Category Archives: gun control

Dial 9-1-1 and Die

How many times have we heard the gun grabber “If you’re in trouble, just call 9-1-1” screed?

How many times have you been told “You don’t need a gun. The police are there to protect you” from the anti-rights crowd?

So what if you call 9-1-1 and get this fetid bag of cunt drippings?

A 911 operator is accused of hanging up on people calling for help.

Investigators say that Crenshanda Williams had thousands of “short calls”, lasting less than 20 seconds.

In one call, a security guard reported drivers drag racing. Moments later, investigators say that Williams hung up. The recording captures her saying “aint’ nobody got time for this. For real.”

Williams reportedly told investigators she often hangs up on callers because she didn’t feel like talking with anyone at the time.

According to this report, at least one of the emergency calls she hung up on resulted in the shooting of an innocent woman during a convenience store robbery.

911-secondsMost of the 9-1-1 failures are not that egregious, but the problem is they do exist. I would submit that most 9-1-1 dispatchers are not disgusting pieces of detritus like this one, but dedicated professionals. But no one can deny there is a wait time for police action, and in that time, a violent criminal can fire multiple shots or fatally stab their victim, even if the police get there in minutes! These stories are heartbreaking.

Lives are forever changed or snuffed out, while victims wait for help that at best can arrive within several minutes and at worst in hours. What is it that gun grabbers always say? “If it helps save one life…”

So if it helps save one life, why should anyone be forced to rely on others to defend them?

I also realize that there are cretinous ass drippings who do call 9-1-1 because they can’t reach their pizza, or their boyfriend failed to give them oral, and while any system can be abused, there’s no excuse – NONE – for hanging up on an emergency call, because you don’t feel like talking or think it’s not worth your precious time – for which taxpayers pay you, bitch!

But back to my original point.

Next time some gun grabber tells you to just call 9-1-1 and wait for the police to arrive, just remember: You don’t have to rely on others – be it corrupt 9-1-1 dispatchers or slow police responders – for your life.  You have the right to defend yourself with the most effective tools available.

Act like your life depends on it, because it does. Because it really does.


It’s short, it’s sweet, and it’s the only reply that can be given to the CATO Institute’s latest policy report inviting Americans to consider grounds for compromise on gun control. Written by CATO Chairman Robert Levy, who despite listing all the facts that support gun rights’ advocates contentions that gun control cannot and will not reduce crime, still claims there’s room for compromise on the issue.

Universal Background CheckAs if we haven’t been compromising and getting our rights shredded for decades!

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, he says. What does “shall not be infringed mean?”

“Everyone understands that children can’t carry automatic weapons to school,” he claims. But “can’t” and “shouldn’t” are different things. And if a child carries an automatic weapon to school, but harms no one with it, threatens no one with it, and merely bears this particular arm, as specified in the Bill of Rights, whose right is being violated, other than the child’s? This reductio ad absurdum is stupid and unworthy of a libertarian scholar.

“Assault rifles” are common and regularly used for hunting and shooting sports. Attempts to buy them back would backfire, like they did in the past. But yet, Levy identifies these rifles as a major area for possible compromise.

us-murder-rates-1980-to-2010Now about NO! We tried that whole ban thing once. You know what happened during it? Fucking Columbine! Law abiding citizens dutifully stopped purchasing these weapons. Homicides with firearms were already on the decline prior to the implementation of the 1994 ban, and they continued to decline during and after the ban.

No! There’s no compromise that is acceptable to relieve people of their rights for absolutely no benefit.

Some weapons can be banned, he says. After all, machine guns have been banned for all intents and purposes since 1934, right? No, you undefuckable traitor to the Constitution. People still own them. They just have to jump through a shitload of legal hoops to legally do so. And they’re barely ever used in crimes. Again, what part of “shall not be infringed” is not clear?

And yes, the courts did say some regulation is legal. But if, according to Levy, “the government bears a heavy burden to justify its regulation. Government must show (a) public safety requires the proposed restrictions, (b) they will work, and (c) they are no more extensive than necessary,” show me where the hell these three requirements are being met!

Maybe we should compromise on high-capacity magazines, Levy says.

How about NO!

According to Gun Facts, The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. The average magazine swap time for a non-expert shooter is 2-3 seconds. In the case of the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre, the murderer performed 10 magazine changes before the police arrived. A 10 round restriction would have saved nobody.

So why compromise away the right, if it will help no one, save no lives? Once again, none of the requirements to meet the government’s burden to justify its regulation.

And then there are the universal background checks, which Levy admits felons easily avoid by either purchasing firearms illegally or stealing them, but still thinks gun owners will compromise on.

…even staunch Second Amendment proponents might be receptive to background checks for private (non-dealer) sales at gun shows, over the Internet, and through published ads. The key is quid pro quo — concessions to gun rights advocates in return for closing the “gun show loophole.” That was essentially the deal offered by the 2013 Manchin-Toomey bill, which garnered 54 Senate votes, but not enough to meet the 60-vote threshold.

