Friday, December 28, 2012

Gun Control is a Lot Harder on Four Cups of Coffee

Let me begin this post with a warning that it is a rant and will therefore come with the inevitable disjointed arguments presented in what is more than likely to be a chaotic jumble peppered with regrettable expletives that a more erudite columnist would never deign to use.

Before I begin this tirade, let me present the "Cliff Notes" for any of you who wish to understand my basic point without the necessity of even scanning this post. To all leftists, self-congratulatory elitists, moral idiots, progressive retards, and liberals who believe that the loss of freedom, up to and including the right to self-defense, should apply to the Little People (and, of course, you are the Little People) and ONLY to the Little People while they themselves retain the fullest expression of privilege and protection afforded the Ruling Class:

"Do I make myself clear?"
For the rest of you kittens, I appreciate your determination to struggle through the ravings of a slightly hungover woman hopped up on four cups of strong coffee and annoyingly damp from wrestling leaves and twigs out of the coat of a squirming little dog who saw fit this morning to gambol through bushes which were thoroughly soaked from a week of steady downpour. 

To put it mildly, I'm a bit peevish.

So when I read this at Rachel's...
The wonderful British blogger David Thompson links to a piece by the pompous leftist British writer George Monbiot, who describes an encounter with reality many years ago that apparently did not sink in very well, seeing as how he’s still a pompous leftist (or even “anarchist” as he fancies himself). I bolded my favorite parts.
A group of us had occupied a piece of land on St George’s Hill in Surrey, 70 miles from where we now sat. In 1649, the Diggers had built their settlement there, in the hope of establishing a “common treasury for all”. Our aim had been to rekindle interest in land reform. It had been going well – we had placated the police, started to generate plenty of public interest – when two young lads with brindled staffordshire bull terriers arrived in an old removals van.

Everyone was welcome at the site and, as they were travellers, one of the groups marginalised by the concentration of control and ownership of land in Britain, we went out of our way to accommodate them. They must have thought they had died and gone to heaven.

Almost as soon as they arrived they began twocking stuff. A radio journalist left his equipment in his hire car. They smashed the side window. Someone saw them bundling the kit, wrapped in a stolen sleeping bag, into their lorry. There was a confrontation – handwringing appeals to reason on one side, pugnacious defiance on the other – which eventually led to the equipment being handed back.
...I thought how utterly amusing it was that those who were protesting the indignity of private property in the hands of others were nonetheless indignant when their private property ended up in the hands of others. Goose, meet Gander. Y'all should really get along.

Rachel points out that Mr. Monbiot also believes that Britain should tax the living crap out of anyone who has "too much living space". In a charming bit of irony, what might be considered "too much" is more than likely defined by people who live in castles and manors and palaces. This tax should be so punitive that one is forced into taking in a boarder to avoid paying it. Such boarder must surely be allowed into one's home for free, it would follow, since private commerce is a sin or something to Mr. Monbiot. The justification for his position is that housing resources should be commonly owned because they are universally needed. What he seems pathologically unable to ascertain is that the travellers who stole everything they could get their hands on forcing -- handwringing appeals to reason -- were simply employing his philosophical ideas in the most immediate and genuinely intimate way possible. They were just taking it because they needed it. Why create red tape where it isn't necessary? The thrifty and efficient travellers were simply removing the middleman. Jolly good.

Barely able to process the enormous hypocrisy of such a position by celebrated "smart guy" Monbiot, I then read that another celebrated "smart guy" and journalist David Gregory, obviously a man of refined impulses who would never succumb to the lurid temptation of violence that the rest of us hair-trigger idjits fumbling with our Bibles while trying to pick our noses during target practice always seem so frighteningly close to doing, held up an illegal magazine clip on TV to illustrate the existence of such accessories. Apparently Mr. Gregory's "AH HAH!" moment in the face of NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre was worth the flagrant illegality of having such an item in his possession at all, much less brandishing it on air. It seems, kittens, that a stunt that would land you in prison was performed by the intelligent Mr. Gregory because he was "committing an act of journalism." One's right to own firearms therefore, while constantly questioned and restricted under the 2nd Amendment, is wide open under the 1st Amendment, provided you have the proper credentials to open your yap. Not a member of the journalistic intelligentsia? Then shut up and put on this here orange jumpsuit, Mr. Average Citizen. And quit picking your nose.

Of course it is also obvious to all but the most casual of observers that the real lesson in Mr. Gregory's astonishingly courageous journalistic action (fully protected under the 1st Amendment) is that our gun laws are ineffective because they are such a hodge podge, changing from state to state. 

The Gregory case incident highlights the problem with the country’s gun laws, a patchwork of state, local and federal regulations that make it almost impossible for jurisdictions that want to enact stricter regulations to do so with any kind of effectiveness.
Gun advocates often point to crime rates in Chicago, Washington and New York City — which have some of the country’s most robust gun control laws — as evidence that gun restrictions don’t work to deter crime. But the problem is that, in the absence of a robust national law like the Assault Weapons Ban, it’s incredibly easy for someone to simply go to the next jurisdiction over to buy a gun or ammunition that is banned in their hometown.

