatant. He can’t. It is brilliant.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:11 AMUsing
LCBrendan @ 42: for anyone else who may not have. Pure, cold, hard fact.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:13 AMUsing
Also, by 1812 (when, as ICD stated, we declared war and thus picked the fight) the Brits had the time to kick us around the continent for a while since the first round of Nepolionic troubles were pretty much over. They had pretty much ended the impressment practices by then, but we were still plenty steamed about it.
And we did get kicked around, pretty much everywhere except on the high seas where it was British policy never to engage an American vessel unless they had the numerical advantage of at least 2 to 1. That’s when USS Constitution got it’s “Old Ironsides” sobriquet. Our Navy built themselves a pretty good reputation on the high seas. On the Great Lakes, not so much.
Eventually what we got out of the deal was recognition by the Brits in exchange for us giving up all aspirations to Canada (who made it pretty clear that they didn’t want to join us anyway) and the realization that we really needed a professional standing Army after all (it was pretty embarassing to have the Brits enjoy the dinner that Dolly Madison had laid out).
After the war, a young Army officer by the name of Winfred Scott went on a world tour to see all that there was to see in the way of military technology and tactics, and then he came home and earned the name “Fuss and Feathers” as he shaped up our Army.
Yes, that’s pretty basic, and yes, there’s a lot more to that story Paul Harvey. But, as much as it may hurt to admit it, ICD had the basic story right. Give credit where it’s due.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:11 AMUsing
[...] Hat tip to Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. [...]
December 31st, 2008 at 9:06 AMUsing
LCBrendan @64:
NOTICED???
I copied that, and e-mailed it to ALL my friends, even the anti-gun nuts…..Here’s hoping it goes viral! :em03:
December 31st, 2008 at 9:26 AMUsing
Best use of guns:
Scaring the GFWs …
All too easy!
RWR
December 31st, 2008 at 10:04 AMhttp://www.rightwingrocker.com
Using
Mrs M:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but since when the hell does a GFW ever have to PROVE he is a fool?
And when this idiot or his friends come to pick up my guns, all they will get is some seriously warm metal, a stack of empty cartidge cases, and a world of hurt. By the time thay actually get to the guns, I will be well beyond caring about the concerns of mortals and their foolishness.
Meanwhile, GFWs may feel as free as their conscience dictates to preemptively surrender.
—————————
On a related note, if two young drug dealers elect to commit mutual suicide on the streets of Detroit (or Chicago, D.C., Atlanta, et. al.), this is my concern, er, how, prithee?
—————————
Comes the revolution, Friends. Buy ammo.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:25 AMUsing
I know Liberals in general, and GFWs in particular, don’t like facts, but here are a few facts:
December 31st, 2008 at 10:48 AMWashington DC had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation until the Heller decision overturned their laws. DC’s population peaked in 1968 at 809,000. Since then it has been in steady decline. In 2005, the DC population was down to 550,521.
The last year for which I have crime statistics for DC is 2005. In that year, there were 195 murders (35.4/100,000), 166 forcible rapes (30.2/100,000), 3700 robberies (672.1/100,000), 3971 agravated assaults (721.3/100,000), and 3577 burglaries (649.7/100,000). Yessiree, getting rid of guns will cause the crime rate to drop.
The peak year for murder in DC was 1991 with 482 murders (80.6/100,000). For rape the peak year was 1969 with 776 rapes (97.2/100,000)
Contrast the pattern of Washington, DC with that of Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, Kennesaw passed a law that every household would be required to have at least one working firearm in the house. In 1981 (pre-gun law) the population of Kennesaw was 5242. By 2002, their population had grown to 22664.
In 1981 there were 54 (1026/100,000) burglaries in Kennesaw. One year later, after the ordinance was enacted, there were 35 (665/100,000) burglaries. And, in 2002, after their population had grown over four fold from just before the gun legislation was enacted, there were 60 burglaries, which comes out to 264/100,000.
I leave the research on numbers for murder, rape, agravated assault, etc., as an exercise for the factually challenged Libtrolls. It might do you some good.
Would you anti-gunners care to explain to me again just how we are safer with fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens? Hmmmm? I’m waiting.
Using
[...] Hat Tips: MK Freeberg and Misha [...]