How about FUCK NO, shit git?

There is no “gun show loophole,” since less than 1 percent of guns used in crimes are sold there.

There is no such thing as a legal Internet purchase without going through a federal firearms license holder, who is obligated to run a background check before handing you that gun you just purchased on the webz.

What they’re really talking about is outlawing private purchases. Period. (Which, by the way, will disproportionately affect the poor, who will have to pay more than they normally would for a firearm purchased from another individual, because they would have to absorb the cost of an FFL performing a background check.)

Since when does CATO have so little respect for private property?

I suspect my buddy Miguel is correct when he says that the libertarian intelligentsia is so desperate for relevance, they’re willing to take a large, steaming dump on the rights they once held dear. I guess they’re tired of being known as “extremists,” and they would rather compromise on their basic principles than be waved away as some radical zealots who are unwilling to negotiate away their fundamental rights.

Rights? Meh. They’re anachronistic, antediluvian tripe.

Looks like CATO would rather be taken “seriously” by those who despise individual rights and freedoms and would sacrifice them at the altar of “common good” in hopes that the alligator will eat them last than stand up to protect what is right.

What a damn shame.

No one left to vote for

I’ve tried to keep away from Election 2016, generally. Yeah, I’ll take on certain issues important in this election, and will take candidates to task on said issues, but generally, this election is such a clown show, that I cannot stomach even writing about this insanely bad lot of candidates who can’t wait to wield their AUTHORITAH! over Americans!

When given the choice between a woman who was either too stupid to realize that she was sending classified information over an unsecure server, or outright lied about it, and a man who is completely ignorant about nearly everything and has no idea what he believes other than his dick is apparently satisfactory, as is the size of his orange little hands, I thought the Libertarian Party was a viable choice.

At least I wouldn’t need a shower in boiling Listerine after casting my vote, right?


The LP in all its retardery decided to pander to so-called “moderates” this year by nominating a gun-grabbing, Constitution-shredding, shriveled up nutsack as its Vice Presidential nominee.

Bill *spit* Weld.

Historically a gun grabbing asshole, who has as little respect for property rights as he does for the Second Amendment, has wormed his way onto the ballot, promising not to betray Libertarian ideals and swearing his views have evolved. Well, he betrayed that promise about five minutes after securing the nomination.

Here’s what this infected testicle had to say about gun rights.

Wants to deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms without due process? No problem.

Evil “assault” rifles? Check.

I was willing to put up with a lot from the LP this year, given the assclownery that has been the hallmark of the two major parties this year. Gary Johnson is far from perfect. Very inexperienced when it comes to national security and foreign policy, which is particularly important to me this year. But that said, I’ve met Gary, and I’ve spoken to him. He’s willing to listen and learn and even change his views if a good case is presented! I was willing to accept that.

But Weld? No way. If anything happens to Gary, this fetid yambag becomes POTUS?


If I want a statist in the White House, I’ll vote for one of the major party candidates.

So screw the LP, and screw Weld. I was willing to put up with a lot, but not this.

Looks like I’m writing in SMOD 2016.

Hapless Dimwit Reporter Tries to Buy a Gun, Highlights Related Problem

At least she admits she’s clueless and does a fair bit of self-deprecation before launching into her “look how easy it is to buy a gun” schtick. She also gets busted fairly easily, because numbnuts knows next to nothing about firearms, and her feeble attempt at undercover journalism is cringeworthy at best.

Nervous, I walked into Pinto’s and was greeted by a friendly, ginger-bearded employee. With time on my mind, I launched right in.

“I wanted to get something that I could get today,” I whispered to the clerk, feeling unsure and like a complete hack. “Um, what kind of things can I buy today on the spot?”

“We’re talking about a gun?” he asked, straight-faced.

“Yes, yes,” I responded.

Clearly, I am not a seasoned “undercover journalist” and I am not a very good actor either.

The clerk explained that I could buy any long gun, a rifle or a shotgun, right then and there. To take home a handgun I’d need a concealed permit, or I’d have to wait a few days.

“What about the AK-15?” I asked, wanting to see how easily and quickly I could buy one. “Do you guys carry those?”

“Uh, it would be more like the AR-15 or the AK-47,” the clerk corrected me.

But hidden in the article was actually something useful and interesting as it pertains to our national security. We’ve been assured by this administration several times that the background checks and vetting for Middle Eastern refugees wanting to enter this country are stringent. The White House put out this infographic that claims “Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.”


As you can see, there are biometrics, background checks, checks for known connections to terrorist organizations by NCTC, FBI, DHS, and the State Department! Seems pretty thorough, correct?

But please take a look at what this Rachel Belle, who clumsily attempted to buy a gun before failing miserably and going back to her talking points on how easy it is to purchase a firearm.