While it would have been impossible for Gregory and his staff to purchase the magazine he used in the District of Columbia, they could have easily visited one of the many stores ringing the city in its Virginia or Maryland suburbs, all within just a few miles of their studio. Or you can simply order high-capacity magazines like the one Gregory used on eBay or off a dozen other websites.

“Don’t wave Chicago because where are Chicago’s guns coming from? We trace the weapons that come into my city. They’re not coming from [Chicago],” Newark Mayor Cory Booker said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday after Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan raised this exact point. “They’re coming from places that have free secondary markets where criminals and gun runners can easily buy weapons and pump them into a community like mine, where it is easy for a person who is a criminal to get their hand on a gun.”
Allow me to point out where this line of reasoning is headed. Gun bans don't work. Even the Educated and the Elected admit they don't work and they will never work -- so they must be implemented everywhere and for know, so they will finally work. Otherwise someone somewhere will get a hold of a gun and use it illegally. It is an accepted fact to the more intelligent among us that any gun anywhere is a potential threat to everyone everywhere unless, of course, it is in the hands of the "proper authorities". You, Mr. Average Citizen, are no longer considered a "proper authority". Your government now considers you a "threat." We have an orange jumpsuit for you right here....

And I do hope you're not ill-bred enough to question whether the same person who would soullessly commit mass murder would instead meekly hand over his guns to the authorities. That would be in poor taste because...

MORE GUN CONTROL = PROBLEM SOLVED.  (And if the problem isn't solved, we promise to eliminate every last freedom until it is. You have our word.)


One of the most remarkable things about the way progressives view the insane world their ideas create is that when the inevitable disasters occur from their stupid ideas, their solution is always to increase the stupid. If some gun control leaves law-abiding citizens unarmed and sitting ducks for criminals, then more gun control is obviously needed.  If even more gun control creates "gun-free" zones where mass murders can happen, then we need to make the entire country a "gun-free" zone. We need more more MORE, not less. You have to be very, very smart to understand this. Of course, if they're wrong, they have that covered too:
John Hayward of the conservative-leaning Human Events website, frames it as a “Ruling Class” versus “Little People” divide, pointing out that "David Gregory is ... a highly-paid, high-profile employee of a high-powered news network – in other words, a member of the Ruling Class. It’s supposed to be tastefully understood that most of the little rules for Little People don’t apply to him, any more than demands for a helpless and disarmed citizenry mean the Ruling Class will disarm its own bodyguards."

And also resource control and space control....
So remember, when government offers more of anything, it always represents the loss of freedom for someone. Eventually that "someone" is you.

So hand over those guns, Mr. Average Citizen Little Person. Your Overlords of the Ruling Class don't want anyone getting hurt.

And while you're handing over those guns, perhaps you can find some room for a comrade? It's been determined by the Central Committee that you have entirely "too much living space."

Of course, if you disagree, we have a rent-free accommodation specially designed to have exactly the correct amount of living space. Oh...and it comes with its own fashion-conscious wardrobe. Here's your orange jumpsuit.

Don't say government never did anything for you.


(And HEY! I didn't swear once. I let Mr. Gillette do that for me.)


  1. I think Rachel misspelled a word consistently throughout her article. "Moonbat" is not spelled M-o-n-b-i-o-t.
    In regards to David Gregory. I disagree with the gentleman from the NRA about how Gregory should not be prosecuted for his breaking DC gun control laws. He should, in fact, be made an example of. Yes, the gentleman from the NRA is correct: it's a stupid law. But, Gregory is a stupid man, and he is all in favor of the stupid law he broke and, indeed, wants such a stupid law nation wide. I say, prosecute to the fullest extent of the stupid law, make him a convicted stupid felon, send him to a stupid prison, where he will be someone's stupid bitch, and when he gets out, he might not be so effin' stupid anymore.

    1. I tip my hat, sir. YOUR rant was better than mine!


  2. A most excellent fucking rant. Quite excellent.

    1. Thank you. But Ogrrre's comment above was even better! HAHAHA! It made jme LOL!

  3. Yeah, they don't want anyone getting hurt. They just want gun control to keep us all nice and safe like in Britain.

    Now tell the one with Jack and the beanstalk it's my favorite.

    1. I LOVE Jack and the Beanstalk. Magic beans! Golden singing harps! Happy endings!'s a fairy tale. Sorta like gun control. HAHAHAHA!

    2. Their own data demonstrates that at best they're idiots and at worst, likely for most of the anti-gun leadership, they're lying about their true motivations.

  4. "Gun advocates often point to crime rates in Chicago, Washington and New York City — which have some of the country’s most robust gun control laws — as evidence that gun restrictions don’t work to deter crime. But the problem is that, in the absence of a robust national law like the Assault Weapons Ban, it’s incredibly easy for someone to simply go to the next jurisdiction over to buy a gun or ammunition that is banned in their hometown"
    A Dumbocrat made the above statement to me, once. I relplied, if it is the weapons that cause the crime, not the city-wide target rich environment known as a gun free zone, why isn't the crime in the surrounding areas as high? If DC's gun laws make them safe, except when criminals bring guns in from other, less restrictive areas, why aren't those less restrictive areas huge free fire battle zones?
    Why isn't the crime rate in Arlington, VA or Bethesda, Maryland as high as it is in DC? You know, gun grabbers really don't care to debate gun control. :D

    1. You know, gun grabbers really don't care to debate gun control.

      Shit. Not with YOU they don't. HAHAHAHA!


    This whole gun control subject has got me all kinds of worked up and tense and frankly just pissed off. It's exactly as Ogrrre says, the grabbers don't care to actually debate gun control, but damn if that stops them from running their idiot mouths constantly anyway. GAH!

    Buttercup, I almost clapped out loud at the way you described about the Monbiot situation that the travellers "were simply employing his philosophical ideas in the most immediate and genuinely intimate way possible." BAM. Very well put and precisely correct.

    If you don't already, you should add David Thompson to your regular reading list. He talks about fuckers like Monbiot all the time. Focuses on British leftists but the points are written so well that it positively makes me drool.

    1. If you don't already, you should add David Thompson to your regular reading list.

      Once again, girlfriend, we are so sympatico it's spooky. I ADORE David Thompson and have been reading him regularly for years. I bet if we matched our "private reading lists" we would be straight up the same. It's spooky, I tell you!

      The gun control issue is putting me into fits as well. THIS is when things get really really serious, folks. They want our guns, that's obvious. Whether our resistance to that wish is sufficient to cause real political pain is another. We'll have to wait and see. The answer will determine whether we are still Americans, or just soft-bellied Europeans that took a fucking boat ride.

    2. No it's not spooky at all. You and Rachel are sisters at heart. The style might be umm somewhat different but your hearts are in the same place. You both have a passion for truth.

  6. Buttercup, you might want to read this:
    It's a rather long essay, but well worth the read, and well worth following the links in his essay. Gun grabbers won't like what he has to say, because he uses history, logic, facts, and statistics in his arguments. It's rather difficult to debate when all you have on your side is "feelings".

    1. "It's rather difficult to debate when all you have on your side is "feelings""

      Ogrrre, that's all they need. Logic need not apply. For them, feelings are fact.

    2. It's rather difficult to debate when all you have on your side is "feelings".

      Yes. Well, the left has long since figured that out. That's why they always use government to make you shut up. "Facts and logic? (Puts gun to your head) Here's my facts and logic, bitch."

      That was a terrific article!!! I have read his stuff before. Larry is always very factual and shoots the shit out of all the bullshit from the left with the precision of a marksman. Thanks for the link!

  7. Hey Barry, let's see you address this one. Bwahahahaha!

    1. RG, I opened an account there just to sign that petition.
      But, that petition could garner 300 million signatures, and Il Douche, the BlightBringer would ignore it, as it doesn't fit his commucrat agenda of making the federal government all powerful.

    2. I know but that one tickled me. Does he ever "address" any of those petitions anyway? I never hear about it if he does, but then I don't pay any closer attention to his maunderings than I can avoid. My blood pressure's high enough as it is.

  8. Unintended consequences. Probably.

    Something Funny Happened on the Way to Tyranny

    Every weapon of military utility designed within the past 100+ years was gone. This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.

  9. Buttercup, et al, I sent the following letter to my state representative, and to my state senator to see if they would sponsor such a bill in the upcoming session of the state legislature. If you like the idea, even if you don't think your state legislature will pass teh bill, it is worth modifying for your state and requesting such legislation.

    "It is unfortunate that it is frequently necessary for citizens to defend themselves from criminals. What is fortunate in Oklahoma is the Shall Issue concealed carry permit law and the Castle Doctrine law. Citizens use firearms to defend themselves from criminals up to 2.5 million times per year in the United States, many times without firing a shot

    However, when a citizen of Oklahoma has to defend himself or herself from a criminal by actually killing the criminal, I think that the State of Oklahoma should reward the citizen by paying the citizen 10% of what would be the cost of a trial and 10% of what would be the cost of incarcerating the criminal for 1 year. If the citizen requires psychological counseling for the act of killing a criminal in defense of self, family, property, or another person, the cost of said counseling should be paid from the deceased criminal’s estate. If the criminal has no estate, then the surviving family of the criminal should be assessed for the cost."

    After all, if a citizen kills a criminal, they have saved the state a lot of money on the trial, incarceration, and medical care for the goblin. Oh! And, they've guaranteed that the goblin will NEVER offend again.

    1. I don't need to get paid. I consider it my civic duty as a good citizen.

      Just doing my part.

    2. Well, yeah, but it's still nice to get paid for it. Hell, they pay for jury duty, which is a civic duty. And, I think several state governments also pay for ideas that save them money, or for reporting waste or fraud. Why not this? :D

    3. Well, it might be difficult to argue that you are merely compensating rather than perhaps incentivising. (Is that a word???HAHAHA!)

    4. Well, it would certainly give the goblins incentive not to be assholes, if they knew that the state paid a bounty on their asses. Perhaps, especially if they knew the state paid a bounty for them.