December 31st, 2008 at 11:18 AMUsing
Knocked off of Red Roses For aBlue Lady
I bought a black rifle on the black market
December 31st, 2008 at 11:27 AMWith a dozen extra magazines
I showed it to a liberal goob the other day
Who blasted :em72: down both legs of his jeeeeeeeenz :em93:
Using
LC Ogrrre, Imperial Grouch @71:
You have a better chance at bagging Anjelina Jolie, than getting a legitimate answer from any anti-gun nutjob.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:50 PMUsing
Did he clean up after himself? What I find amusing about these GFW’s is the idea that somehow a military looking weapon is more deadly, by its appearance, than your average western looking type rifle. A friend showed up to see my new .357 revolver. And yes, it is a big, impressive looking gun. But when I showed him one of my .45 semi-automatics, he got paranoid. I just looked at him, checking the gun status, removing the magazine, racking the slide, twice, handing it to him. “Either one of these, at this range, would send you to the promised land, both are running hollow points, appearance makes nooooo difference. Both have inherent advantages, you are just not familar with the semi-auto. That’s all. It can’t hurt you if you don’t point it at yourself or say, drop it on your foot.”
December 31st, 2008 at 12:53 PMIn time I think he grew fascinated by it….yeah, I’m working on my fourth convert, although this one may not count, he already owns a twenty-two rifle. And at least he didn’t shit on the floor………
Using
I forgot to thank you, Brendan. I poached your letter, as usual for you, excellent. It went out to everyone on my mailing list. Along with a personal note saying, myself being half Aussie, on my mothers side, that I do not appreciate what has been to a land I hold dear.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:59 PMUsing
Eyas @ 55:
December 31st, 2008 at 2:32 PMAnd how many of those Bay libs voted for the Magic Negro? They wanted “change”; they got it.
Using
Caveman et al….you are welcome.:)
December 31st, 2008 at 3:06 PMUsing
LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun sez:
You do know that today in particular The Magic Negro meme is ALL OVER the leftist blogs right? Hehe. They aren’t even blaming Rush anymore (their tiny little idiot attention spans can’t take the shifts) - they’re blaming the guy who sent out the tape. None of them seems to have any clue that it was a parody based on a leftist columnist who was the first to refer to it. In fact, he was denouncing it, but that makes no difference; the thing was dumb, it was begging for a parody, and a parody it got. So since it got parodied, you’re:
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!!!
Hehe. HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!
December 31st, 2008 at 4:28 PMUsing
Fugg dhis schidt.
It’s NEW YEARS EVE!
Happy New Year, everyone!!!!!!
Let’s keep this thread going, as a New Year’s chat!!! Not to worry about Bacchus B-logging,
December 31st, 2008 at 5:42 PMas Deej said, come midnight, it all goes away!!!!! YaaaaaaHoooooooo!!!!!1
Using
Wait a minute: Bacchus blogging?
Does that mean I can post crazy shit because I’m drunk?
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT fuckety WHOOOOOOOOOOT!
December 31st, 2008 at 6:03 PMUsing
MISCHA - OPEN THE CHAT ALREADY!!!!!
December 31st, 2008 at 6:03 PMUsing
Damn, y’all are drunk already??
And here I have to wait until the kiddies are abed, after midnight….Sniff….
Still, I am sure some of y’all will post some good stuff to read….and decypher
:em01:
December 31st, 2008 at 6:14 PMUsing
Well we STILL might post something good despite the lateness of the hour or drunkenness.
I’m told that my drunken rants far surpass the STRAIGHT rants of many leftist thinkers. Which says that either they are insane or I am BRILLIANT.
Which do you prefer?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:32 PMUsing
LC AnnieMcPhee sez:
Either……regardless of your state, your posts STILL make far more sense than any leftist idiot’s.
and as one of the resident non-drinkers here at the Rott, I wish you all a very happy new year….Remember, that headache that you wake up tomorrow with will be in direct proportion to the amount of fun you have tonight. :em69: :em93:
:em41: :em41: :em98: :em98: :em98: :em38: :em38: :em72: :em72: :em72:
Happy New Year y’all
December 31st, 2008 at 6:40 PMUsing
LC Aggie Sith @ 84:
December 31st, 2008 at 7:04 PMNo, honi, but we’re workin’ on it! With some sour-cherry wine, gifted by a friend, what
growed the cherries, and another made the wine.
‘Aint friends wonnnnerrrfulll? *hic*
Using