Think about it. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You don’t need training. You just need an ID, to fill out a form and pass the instant background check, which completely depends on individual states reporting criminal records to the FBI. If they don’t report, the FBI background check is pretty much useless.”

The background check completely depends on individual states reporting criminal records to the FBI. In other words, if there is no information reported to the FBI, the check will come back clean.

The reason I mention this is because this is precisely the problem with the “stringent” vetting of Syrian refugees who desire to come into this country. Are there databases in Syria we can access to check their criminal histories? Are there assets we have who will reliably report on criminal connections? Just like the background check to purchase a firearm, if there are no inputs into the NICS database, the background check will come back clean, if there are no data in the country of origin, the background check is pretty much useless.

So liberal gun grabbers have a big problem with background checks being incomplete, allowing possibly violent criminals to purchase firearms, but they don’t seem to have a problem with incomplete background checks for those claiming to be refugees coming into our country without proper vetting.

Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

“Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked. “The government does not, no sir,” answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sessions further inquired: “You don’t have their criminal records, you don’t have the computer database that you can check?” Confessed Emrich: “In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings.”

While a startling admission, it confirms previous reporting. Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.

If this is a problem in the gun context (I would submit it isn’t really, because if denied a background check, criminals will get guns the same way they normally do: friends, family, black market, or theft), then it should definitely be a problem when vetting refugees from hotbeds of terrorism who want to enter this country!

Which one will it be, gun grabbers?

Arrogant Git Uses Appeal to Authority to Advocate Citizen Disarmament

The op-ed is entitled, “I know Assault Weapons and You Shouldn’t Have One.”

My first reaction is, “Eat a dick. If you claim that, you don’t know what an assault weapon is.”

He claims to be a veteran who experienced “first-hand combat” in Vietnam.”

My first reaction is, “Then, perhaps you should know what an assault weapon actually is, but you don’t.”

I am calling on veterans who have served in active combat – lived and almost died depending on the assault weapon strapped to your body – to speak out. We are the people who have true insight on this issue. Without wealth and connections to keep a deferment, I was drafted and in active combat for a year in Vietnam from Nov. 1967 to Nov. 1968. During the Tet offensive in Jan. ’68, some of the worst fighting in the war, I was frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.

Much like the “violence planner,” who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, this cock-gobbler knows exactly dick about the Constitution, but much like the “violence manager,” he uses his alleged combat experience to gain credibility on a subject he obviously knows little to nothing about, despite his spurious claim.

“I was drafted to fight in Vietnam” doesn’t make him an expert. It makes him someone who had to be forced into military duty. Dick.

Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport. They are too dangerous. The general public is not trained sufficiently nor mentally strategic enough to understand their raw power. They should be in the hands of only the military and tactical, highly trained law enforcement.

shyHey, walking twat! This is Shyanne Roberts. She the daughter of my friend Dan Roberts and a competitive shooter. Last year, this adorable child helped build the custom AR she is shooting in this photo. She was 10 years old at the time. She also knows the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and the fully automatic one you used in Vietnam.

Perhaps it’s time for you and Gersh KUNTZman to compare manginas.

Disagree with me? If you’re a veteran and served in active combat with an assault weapon, I value your opinion – even if it differs from mine. If you’re simply a gun enthusiast who believes it’s your inalienable right to play with assault weapons, I don’t value it because you really don’t understand the consequences – you haven’t witnessed them. If that’s who you are and what you want, join the military and be useful with that.

So the very people of whom the military consists, and whose rights they are sworn to defend don’t count in your book, because you got forced into military service and now consider yourself an “expert?”

This veteran says “Eat a dick.”

I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely. What’s the old saying … if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?

What you do and don’t believe is irrelevant. The Second Amendment exists, regardless of whether you believe it does, and it speaks plain English, regardless of whether or not your stupid ass can understand it.

I also understand the Second Amendment’s purpose when it was written and the state of weaponry when it was created. It’s called perspective – useful when you’re forming opinions and making decisions.

Oh, another one who apparently doesn’t believe that the Internet, computers, and even typewriters are covered by the First Amendment. When you write this ignorant screed with a quill on parchment, given the state of writing technology when the First Amendment was written, I might listen to you (but probably not, because you’re stupid). Until then, eat a dick.

I call out our N.C. senators in Washington who consistently vote against stricter background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban, and not preventing people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. I’m amazed that politicians like Thom Tillis accept immense amounts of NRA donations and think we don’t understand that compromises the way he votes. I may not have gotten a college degree because I was fighting a war, but I’m smart enough to figure that out.

So, he has no respect for pretty much any amendment in the Bill of Rights, except, of course, the one that protects his right to be stupid. Due process? Who needs it! Right to keep and bear arms? Fuck it. Right of the people? Don’t care and don’t understand it.

Difference between full auto and semi-automatic rifle? Doesn’t know it, or doesn’t care.

What would you expect for someone who was forced into service and then uses said experience to try and relieve others of their rights?

In other words, John Butler, eat a dick.

%d bloggers like this: