Mike's Home Page

There's going to be some anger in here.  I've spent years having "tolerant" "liberals" wish me dead, that my kids be taken away, or actually threatening me. We're reaching the point where the talking stops. No, that's not a threat. But is a suggestion to pay attention.

I remember during the lead up to the Gulf War, having some liberal tell me everything the US was doing wrong.

"The problem is you can't demand Saddam retreat, because it's a challenge to his honor and he has to resist."

I asked, "What negotiations do you think will help?"

"Oh, you can't negotiate with Middle Eastern strongmen. That comes across as weak and they'll ignore you."

I asked, "So, what will work?"

"Well, I don't know, but Bush needs to come up with something."
So this guy didn't have a solution. He just knew that everything was wrong and someone else needed to fix it.

Flash forward to the 2008 election.  There was a local Democrat ad complaining about a state tax matter--tax breaks offered to a major corporation to keep HQ in the US, calling it a "Corporate payoff" and complaining about the "jobs going to Mexico." [Though bringing Mexicans here to do the work seems A-OK with liberals, but I digress].  The point of this Democratic ad was, you guessed it, to blame John McCain.

...for a tax break instituted under a Democrat governor, and NAFTA, put in place under Bill Clinton.

I could give 50,000 other examples, but they're all the same, so let's review:

Liberals never offer a workable solution.

Liberals condemn everyone else's solutions as unworkable.

Liberals never admit error.

Liberals create disastrous policies, blame others for them, demand others fix it, refuse to acknowledge any other solution as workable, then blame others for failing to fix it, all while refusing to acknowledge it was their error in the first place.

I'm trying to be polite here.

So, let's look at the problem, and workable solutions, and if a liberal says anything, just smartsplain why they're wrong and move on.

THE PROBLEM: Nutjobs attacking schools and other soft targets. A "Soft" target is one that does not have active or passive defensive measures.  The solutions to a soft target are to harden the target, disperse the target components, interdict the attack, prevent the attack.

We're going to look at the one in the news often: Schools. A mall is privately owned and can disperse, relocate, change entrances, whatever it wants. It's not a public problem. Nor is anyone forced to go to a mall. Frankly, I can't comprehend why anyone would go to a mall, but it's a free country. I guess if you love corporate copycat blah, it's the place to be. But I digress.

A school can't effectively be dispersed.  Yes, you can have multiple buildings, but then you have to have multiple other layers of defense. That also takes time and money, and there's a cost-benefit analysis there.

HARDEN THE TARGET:  I'm going to start with this, since that's where most of the action has been. Here's the options:


I'm told this was Joe Biden's idea. That's not surprising.  If you think this is a useful idea, I'm going to ask if you're stupid.

Sorry, let me rephrase that: ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

Does the sign emit magic rays that keep guns out?  Does it glow blue in their presence? Is it in all major languages, audible for the blind, and blinking?

Seriously, if you think this is relevant, I'm going to say you should be ruled mentally incompetent and insane. You should never own a gun, and should never vote. You're the problem with society.

I've heard it defended as, "At least it keeps out civilians with guns!"

Oh, like civilians who'll be between students and an incoming shooter?

I've heard liberals complain that perfectly normal people might just snap any second and become crazed killers, and if only they followed the sign before they snapped, it might save someone.
If you think people do that, it says more about you than about people. Please identify yourself to mental health as mentally incompetent and insane. You should never own a gun and you should never vote.

And in fact, we find that there's been lots of shootings right behind NO GUNS signs, which are less effective than posted speed limits or NO SHOPLIFTING signs. An habitual speeder can just pay fines and insurance, and might eventually run out of money or licenses.  School shooters typically don't care if they survive, and are bent on murder, so any threat of a fine or jail doesn't really affect them.

This was a liberal idea and is totally pointless and stupid. That's a data point.

If you're finding this obvious, I apologize. I had to explain in small words for the mentally incompetent, the insane, and liberals.



These have some minimal benefit.  It does make it harder for a shooter specifically (since most flammables and explosives have no metal signature) to get past the entry without being noticed...assuming your staff are paying attention.  But, as noted, it does nothing about a backpack with bottles of bleach, gasoline, or worse things that anyone can find online or in chemistry class.

It also means that you have delays any time a student wears metal clothing, brings metal objects to class (like, say, shop class, one of the most useful, increasingly abandoned in favor of French Faggotry Studies and similar claptrap, so that those kids can get productive jobs at Half Price Books rather than a machine shop, but I digress again) or has car keys or a backpack.  This means a bottleneck at the entry point, which is a fat, juicy target for a shooter (or bomber), who doesn't even have to pass the NO GUNS sign to kill a bunch of people.  So yes, there are pluses and minuses. You could have a split line of "I HAVE NO METAL" and "I NEED STAFF TO CHECK ME."

And it takes time to put 1000 students through a metal detector at 6 a minute. So you need a lot of them. And a lot of staff.

And if you have a campus type school, every entrance of every building needs staff and equipment.

It's marginally effective.  It's all the rage with liberals.  One can draw a conclusion from that.



Great idea. Just remember, as with fire protection, make sure you can get OUT.  There should be a narrow view window near a door, on the side farthest from the handle. This is an easy retrofit in most schools. Bulletproof glass is tougher, and isn't critical on a second floor, and in my day first floors didn't have inside windows, only outside.  Which can also be armored.


First floor rooms should have an emergency exit anyway, in case of fire.  They can go into an outside hallway or directly outside. Second floors should have a ladder or slide.

At this point the liberal is complaining that disabled students will be at a disadvantage. Yes, they will. Greatest good for the greatest number and all that, and that's why I offered "Slide."

Liberals also complain, "But if they go outside they're visible and can be shot easily."

Wrong. At range, they're harder to hit. While moving, they're harder to hit. And, you know, minimal landscaping gives a pleasing line of hedges on a small raised berm, which will stop bullets.

Liberals not only complain, they endorse the idea at the same time, because they're confused as to how to respond.

But really, it's a good idea.  Compartmentalization and containment. It is a form of DISPERSAL.


So, you have to take everything out of said cabinets, thus making it obvious where targets are, and unless those are all reinforced, a shooter doesn't need to even open them.  You've just put all the eggs in one basket at the bottom of a bowling alley.

This is a liberal idea and it is retarded.  See the pattern here?

And just in case you think I'm being unfair, a liberal teacher in Florida went publicly on air to demonstrate this "defense" and complain about how "Terrified" the drills made him feel.

In other words, he provided intel to the enemy, and told them it would also work as psyops. This was about the stupidest thing he could have done. But, well, liberal. This also failed as PREVENTION.

So let's move to INTERDICTION.  We have an attacker, we need to stop him.

Now, to stop truck attacks, you use physical barricades. This doesn't work with pedestrians.  This limits us.


Every school near me has this, and it works with two exceptions:

The staff must pay attention to whom they are buzzing in to "come to the office," though newer buildings require entering the office first. Which, of course, is where the security controls for everything else usually are, but at least it means eyes on the person.

Obviously, a campus type school needs this at every building.

It doesn't work when all the students are entering in the morning (or moving between buildings). Though we've discussed ways of improving that.

And of course, it doesn't work if the attacker has an accomplice inside.

I have heard liberals complain that because of the latter, it's not 100% effective.  That's a very liberal attitude, and it's stupid and delusional. Nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes, and we're making headway on death. But it is a definite improvement over "just walk in."



Let's summarize this: When someone attacks a school or other soft target, the response is going to involve people with guns. People with guns who are driving distance away are less effective than people with guns on site.

You cannot disagree with this. It is a fact. If you attempt to disagree, you're just not living in the real world. Go see a professional, do not ever buy a gun, do not vote. You probably shouldn't drive, drink or handle matches either. You probably need an audio track of "Breathe in, breathe out."

Liberals love to insist that only "experts" can handle firearms. Well, as an expert at handling firearms I say this is bullshit.  They then try to insist I'm not an expert.  [Turns around, looks at shooting trophies, Expert qualifications, recent targets from the range, *sighs*. Whatever, dude.] This is textbook liberalism. An expert is only an expert if they agree with the liberal's prejudices. Which, as we are establishing, are wrong most of the time. Also, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias 

The point is, the old policy of "wait for police, control the scene, establish perimeter, then clear" went away with Columbine.  SOP now is, "First responder attempts to engage the hostile, and reports en route if possible." Because almost every one of these losers surrenders or washes their mouth out with a bullet upon being engaged. Why the cowards in Florida have twice recently failed to do this, I can't say.  It's Florida, though. It has issues.

Now, I'm perfectly fine assigning police to schools. We had a school officer when I was in high school in the 1980s.

Liberals complain, "But we don't want to live in a world where kids are taught that guns make them safe."

Well, if you object to reality, you know what to do. Go see a professional, do not ever buy a gun, do not vote. We have defended our communities and groups with weapons since we were keeping cave bears and leopards out.

Or they complain, "We want to live in a world where we don't need police."

I'd like that, too, given the recent stats on cops shooting the wrong people.  But you can't have it both ways. Reality is a bitch.

But, if we're going to have school cops, we have to have enough school cops--one in each building at minimum. Two is better. One can flake out and be a coward, as happened in Florida. Though there were two others we don't have details about yet. Also, two means they have backup. It also means the hostile now has two threats to worry about.

This costs a few hundred dollars a day in wages, since their training piggybacks on other police training.



This is where liberals completely lose their shit. Which is an indication it's probably a good idea. Not proof by any means, but following the trend, it's favorable.

In most of these incidents, we hear about some heroic teacher who put himself or herself between the shooter and the students.  Every one of those who died ate a bullet for a student who might have died.  They all deserve credit for their courage and selflessness.

Now, I don't think it takes an expert to observe that a brave person with bare hands is less effective than a brave person with a weapon.  And the most effective, easiest to employ weapon is a firearm. You don't agree?  Good, then stop trying to ban them, if they're not relevant. You can't have it both ways.

As previous engagements show, upon being faced with armed force, the attacker typically surrenders or suicides. Yes, the armed staff should ideally have some minimal training (and quite a few veterans are teachers, and they have at least some minimal training), but the important thing is they engage the attacker. Every bullet aimed at him slows him down. Every shot he takes at a defender is a shot he's not taking at a victim, and gives the victims time to evacuate.  If two of them can get the attacker in a crossfire, he's quickly out of options, and the incident is more likely to end.

Liberals also object to this because, "Kids might be in the crossfire."

The response is: They already are.

The sooner the shooter is stopped, the sooner the shooting stops.

I also hear, "The police won't know who is who."

81% of police surveyed said it was a good idea. Once again--if an expert disagrees with a liberal, the expert is wrong. Liberals don't need expertise. They know things.

It also works in Utah, which has had no school shootings since implementing it. That doesn't matter either. Liberals are smart and all.

This falls under the "It's not 100% effective so I'm dismissing it and requiring you to solve the problem for me with my veto power."

Fans of mine will know exactly what I'm going to say next, because I'm going to say a phrase that I believe is missing in the modern world, and will solve many problems if properly applied.

Shut up, pussy.


This brings us to: 

PREVENTING THE ATTACK: So, when someone posts on Facebook (or blog, or Twitter, or text, or in conversation) that they "Want to be on the news" or "Want to be a professional school shooter" or something else that make you go, "Wha??" it should be reported to the police. And the police should at least make a cursory investigation.  Oh, you have manpower issues? Well, maybe pull some cops off those other important tasks like arresting prostitutes, "civilly forfeiting" cars from people caught with a joint, or chasing down skateboarders. I know, those are important too, but possibly not quite as important.

If the police won't listen, possibly try clergy, or even the media (much as I hate to say so, but possibly those ghouls can help for a change).

And let's discuss those ghouls. Harsh language is about to follow.


HEY! Are you a loser with no prospects? Laughed at, bullied, hated?

You'll get, instantly:

24 HOUR news coverage for DAYS ON END!



A RETROSPECTIVE about your life, so everyone will know why you're pissed off!

A chance at a MADE FOR TV MOVIE!

So what are you waiting for?  Just blow away some children and FAME AND NOTORIETY ARE YOURS!

Unlock the BONUS LEVEL! If you succeed in getting more gun control passed, 200 million people, AND MORE IN FUTURE GENERATIONS, WILL KNOW YOUR NAME FOREVER!!


Let me show you this:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/world/asia/kabul-explosion-police.html 

Lieutenant Sayed Basam Pasha is a hero. You know what information the Afghans didn't give us?  The name of the shitbag who blew himself up.  He's a shitbag, he's dead, the end.  Let's talk about the hero.

We could learn a lot from the Afghans.

Now this one: 

 Years ago. You know why you didn't hear about this on CNN? Because he didn't shoot a bunch of kids for the pederastic, necrophiliac cocksuckers at CNN to fuck for headlines and ad revenue.


If CNN and PMSNBC could stop fighting for position to suck the cock of some deranged fuckwad, and stop trying to estimate their ad revenues if they were actually able to fuck the corpses on camera, possibly deranged fuckwads would have less incentive.

BTW, CNN earns more in ad revenue PER DAY than the NRA spends on lobbying in 4 years.  Follow the money.

Look, the First Amendment was drafted to guarantee political and religious discourse. There was nothing in there about "Allow instant intel to the enemy from the battlefield, glamorize mass murderers, and enable child predators while making a few gigabucks."  If we're going to discuss reasonable restrictions on rights, maybe we should discuss the one that kills the most people. The mythical "Right to free speech."

And we're back to all the previous ideas. If it's a harder target, a defended target, then attackers are disincentivized from trying in the first place. Stop glamorizing them. Stop promoting them. Stop telling them how scared they make you. Stop telling them what your plans are. Stop insisting on being a worthless, helpless, pathetic piece of shit waiting to die, and they'll go away.
But let's be honest: You're not capable of any of that.

Don't be surprised when at some point, men (and women) shove you aside and fix the problem. Your problem. Your failure.

It's right up there with "Teach rapists not to rape."  Gee, why didn't anyone think of that?  Just wear a sign that says "no raping."  Problem solved!

I'm going to keep hammering this lesson home:  You keep complaining that 150 years of gun control has not solved any problems.  Yet, your only squeal is that obviously we need more.

Well, let's see how that worked:

Jake Freivald

an hour ago

So, you want to ban all semiautomatic weapons.* What is that going to look like?

When Connecticut gun owners were required to register – not give up – their “assault weapons” ** by the end of 2013, fewer than 50,000 of the estimated 350,000 weapon owners did so (14%).***

When the NY SAFE Act went into effect in April 2014, New York state residents were supposed to register their “assault weapons” as well. Out of an estimated 1,000,000 owners, fewer than 25,000 did so (2.5%).

Remember, this is just to register them, not to give them up. We should expect actual buy-back and confiscation programs to fare far worse.

So the strong likelihood is, after you pass some legislation to get people to give up their weapons – even if you “buy them back” – you’re going to get pretty much nothing. There will still be 300,000,000 semiautomatic weapons in private hands, and tens or hundreds of millions of quiet felons living in your midst. [And if you could buy them, you're going to need about $500 billion dollars, and I intend before the end of the month to make that $500 billion plus $1000]

Now, you might hope for police support in getting those guns back. You’re probably going to be disappointed. In a 2013 survey of 15,000 cops, PoliceOne asked the following questions****:

What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

Very favorable: 48.8%

Favorable: 22.2%

Unfavorable: 9.6%

Very unfavorable: 7.2%

Unsure/neutral: 12.2%

If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort: 44.9%

Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction: 17.2%

Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation: 7.9%

Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation: 10.0%

Unsure 20.0%

Do you believe gun buyback or turn-in programs can be or have been effective in reducing the level of gun violence?

Yes: 11.2%

No: 81.5%

Unsure: 7.3%

The bad news: You’ve done absolutely nothing to help any of the situations you’re concerned about, and turned tens of millions of ordinary citizens into felons.

The good news: It’s better than a civil war.

Some of you will say, “No, only weapons of war like the AR-15.” What you mean when you say that is that you want to ban all semiautomatic weapons. We can argue about it in the comments if you like.

** These are not assault rifles, which are fully automatic and are already highly restricted. These are “assault weapons”, which are weakly defined, often based on cosmetic features, and generally no more lethal than your average hunting rifle.



These numbers come from the PDF linked with the words, “View the complete findings of the survey.”


What do you call doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results?


So the obvious solution to the problem: Liberalism must be recognized as a dangerous personality disorder, and symptom of mental retardation.  Then, liberals must be banned from owning guns, and voting.

Then the adults can try to fix the disaster the liberals have created.




THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT because I want to get up to date figures (where possible) and revise until we're as accurate as reasonable. I'm busy with a bunch of projects and will follow up later, but I have friends who may have the stats handy.

For the US as a whole, here's the arithmetic:
Half of households have at least one gun. Waiting period = worthless.
An unknown number can borrow one. We will table that, but keep it in mind.
Something like 80% of all violent crime takes place between midnight and 0500. (It has probably changed slightly since I first did this). There are no gun stores open during that time. Waiting period = irrelevant.
Only about .035% of people with guns ( larger subset than gun owners, since any convicted criminal may possess one, but doesn't legally own it) commit crimes with firearms.
So we're looking at the potential effect being on .000175% of the population. Statistically irrelevant.
Then there's the idiotic assumption that someone who is angry or insane to the point of lethality on Day 1 is stable by Day X and never has another issue. The number of people this would be true for is statistically zero.
And if someone DID find their partner in a cheating embrace, ran to the store, bought a gun, came back, found them both still there and shot them, there'd be a really good case for premeditation, not a crime of passion anyway.
Now, how many people with an actual threat from someone have been told a piece of paper will protect them, told to wait 10 days, and died before getting approval?

Because in response to another uncommon but visible mass shooting, the liberals are dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots.*

Their second, entirely predictable reaction, is turn the shooter into a fucking superstar, with around the clock dissection of his life, times and person.  He'll have a Wikipedia page if he doesn't already, and they plan to demolish the school and build a MEMORIAL to him.  (I'm sure some liberal retard (pardon the redundancy) is going to insist, "No, the memorial is to the event!" ...oh, you mean that event he created? At a cost of tens of millions after you raze the school?)

Their third, rather than stop jerking off over murderous pieces of shit (Hell, they'd fuck the corpses if they thought they could get away with it), is to insist that all of us who were un-involved should be penalized. About like insisting, "This guy was a rapist, so we need to castrate everyone with a penis since we can't predict who might be next."

So, yes, go buy an AR15, or something even cooler, like an AUG or an FN2000. Because eventually they'll discover those and freak out.

And in the meantime, it supports our culture.

It means AR-15s become more normalized, to the point where asking to ban them is like asking to ban Toyota Camrys, not Dodge Vipers.

It means in a worst case that more guns are banned, despite SCOTUS rulings in our favor, the requirement to compensate us will fuck the liberal defecation machine for a trillion dollars or more.

It means if they violate a second Constitutional protection, and we have to throw down, we'll have all the firepower.

And in the meantime, it will give them more reasons to dance around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots...which is always hilarious.

*Movie reference, for the oversensitive pussies out there. Grow the fuck up.

Let me share my background.

I have 25 years of Expert Marksman ratings from the US Army and US Air Force, with rifle. I also qualified with Pistol more than once, and scored Expert with that as well. 

I have shot the M16, M16A1, M16A2, M4, M4A1, M15 (old USAF revolver).

I have shot the M60 General Purpose Machine Gun, the M2 Machine Gun (Browning .50 caliber). 

I have shooting trophies from the US Army.

I have served as an armorer--issuing and maintaining weapons.

I have served on the range as a line safety NCO, ammunition point NCO, range NCO, and primary marksmanship instructor. 

I've served as a weapons courier (responsible for transporting weapons) and as an armed courier (transporting other items while armed).

None of those actions are particularly impressive. They're only intended to show that I'm professionally qualified with weapons in the military.

As a civilian, I have beta-tested and reviewed firearms and accessories for manufacturers, furnishing promotional reviews, and feedback when the weapon did not perform as stated. I've even received firearms as gifts both as payment after the fact, and just because they think I'm an awesome writer.

I collect firearms.  I own...let's just say "a lot." 

My collection, in fact, has its own bank account.

My collection has its own incorporation papers.

My collection has its own lawyer on retainer.

Get that? A lot.

I own several restricted (National Firearm Act) weapons, that take money, paperwork, and federal approval to own, including actual machine guns, suppressors ("silencers") and short barreled rifles.

I have repaired, restored, examined literally hundreds of firearms in the last 33 years.

From raw materials, I have built firearms. And I don't mean bought a kit, though I've done that, too. I've turned solid blocks of metal into firearms. Dozens of them.

I've built my own firearm kits, specifying not only parts, but which alloys and heat treatment I wanted for those parts.

I have several correspondences with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regarding said builds, to verify legality and technical matters.

I had a small part in helping draft firearm legislation at the state level.*

I've been active in promoting and supporting legislative movements.

I taught my kids to shoot starting at age 4.

I have written articles for firearm magazines in several countries. 

I also write fiction, but, as far as possible, I make the firearm use in said fiction factually accurate.


Now, possibly you've taken a first aid course at some point. If not, you're probably familiar with the instruction that, "When qualified medical personnel arrive on scene, follow their instructions."

Well, when you get to that part in your gun control debate where the professional arrives on scene...here I am.

Once the professional has arrived, it's bad form to insist they're incompetent, delusional, a nut, have no idea what they're talking about, etc.

Yet, so many of you do that.

Here's an example of a very simple question in gun control. If you've actually "studied" the matter, you'll have an answer without needing any googling or references:

With BATFE moving from Treasury Dept to Justice Dept under Homeland Security, should the federal firearm laws be relocated from Title 18 USC to Title 10 USC? Why or why not?

What's your answer?

Because if you don't have one, you're utterly unqualified to have an opinion on the subject of what laws we have, have tried, or might implement. Or, as importantly, how hard it would be to implement them, and the fallout and second and third order effects of doing so.



Someone finally found the errors in this statement, one of which was accidental.
ATF used to be with Treasury.  Title 26 is the Tax Code, and there are numerous taxes on firearms, so that's where firearm law really should have been.  ATF is now with Justice, and Title 18 is the criminal code, where it would reasonably be now.  Title 10 would be relevant to the militia acts, and that reference is Title 10, Ch 13, Sec 311.  And I mistyped late night about DHS, since ATF is under Justice, and "I regret the error," as they say on CNN.

So, I made a mistake and a mis-statement, and no one caught either.  Most notably none of the "experts" on gun control from the articles they've read on PuffHo and The Atlantic.

And it only took four days.


Which makes it really hard to "have a discussion" about gun control.  Because you don't need a discussion. You need an education. And you don't want a discussion or education. You want to dictate, from ignorance and fear.

One of the common refrains recently has been, "You gun nuts need to come up with something, because doing nothing is no longer an option."

So, if you're conceding that your 150 years of trying to do something constitute "doing nothing," I agree with you, as far as outcome.

Which means you're admitting your ignorance-inspired efforts have been worthless.

In which case, isn't it time you stepped aside, and let the doctor work?  Rather than insisting on power crystals and holy water, and burning garlic in sacrifice to the gods, or whatever you're absolutely positive will fix the problem this time?

And since you come from a background of ignorance and superstition, you're almost certainly going to be outraged when the professional tells you, "Your myths are irrelevant, accomplish nothing, and often make things worse."  But whether or not you're outraged, that's the fact. And your own admission that your 150 years of effort constitute "Doing nothing" is proof. You have no idea what you're talking about, but want your claims validated.

Well, that's not going to happen.

When you blame attacks on "white supremacy," you're virtue signaling, and you look like an idiot.

When you try to conflate the NRA and the KKK, who were on completely different sides of the race debate when they were created, and still are, you're virtue signaling and look like an idiot. (And it doesn't matter what you've read in some leftist rag by someone else ignorant, no matter what alleged credentials they claim.)

When you claim suppressors allow "silent assassinations," or speak of "high capacity clips" (sic), or that "bump stocks [sic] turn rifles into machine guns more dangerous than what the military uses," or reference "the shoulder thing that goes up" or talk about "assault weapons" based on what stock and grip two identical rifles have, you're being a complete tool. You're not "saving lives," you're not "promoting gun safety," you're flapping around like an idiot and making a scene.

If you say you want to "compromise," you're lying, because we've spent 150 years "compromising" with your ignorant bleats, and, as you admit, have "accomplished nothing."

So if you have any intellect whatsoever, you should probably take this opportunity to shut the fuck up and let the experts handle it before you kill another patient.

Now, you will probably not like what most of the experts have to say on the matter.  But the fact is, we are experts, you're not, and as you like to claim in science, we have consensus.

Here's one of my articles to show why you're wrong about, well, everything:

And as to the solution to the problem you think you see: That has to be social and cultural, just as it was with the "problem" of liquor leading up to and during Prohibition, and as it is for marijuana and other recreational and potentially pharmaceutical drugs.

Which, as you might recall, also became "epidemics" because ignorant idiots insisted they knew the answers, until experts finally talked some sense into them.

Now please be quiet, the adults are talking.


*And since one of you idiots tried recursive logic and claimed that by helping draft legislation I completely countered my own argument and "made himself worthless, good going buddy," I'll point out the legislation I was involved with was to REDUCE the legislation created by you idiots.  GFY.

First of all, it's not actually a flamethrower.  This is his device:



This is a real but low end flamethrower:


See the difference?

What he has is called a "weed burner."  They're sold in literally every hardware store in the country and have been for at least 50 years.  They cost about $30 unless you put a fancy shell over them. They require a propane tank.

Literally almost every farm, and every landowner with an acre or more, owns one to control brush and weeds.

Congratulations, urban liberals! You've discovered "Fire"!

And just as with every discovery, you want the government to save you from your own imagined stupidity.

Sample comments from various articles:

"It's just a matter of time before someone walks into their office, torches it, drops this thing on the ground and runs! Then what?"

So...just like anyone could do with a can of gasoline, or a jar of gasoline and a wick? (A "wick" is a flammable textile used to bring flame to a fuel for purposes of ignition.)

"They need to ban these before someone sets California on fire!"

California gets set on fire all the time.  Also, CA already has a law that requires permission from the fire marshal for any kind of burning. it's almost as if fire existed before you discovered it last week!

"It's bonkers that these aren't considered a firearm!"

Not really. A firearm discharges a projectile by means of an explosive propellant in a fixed cartridge.  This does not use explosive, a fixed cartridge, nor fire a projectile. Therefore, it is not a firearm. You don't just randomly get to declare things "firearms" because they scare you.  

Also, fire projecting technology seems to be about 3000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_thermal_weapons It's good to see you're finally getting up to speed on technology.

My advice is to smoke some medical marijuana to calm your nerves, be careful of the lighter you use to do so in case you set your house on fire, and let the adults handle this.

Also, my preferred source is www.FlamethrowerPlans.com for plans, parts, kits and complete units at prices very competitive with Musk's, with much better output--up to 50 feet.


Best Anthology Award!
Jan 18, 201812:01AM

Category: Writing


Forged in Blood, Best Anthology, Preditors and Editors readers' poll.

The credit belongs to the amazing group of authors who wrote it. It was an amazing experience to work with all of them.

On behalf of them and myself, thank you very much.

Lil Kim is Irrelevant
Jan 03, 201803:29PM

Category: Politics

Someone was disputing the means of dealing with Lil Fat Phuck in Korea. I said he should have been ignored. They asked why police have negotiators instead of ignoring an asshole with hostages and a weapon.

He wasn’t an asshole with a weapon until recently. Pussies kept giving him street cred and money. They should have let him wail and tantrum (and his dynasty before him) and ignored the pacifier-spitting.

Trump publicly said, in effect, "Lil Fat Fuck, touch that button and South Korea will be Only Korea, it will be an island, you will be dead, glowing vapor and remembered as an irrelevant piece of shit in the midden heap of history. I personally control more wealth than this shitshow you jokingly call a “nation.’”

And gee, suddenly Lil Fat Phuck is considering negotiation. 

You don’t negotiate with toddlers or terrorists. You explain the rules, you punish them.

The route taken here is the same route Carter took with Iran. You can't appease a sociopath with rewards.  It just makes them triple down.

Carter's response should have been, “You can’t get our people out of the embassy because of a riot you can’t control? Wait one.”

SPECTRE cuts an orbit, shreds every living thing around the Embassy into graunched hamburger.

“We’ve cleared the riot for you as a favor. Can you now ensure our people make it to the airport? If not, we can send more freedom.”

And that would have prevented EVERY Middle Eastern problem we’ve had since. Some areas of the world--the Middle East, parts of Africa, parts of Asia, ONLY respond to strength. There is no "peer" in their culture. Only the top, and the bottom.  You must command, or you will be subjugated. Show that you're willing to kill them in job lots, while making them aware they can do nothing in response, makes you the top, and them the supplicant.

When violence IS the answer, pussy-bitchism is not a workable substitute. You use the violence. You use it decisively. You use it effectively.

Especially when you can literally escalate to genocide without even leaving your office.

As to that police negotiator? He’s doing two things. Trying to get the punk to surrender, while keeping him busy until the shooter is in place. If the punk hasn’t surrendered by then…

Here at the house, I have a couple of decades plus of military experience.  I have tools to dig in or out of natural disasters.  I have extinguishers and hoses. I have a field trauma kit and bandages. I have weapons both melee and firearm. I know how to use them. I know how to trench, support and revet.  I understand the fire triangle and appropriate approaches.  I understand breathing, bleeding and shock.  I know how to detain, restrain and control. I have done all of these at least occasionally, professionally. I've stood on top of a collapsing levee in a flood. I've fought a structure fire from inside so we could get everyone out before the fire department showed up, which only took two minutes, but people can die that fast.  I've had structures collapse while I was working on them. I've been in an aircraft that had a "mechanical" on approach and had to be repaired in-flight before landing. I've helped control a brush fire.  I've hauled disabled vehicles out of ditches in sub-zero weather.

My ex wife has over a decade of service and some of the same training.

We have trained our young adult children.

My wife is a rancher who knows her way around a shotgun, livestock, sutures and tools, hurricanes and floods, and works in investigations professionally.

Our current houseguest is another veteran.

This means if anything happens at the house--and last year we had a lightning strike, a tornado and a flood within 10 days--we're pretty well prepared.

Now, we're probably better off than 95% of the households out there. The level of disaster that necessitates backup varies.

If we find it necessary to call 911, it means the party is in progress and it's bad.

You will probably not be going home safe at the end of your shift.

And you know what? If it gets to that point, I really don't give a shit. I don't give a shit if you get smoked.  I don't give a shit if you fall under a tree. I don't give a shit if you get shot at.

Because at that point, I've done everything I can with that same circumstance, and run out of resources.

If my concern was "you going home safe," then I'd just fucking hunker down and die. Because I wouldn't want that poor responder to endanger himself.

Except...that's what I pay taxes for, and that's what you signed up for. Just like I signed up to walk into a potential nuke war in Germany and hold off the Soviets, and did walk into the Middle East and prepare to take fire while keeping expensive equipment functioning so our shooters could keep shooting.

There's not a single set of orders I got that said my primary job was to "Come home safe." They said it was to "support the mission" or "complete the objective." Coming home safe was the ideal outcome, but entirely secondary to "supporting" or "completing." Nor, once that started, did I get a choice to quit. Once in, all in.

When that 80 year old lady smells smoke or hears a noise outside her first floor bedroom in the ghetto, she doesn't care if you go home safe, either. She's afraid she or the kids next door won't wake up in the morning.

If I call, I expect your ass to show up, sober, trained, professional. I expect you to wade in with me or in place of me, and drag a child out of a hole, or out from a burning room, or actually stand up and block bullets from hitting said child, because by the time you get there, I'll have already done all that. And there will be field dressings, chainsawed trees, buckets and empty brass scattered about.

I don't want to hear some drunk and confused guy squirming on the ground playing "Simon Says" terrified you so much you had to blow him away.  I don't want to hear that some random guy 35 yards away who you had no actual information on "may have reached toward his waist band. Or that "the tree might fall any moment" or that "the smoke makes it hard to see."

Near as I can tell, I don't hear the smokejumpers, or the firefighters, or the disaster rescue people say such things.

But it's all I ever hear from the cops. If you and your five girlfriends in body armor, with rifles, are that terrified of actually risking your life for the theoretically dangerous job you volunteered for and can quit any time, then please do quit. 

You can get a job doing pest control and go home safe every night.

Until a bunch of fucking pussies with big tattoos, small dicks, body armor and guns blow you away for minding your own business.

Because what you're telling me with that statement is, your only concern is cashing a check. That's fine.  But if that's your concern, don't pretend you're serving the public.  If you wanted to help people at risk of life, you would be a firefighter, running into buildings, dragging people out, getting scorched regularly.

If you're cool with writing tickets, then there's jobs where you can do just that.

If you want to tangle with bad guys and blow them away, fair enough.  But understand: That means they get to shoot first to prove their intent, just as happens with the military these days. Our ROE these days are usually "only if fired upon and no civilians are at risk."

If your plan is "shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, then if anyone is still alive try to ask questions," and bleat, "But I was afeard fer mah lahf!" you're absolutely no better than the thugs you claim to oppose. All you are is another combatant in a turf war I don't care about.

Since I know your primary concern is "being safe," then I'll do you the favor of not calling. Cash your welfare check, and try not to shoot me at a "courtesy" sobriety checkpoint for twitching my eye "in a way that suggested range estimation."

If you're one of the vanishingly few cops who isn't like that, then what the hell are you doing about it?  If there's going to be a lawsuit costing the city millions, isn't it better that it be a labor suit from the union over the clown you fired, than a wrongful death suit over the poor bastard the clown shot? Both are expensive, but one has a dead victim you enabled. So how much do you actually care about that life?

How is the training so bad that it's not clear who is the scene commander who gives the orders?

How is it that trigger happy bozos who, out of costume, look no different from the gangbangers you claim to oppose, get sent up front to fulfill their wish of hosing someone down because "I was afraid for my life!"?

Why does the rot exist in your department?

If you can't do anything about it, why are you still in that department?

At some point, collective guilt is a thing.

You've probably not been a good cop for a long time.

And I still don't care if you go home safe. I care that everyone you purport to "serve and protect" goes home safe.

Why America Needs More Violence
Dec 26, 201710:25PM

Category: Politics

But not the way you think.

America was founded on the concept of equal opportunity, vs equal outcomes, and our Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility or royalty.

This has not stopped our culture from stratifying into three broad categories--the commoners, the Celebrities, and the Ruling class, or effective nobility, and the latter's Enforcers.

The commoners are accountable under law and pay heavy penalties for digressing from the convoluted path dictated by the Ruling Class. Commoners have their assets seized--houses, cars, bank accounts, even wardrobes, if an Enforcer of the ruling class claims he thinks he smelled something that might have been pot, or maybe just some burning leaves a few blocks away.

The commoner's recourse is to beg, plead, hope that someday Justice Will Be Done, and he'll recover what hasn't been sold, destroyed or flat out stolen, and maybe he won't have spent his entire future, and his children's, recovering it. http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/15/no-damages-for-victims-of-kansas-pot-rai 

Meanwhile, the Ruling Class can literally ignore a very simple federal law, such as one that distils as, "It is illegal to leave sensitive data insecure," and argue that "Well, no one actually got hurt that you know of, so the law doesn't apply to me."  And have fawning lackeys try to double-talk that a crime that other people do get put in jail for is not actually a crime when a Special Person does it. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2895892/hillary-clintons-email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html 

The Celebrity Class can be glamorized as heroic while attacking others and evade law with impunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_case   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations 

The Enforcement Class can gun you down dead where you stand, shrug and claim it was an accident, and really, actually your fault for not understanding their policies that they clearly shouted at you. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mesa-police-shooting-daniel-shaver-seen-crawling-begging-in-disturbing-video/ 

Some time back I asked myself, "What is the downside of being a federal politician?"  Congressmen get a high salary, almost unlimited travel and other perqs, invites to any number of shindigs paid for by others, "fact finding missions" and "Summits" in exotic parts of the world.  Certainly, some of them do legitimate work in the process, but they have the finest working conditions in human history, and are just about unaccountable. They have to anger both the opposition and their own party before anything is done, and even that is usually minimally inconvenient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant#Prison_and_later_life 

Celebrities are revered for doing jobs no harder than any other, simply with more visibility, and treated as if they are thereby relevant. You're an athlete who dropped out of school? What do you think of this scientific crisis? You're an actor with a few college credits or some generic liberal arts degree? What do you think of this major legal matter? http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/26/rosie-odonnell-tells-paul-ryan-hes-going-straight-to-hell.html 


The Enforcers are pretty much immune from the laws they enforce.  Police (and I mean when not responding to an emergency) can speed, violate traffic signs, toss their cigarette waste out the window, text while driving, and if anyone questions, they pull out a badge and walk away. Even, as noted, if they've murdered you in a fashion that would send a commoner to jail for life. Or worse. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361 

What America needs is more violence.

A few Celebrities getting beaten senseless would remind them that not everyone adores and worships them. Take away the pretty looks and many of them are unemployable.

But how does that violence improve things? Simple: It makes them aware that their opinions matter no more than others, and at the end of the day, anyone's outrageous statement can result in an ass kicking, and if that's a problem, possibly fewer outrageous statements are in order. https://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape  Because common people risk abuse and jail for protesting and resisting. In the past, in fact, even some celebrities did so, such as when they marched with Dr King. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/celebrities-who-joined-the-march-on-washington/2013/08/19/ed761f1a-005a-11e3-9711-3708310f6f4d_gallery.html?utm_term=.f905d43486ec 

A handful of effective assassinations a year would make the Ruling Class aware that the ultimate democratizer is death, and that the constituents they claim to represent expect results, or preferably, inaction, to endless blather followed by pointless regulation and jackbootery. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/democratic-lawmaker-dont-worry-constitution-health-care-overhaul.html 

But how, I'm asked, will we keep good politicians in place like that?

That's the point. If they feel a need, they should run, serve, and get out.  It was never intended to be a lifetime gravy train for the animals that are more equal than others.  Clint Eastwood served a single term as mayor, then went home. http://mentalfloss.com/article/78257/30-years-ago-clint-eastwood-was-elected-mayor-carmel-california We need more of that.  

This also applies to bureaucrats. If someone in extreme agony from joint or neural issues blows away an FDA paper pusher, perhaps the rest will be reminded that their job is to approve effective medications, not create more pages of rules. Or perhaps they'll just quit, and we can let people decide for themselves if the pain is worth the risk of other side effects, rather than having some chair-warmer decide for them.

The Enforcers would be much better aware of their obligations if a few more of them died in the immoral process of kicking in a door that doesn't have a life or death situation behind it. They should be asking themselves, "Is someone else's life in danger? Because if not, I shouldn't be using a weapon."  Does that entail risk? Certainly. But when was the last time you heard a military commander, or a fire chief, announce, "The important thing is that my people went home safe"? Sure, the building burned down and 200 people died, but not a single firefighter was hurt, thank God.

We demand more bravery and responsiveness from firefighters than cops.

If someone calls an Enforcer, it's because there might actually be a risk to life, and he's entirely a volunteer who has accepted that call. If his life is more valuable to him than that of those he (allegedly) serves, that's fine.  But he needs to find another profession.

And yes, a few of them getting blown away with the same impunity with which they blow away completely unarmed non-threats might remind them of that fact, and send the weak ones to easier paths. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-justine-damond-australian-woman-killed-my-minneapolis-police-calls-n831686 

They should absolutely be held to at least the same standards as Commoners, and given the exact same punishment for wrongdoing. No special funds for defense, no assumption that any shot is a good shot, no country club prisons with other cops and politicians, safe from the violence visited on ordinary criminals. Because if they violate the public trust, they ARE ordinary criminals.

Now, I've had people who claim to be pro cop (meaning, they don't think cops can ever be fallible) ask if I understand that officer would be raped to death by inmates the first day in Gen Pop.

Gosh, I hope not.

With luck, they can pass him around for six weeks, and then finish him off with a toilet plunger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima 

And that might be a good lesson for the rest of them.

From time to time, someone who used to be a Marine will loudly announce that they used to be a Marine, and then proceed to lecture you on why that credential is somehow impressive.

In this case, it was a thread under this video:


He then proceeded to tell us how being a Mareen Muhrean Mar...grunt, made him an expert on this.

I pointed out that having been a Marine, of itself, gave no credibility.

He replied with:



Gene Messer

December 23 at 12:28am



Michael being a Marine has everything to do with anything warfare. We are the tip of the spear of the greatest war machine that has ever existed....So go back to your keyboard there warrior.....and don't say sorry, it makes you look like a little bitch. Side note, we have the technology to make our guys superpowers bulletproof cyborgs yet we still fight with weapons that existed in Vietnam 50 years. You think there would be funding for ground troops to guard against every high tech gadget when they are first released. Think of the introduction of machine guns in world war 1 trench warfare. They killed battalions of men carving them into the wall of round....asshole.


Well, wasn't that special.

It's fake. But even if it was real, let's explain how this goes down:

THEM: "Facial recognition."

US: "All troops will now wear masks or paint their faces in geometric camo."

US: "Develop a counter drone and ECM."

US: "Hack that sucker and bring them down."

US: "Now send them back to source. Aim every one of those motherfuckers at the president of that country. I want him e-fucked to death by an orgy of a million drones."

In the meantime, if only there were some gadget our troops could wear on their heads that would slow or stop a 3 gram charge. Something made of kevlar or carbon fiber and fitted to the shape of the head...possibly with something over the eyes, so the standoff distance was too great for such a charge.

And if only there were something we could deploy that would trap those little rascals. Something made of some kind of loosely woven cloth, that we might call a "mesh."

Now onto the rest of Former Marine Boy's post: 

The machine gun is a lot older than 100 years or WWI.  And the fact that a single French general was a retard does not change the fact that both sides had the weapon, and matched others, and therefore were at a standstill for years.

As far as "The same weapons as 50 years ago," I haven't seen any F4s, M60 MBTs, or even any M60 machine guns lately.  Though it's true:  We still use aircraft, tanks and machine guns, just like we did in WWI.

The important thing here is that being a "Former Marine" is irrelevant to anything that wasn't in that Marine's MOS or duty experience.  He may know certain other things AS AN INDIVIDUAL, but being a "former Marine" has nothing to do with it.  It's a ludicrous authority to appeal to. Certainly, there are former Marines who are geniuses. Others are borderline retards. Some have served with great distinction. Others were cowards or deranged assassins.

Since Gene doesn't state he was either an RPV operator, an intel or threat analysis expert, or a War College graduate with relevant research experience, his actual experience (and since he doesn't say "Rifleman," I'm going to guess clerk or supply) means dick.

And as a currently best selling SF author, I can assure you of that.