Mike's Home Page

You're Offended? Go Fuck Yourself.
Mar 27, 201812:39AM

Category: Politics

TRIGGER WARNING: the below post contains frank discussion of liberalism and statism that survivors of leftist regimes may find troubling.


Some years back, there was a huge push to amend the Constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag.  It's an emotional issue for many.

My objection to such an amendment is the terrifying concept of using the Constitution to control people, not government.  The first such experiment was Prohibition, and we're still paying for that monumental fuckup, initiated, btw, by the progressives of the time to save "women and children." They never learn, because they are incapable of learning.

Several well-intentioned idiots whined that "before doing so, one should first get permission from a veteran who has fought for the flag and an immigrant who has sought refuge under it."  My response was, "Hi, I'm an immigrant and a veteran. If you want to be the kind of sad, pathetic pussy who burns a flag to annoy people, go right ahead. You have my consent and contempt." Apparently, that wasn't what these people wanted to hear.  They argued with me or ignored me.  None of them, though, doxxed me, attacked my email or Facebook, threatened to hack me, ruin my business, or otherwise. They were inferior, but civil.

My further response was that if they did pass such an amendment, or even a law, or even continued to push the matter, I'd be honor bound to find a unit's battle flag for sale, buy it, set it on fire, and piss out the flames, just to anger them and make them recognize that freedom of expression MUST NOT be stifled.

Conservatives seem to mostly have accepted this fact.

Liberals are incapable of accepting any fact.

First, we need to define the term "liberal." The modern American "liberal" is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.

The modern American "liberal" is a statist cocksucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent.  They claim to be "tolerant," but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don't have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party.  They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.

Strong words?  These are the people who will riot and shut down a campus to avoid even the presence of a gay man they disagree with.  It wouldn't be a problem if they simply refused to attend, and thereby maintained their ignorance (a valued liberal trait).  No, the very existence of a speaker who they've never actually heard, but have been told by their collective will say things they disagree with, is unacceptable.

This behavior is not "liberal."  It's just like when the USSR claimed to be a "Democratic republic."

Oh, right--liberals were fairly fucking masturbating over how "classy" the sister of Korean Dictator Lil Kim looked next to Vice President Mike Pence. This is a psycho bitch who sends gays, missionaries, dissenters and even liberals to be tortured to death. She's a fucking rock star to liberals.

Beyond that, they'll define anyone who dissents from their agenda as a Nazi, and of course, it's perfectly okay to try to kill "nazis" with blunt objects, firearms and other weapons, for the crime of being a "nazi," and "due process is racist."  There's simply no way to reason with such an entity.

I know some of you are going to say, "But liberals are faggots, so who cares what they think?"

Well, you're correct, liberals are faggots. And of course, we mean it in a non-sexual context, but there are virtually no liberals who are aware of the different definitions of faggot.

However, in another context, a whole bundle of liberals is also a faggot, and very hard to break. En masse, they make noise, harass employers and businesses, and do their best to ruin the lives of anyone who isn't a liberal faggot.

But, you must never give in to the faggotry.  There's no appeasement, no "compromise." If you appease them once, they'll just come back, emboldened, bleating for more.  There's no "Compromise" because they don't offer anything. They just want you to give them something, like some bum who pretends to be homeless and waiflike, but if you watch and see, he'll drive off in a reasonably average car at the end of the begging shift. (Seriously, most of them do. I have photos.)

The only response you should give to a liberal about anything is, "Fuck off, pussy."  Now, I'm in the blessed position of being able to do that without retaliation. People who have a boss to answer to often get fired just because the boss hopes the shouting will go away if he appeases the mob.  But, that just means the mob now dictates his hiring and firing choices. They'll keep coming back for more.  It's an orgy of self-righteous faggotry.

That's part of why liberals hate the self-employed. It's much harder for them to have any effect on me that I'd notice. Oh, sure, they can threaten to boycott my books, but that's based on three false threats--A) that liberals can read for content 2: that they'd comprehend my stuff if they read it, and c] that they have ever paid to read anything of mine in the first place. Threatening to continue not to pay me isn't a viable threat, and the more offensive I am to liberals, the better my sales are among normal people.

This, by the way, is the point where the liberals are emailing my publisher in outrage, demanding that they muzzle my "offensive" statements.  Fortunately, unlike many other authors, I'm published by man.  Well, actually Toni is female, and a minority single mother of a disabled child.  However, she espouses every virtue of manliness we wish our leaders and fellows had, and she'll simply tell them that my opinions are mine, don't reflect at all on a publisher that publishes stories for content, not politics, and publishes far left writers like Eric Flint and Elizabeth Moon as well.

Speaking of Eric Flint, he's one of the rare, real liberals, or in fact, actually a Communist.  However, he's astute enough to realize capitalism generates wealth, and pushes for that wealth to be shared.  He and I can have a reasonable discussion, and I have more in common with him than I do with any proclaimed modern day "liberal." I also highly recommend his books. See how that works? Rational adults can disagree, be friends, and support benefit to each other. Modern so-called "liberals" froth at the mouth at this concept. There can be no real compromise with liberals.  They're like some primitive pagan cult.  Either you accept every word as fact, or you must scourge yourself, beg forgiveness, and abase yourself so they deign to withdraw the charge of lesser outlawry and once again allow you entrance to the clique.

Which is why I'm here.  I will keep escalating my contempt of those tantrum-throwing little shits until they eventually grow out of it, go away, or die from lack of attention.  I have to wonder where an entire generation of parents were.  One of my kids took several years to break of the habit, and the three year old is learning now that tantrum = nothing. It will never, ever get you what you want.  Somehow, we have an entire generation of pussies who have never learned this.

If your circumstances don't permit (For example, a friend who is a newspaper editor), you may simply have to keep quiet about the matter. That's fine, and I hold nothing against you for discretion. But, you must never give a liberal what they want through manipulation, threat or tantrum. Once you do, they will only come back for more. Kipling warned us of Danegeld, and it's Danegeld through whining, not force, but the outcome is the same.

Right now, the liberals are pointing at this essay on screen, and virtue-signaling to each other in howls and catchphrases that I'm a racist, a Nazi, unclean, need to check my privilege, etc.  Now, these are ad hominem from pussies, so there' s no reason to address them.  But, it gives me a warm feeling to remind them how wrong they are at everything.  So, let's run down the list:

Racist:  Ah, the default shriek of the pussified-American.  Actually, all of my kids have some Native American blood, and my wife is more "of color" than the last president, regardless of her skin tone--Choctaw, Cherokee, black, Irish and German, and it wasn't long ago that "Irish" wasn't "white." She's reservation born, white-trash ranch raised, possessed of two STEM degrees, and earns a healthy salary working as a female in STEM, and can actually tell you all about the actual racism, sexism and everything else in society.  I didn't marry her either because she's a minority, or because she looks "white."  I married her because she's fucking awesome and I wanted dibs before someone else realized it.

Now, my ancestry is all "white," but to think that means no history of repression means you have to think that English and Scots, English and Irish, English and Welsh always get along, and that Scandis, Brits and Germans are all identical and never had issues. My Viking ancestors raped and pillaged the coast of Scotland where I'm from, then those English bastards came up and destroyed our language, culture, wealth, property and history.

Well, that was 150 years ago, and I got over it. And yes, there's still trouble now. My English mother and Scottish father got quite a bit of flak about marrying. Because while skin color matters in America, in parts of Europe (including the UK, but God help you if you call a Brit a European in a pub), it's not color, it's background or even surname. That whole Hatfield-McCoy thing you're fascinated with? That's pretty much the entire HISTORY of the British Isles, son.

And as I always like to say, I don't hate anyone based on their demographics. I find it much more satisfying to talk to them for two minutes and hate them as an individual.

Nazi: You know, that would greatly disappoint my maternal grandparents, who hosted Jewish children in the 1930s and 1940s, and helped crack Enigma, and flew in the Battle of Britain and Italian Campaign.  I would never do anything to disappoint Ernest Frederick Stephens and Dorothy Maidlow. It would also disappoint George Williamson and his brother Jock Williamson, who fought with the Gordon Highlanders.  I suspect Phyllis Jane Henderson wouldn't approve either.

Nor, being factual here, do I support any kind of socialism, national or otherwise. If I did, I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. POINT: Liberal faggots don't even know what a "Nazi" is, other than "something that makes me cry."

Check my privilege: Oh, I do, and it's fucking awesome.  Nature blessed me with an outrageously high IQ, perfect vision and hearing, aristocratically handsome looks, good health and fitness, and a larger than average penis. I enjoy the company of amazing women of intellect, presence and appearance. I have good friends.  I have an upper class income and lifestyle now, though that was not true for most of my life.

However, that came from two sources: Genetics, and hard work.  The former I have no control over, and hating me for it IS racist.  Well, eugenicist. Some sort of -ist. I'm not sure the virtue-signalers even know how to categorize that one, because they're all concerned with how pathetic a piece of shit someone can be, rather than how awesome they can be. As to the hard work, I'm in a field where no one can see my skin color, and such a claim is based on the assumption that everyone is racist. What's at work here is confirmation bias. Almost all liberals are racist, so they assume by default that everyone is.  A recent example of this fact is all the bleating from liberals that "if we arm teachers, they'll snap and shoot black kids." What they mean by this is, "I'm an unstable racist and if I had a gun I'd shoot black people, so I assume everyone would."

So, no, I'm not racist or a Nazi. That would make me a liberal.

I think that's enough words wasted on liberals. so let's move on to a second example.


There are a billion Muslims in the world, and it's true that the overwhelming majority are peaceful. Those poor people are stuck in the middle between the violent nutjobs and those fighting the violent nutjobs. Nor do they have an obligation to apologize for the nutjobs, anymore than gun owners should apologize for mass shooters, responsible drinkers for drunk drivers, or Canadians for Justin Bieber.

Liberals, though, do need to apologize for the acts of other liberals, because there is no such thing as an innocent liberal. They're pretty much all on board with Kim, Stalin and Hitler, and most come out and extol those behaviors. But I digress.

However, the violent nutjob arm of Islam are worse than liberals, because they're actually competent, and do kill innocent people over...disagreements of belief.  In other words, liberals would actually be terrorists if they weren't worthless pieces of shit. And we'll need to stomp them out of existence before they become a relevant threat.  But I digress again.

Now, there are two responses to violent Muslim nutjobs.  The first response is of course to be violent right back, but more effectively. This is a sound strategy, and it works.  It is also expensive, time consuming, and not 100% effective.

The other prong is persuasive, and it takes two approaches.

First, is for honest Muslims to keep preaching peace.  A noted imam in Bangladesh spoke just last week, at a very beautiful mosque, http://vitti.com.bd/project/masjid-ut-taqwa/#ad-image-847 about the proper meaning of Jihad.  He notes that the response to angry speech is persuasive, measured speech.  The response to ignorant speech is louder, informed speech.  Armed jihad can only be undertaken on a national scale, and only to ease the suffering of the oppressed. Individual armed jihad has no place in Islamic theology. Dissension, jihad of opinion, jihad of speech, jihad of personal improvement.... those are permitted, not armed jihad. This is a fine man of character, and I pre-emptively apologize to him and my Muslim friends that I must take the other arm of persuasion, and fight the violence with contempt. 

Whenever some nutjob commits an act of violence on behalf of Allah or The Prophet Muhammad (May piss be upon him), I double down with condescension, that Muhammad raped children, likely pigs, possibly men, and considered the drinking of medical piss to be healthy https://islamqa.info/en/83423.  Then I offer to meet them with their weapon of choice and one of my AR-15s, and we can see just how potent this "Allah" is. Although, if mere words from mere mortals can distress him so much, he's probably a faggot himself.

At this point, decent Muslims are rolling their eyes, and a couple of friends are pleading, "Mike, Mike, please don't be so disrespectful. You know we will never harm you and wish you only the best."

This is true. They do. But my message is not for them. It is for the violent nutjobs, to assure them their violence cannot silence speech, even ugly speech.

Unlike liberals, Muslims actually believe in something, so can be reasoned with. Most are very reasonable, some few will have to be reasoned with contemptuously or with violence.

The liberals, however, insist I'm a "Racist" for these statements.  They've never been able to explain which "race" a billion Muslims are, or which "race" the Catholics would be in contrast.  They double down that I have "racialized" Muslims, and that I'm somehow worse than the terrorists who blow kids up.

So, my current jihad is to continue to remind terrorist scum that they can't silence decent people--Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Pagan, areligious, or otherwise, with bombs. And to remind liberals that they're pathetic shit who can't silence the voices of decent people, aren't even effective terrorists, but that if they attempt to become so, we will have to kill them.

I really shouldn't have to smartsplain to people that the opinions 16 year olds hold about anything don't really matter.  That should be axiomatic. My three year old is very unhappy her shipping box house got cut up for packing material.  She has strong opinions about this.  Those opinions aren't relevant.  She'll get over it.

In fact, most opinions don't matter, and I can offer an historical example.

Right after WWII, the US Army conducted a scientific study of combat engagements--ours, allies, enemy, every firefight and battle they could get data on, all the casualty reports, everything.

The conclusion was that 90% of combat engagements were under 100 meters, and 98% were under 300 meters.  The recommendation came down for a lighter, more effective bullet that would accomplish this, saving resources and enabling more ammo load.

The officers of the Infantry Board refused to accept this fact. They'd been in combat.  And who are you going to trust? Some guy in a lab, or the man who had been in combat?

And the answer is: The guy in the lab, who has time to be objective, not the guy scrambling around in the weeds, who isn't actually sure if he hit anything and what happened after.

Eventually, science prevailed, and at this point, pretty much every military in the world has gone (and some already had) from a 7-8mm bullet to a 5-6mm bullet. Us, Europe, ANZAC, Russia, China, everyone.

The US adopted the M-16 variant of the AR-15 starting in 1963 (yes, the AR-15 is probably older than you), and is still using an evolved variant.  Meanwhile, there are troops who've never used anything else insisting "wood is stronger than plastic" (Wrong) and that "we need a 'full power cartridge' capable of killing a man at 2000 yards." By which they mean a .30 caliber cartridge, without any scale to explain why that is magically "full power."  Nor with any support to the claim that it was even possible to see an enemy at 2000 yards, much less get him to hold still long enough to be hit, using a rifle that was sight limited to a 460 yard range anyway.

Moving to gun control on that note, we see false statements such as "military style weapons" (Pretty much every weapon in existence is based on a military development) and "high capacity clips," by which they mean "It's a standard capacity magazine but I don't like it even though I know nothing about it." And even bizarre, completely fabricated terms like "The shoulder thing that goes up" and "automatic bump stock."

And back to the earlier point. Gun control's only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)

So then the bleat is, "Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an "Agenda"(Because obviously, there's zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?

Well, that's easy.  It doesn't matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren't even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building.  That's like saying. "I wasn't in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!"

No, not really. Science matters.  Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.

Those two narcissistic twits from Florida, one of whom admitted to being part of a group who bullied the shooter mercilessly, are utterly irrelevant on the subject of firearms.

And only a complete idiot even bothers to acknowledge they exist, much less waste any time listening to them.

If this offends you, you're obviously a complete idiot.  

I want you, for just a moment, to forget guns exist.  I want you to look at a product as just a product. 

Let's say the head of the Food and Drug Administration* said, "Alcohol affects the brain exactly the same way as cocaine.  Therefore, we are declaring alcohol to be a narcotic.  Narcotics are illegal, therefore, all alcohol and all equipment to produce alcohol are contraband and must be destroyed immediately.  No compensation will be paid because narcotics are illegal."

Let's note: 

1) The definition is blatantly false.

2) The definition contradicts long standing legal definitions.

3) No legislative process exists. This is a fiat declaration by a bureaucrat.

4) Failure to compensate for a legal product taken for public use ("Safety") violates the 5th Amendment requiring fair compensation.

5) Most importantly, this opens the floodgates for ANY bureaucrat to declare ANYTHING illegal.

Remember those handful of conservatives who've said, "Declare Islam not a religion but a political movement and terror front"?

If a bureaucrat has the authority to state that AND ENFORCE IT, there is no Republic. Literally any cabinet head, or possibly lower, can declare outlawry, steal property, seize anything, without even the pretense that an existing law was broken. Law will be whatever they say it is, any day of the week. Any religion can be illegal or mandatory. Anything can be contraband or mandatory. The rule of law simply fails to exist. If this doesn't terrify you, I guess you can go now. Good luck. There's nothing I can do when they quite literally do come to put you in those camps you fear, which just became a solid reality.


Now, moving back to the relevance of this thought experiment. You're probably very gleeful over the AG's ban on "bump stocks."  

You were probably unaware of bumpfire/slidefire stocks until they were used in the Vegas shooting. In fact, though, they've been in existence since 2006, approved by BATFE as "not a firearm." This was reviewed in 2010 under the 0bama administration, and confirmed that they were "not a firearm." You probably like and supported 0bama, and he found no reason to try to restrict bumpfire stocks.

You've probably heard a lot of hysteria about them, and have no idea how one actually works, or, more accurately, how a person operates it, since it doesn't do anything by itself.

The definition Sessions is using is completely false and inaccurate. It's literally as inaccurate as saying "Alcohol is a narcotic." The definition given is that it "Harnesses the recoil energy of the weapon to function." Which is provably false. Put a firearm equipped with a bumpfire stock on a bench, pull the trigger, it will fire a single shot only. One. Then it will do nothing.

The second claim is that, just like a machine gun, it allows firing multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.  This is also provably false.  Again: Place it on a bench, pull the trigger, it fires one shot.  The trigger must be released before it can shoot again.

This cannot possibly be defined as a "machine gun" that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger.  Yet, that is what Sessions has done, via a false statement--a lie.

The manufacture of machine guns has been illegal since 1986. Real ones command a high price. The finding of the Firearm Technology Branch was not only that these devices were not machine guns, but that in fact, they are not even firearms.

Sessions has falsely declared it to be a machine gun, and therefore contraband ex post facto, with absolutely no compensation for the "contraband," in complete contradiction to the experts' findings.

ATFE estimates the device and related industry are worth $200 million, which is tiny in business terms. However, every owner, seller, maker has money invested that is being stolen from them. No due process.  No legislative process.

Look above again. This decision is precedent for ANY Cabinet head to declare anything...or anyone, illegal, and subject to theft or imprisonment with no process.

If you want to work on legislation that bans these devices, with an accurate description, and a justification, I will certainly fight it all the way to SCOTUS under the 2nd Amendment. That is why we have a legislature and courts.  But if you support bureaucratic fiat, you are signing your own eventual death warrant, and there's nothing I can do to help you. I wish I were being dramatic, but I am not.

* And consider this. It's now becoming illegal to treat yourself for diarrhea: 

Archiving a Classic
Mar 22, 201805:51PM

Category: General

Not mine, but I don't want to see it go away.


Today, Le Monde released this year's list of French Favorites Awards. The annual list highlights the preferences and tastes of the world's most stylist culture.

This years choices were:

General Awards
Favorite Dance: Goose Step
Favorite Oppressor: Germany
Favorite Color: Yellow
Favorite Garment: Turncoat
Favorite Footwear: Flip-Flops
Favorite Headwear: Jackboots
Favorite Animal: Weasel
Favorite Beverage: Whine
Favorite Breakfast Food: Waffles
Favorite Pet: Pussy Cat
Favorite Illegal Oil Trading Partner: Iraq
Favorite Liberator: United States
Favorite Rebuilder of Nation After Being Decimated in Two World Wars: United States
Favorite Nation to Protect Entire Continent Against Josef Stalin and Nikita Kruschev: United States
Favorite Nation to Call On When We Screw the Pooch in Southeast Asia: United States
Favorite 225-Year-Old Ally to Completely Dick Over for Short Term Political Gain at the Expense of World Peace: United States
Favorite Flavor: Chunky Surrender Monkey
The Bitter Taste of Humiliating Defeat
Favorite Day to Surrender: June 22, 1940
Favorite Time of Day to Surrender: Morning
Favorite Place to Surrender: Rethondes
Favorite Surrender Outfit: Pierre Cardin (turtleneck, slacks, sport coat)
Favorite Car to Drive to Surrender Location: Citroen C3
Favorite Pen to Sign Surrender Treaty: Montblanc Noblesse Oblige (blue ink)
Favorite Meal After Signing Surrender Treaty: Humble Pie
Favorite Activity After Surrendering: Call United States for Help
Special Music Awards
Favorite Cheap Trick Song: Surrender
Favorite Cede Song: Surrender
Favorite Chemical Brothers Song: Surrender
Favorite Dave Lubben Song: Surrender
Favorite Debby Boone Song: Surrender
Favorite Diana Ross Song: Surrender
Favorite Elvis Presley Song: Surrender
Favorite Greg Buchanan Song: Surrender
Favorite Heikki Silvennoinen Song: Sweet Surrender
Favorite James Johnson Song: Surrender
Favorite Joe Strock Song: Surrender
Favorite John Lomacang Song: Surrender
Favorite Jonathan Butler Song: Surrender
Favorite Joshua Song: Surrender
Favorite Joshua's Trumpet Song: Surrender
Favorite Kut Klose Song: Surrender
Favorite Lisa & Anthony Testa Song: Surrender
Favorite MK featuring Alana Song: Surrender
Favorite Michel Colombier Song: Surrender
Favorite Roma Song: Surrender On Demand
Favorite Rosie Gaines Song: I Surrender
Favorite Sarah Brightman Song: Surrender
Favorite Sarah McLachlan Song: Sweet Surrender
Favorite Seek Song: Surrender
Favorite Single Gun Theory Song: Surrender
Favorite Surrender To The Air Song: Surrender to The Air
Favorite Sydney Mohede Song: Surrender
Favorite Tracy Lyons Song: Surrender
Favorite Twice Song: Time to surrender
Favorite Vineyard UK Song: Surrender
Favorite Working Week Song: Surrender

We Only Want To Ban One Gun
Mar 11, 201812:55AM

Category: Politics

I heard that from a probably well-intentioned liberal woman today.

I'm sure she believes it.

The problem is, it's utterly untrue.

She probably means the AR-15, "popularly" used in a couple of high profile shootings, and falsely claimed for several others where the gun was "close enough" to an AR-15.

The AR-15 went on civilian sale in 1963. That's 55 years ago.  When did it suddenly become a problem?

The AR-15 is based on the AR-10. That came out in 1955.

There are literally hundreds of rifles (yes, that get used for hunting) derived from those designs.

The AK-47 predates both, to 1947.

The first semiauto rifle dates from 1885.

They all function in variations of the same mechanical process.

So you really can't ban "one."


Part 2:
In 1934, the National Firearm Act required certain weapons--machine guns, short barreled weapons, "silencers"(which aren't actually a weapon), and "destructive devices" to be registered, taxed insanely and accompanied by papers everywhere.

In 1986, the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" banned new machine guns.  Yes, you read that right.  That's like having a "Car Drivers Protection Act" that bans sports cars.

So, there are already banned guns.

Moving back, I'm particularly enamored of the Soviet SVT-38 rifle, from 80 years ago. Were your parents even alive then?

Now, if I lived in Canada, I could just buy one.  Yes, in Canada. With all its "reasonable gun control."  I could buy one.

In the US, I can only buy those that came into the country before a certain date. New importation is banned.

I can list hundreds of guns I can't get in the US that civilians in other countries can get.

So, even if you're being honest, you can't ban "one."  And the claim fails because hundreds of guns have already been banned.

And given that precedent, there is no reason for me to believe that if I just agree to letting you ban one more that somehow all our problems will be solved. In fact, every time something is banned, your side comes back and insists we have to ban yet something else to fix a "loophole."

We've "only banned one gun" a thousand times, and you and I seem to agree that it hasn't worked.

Now, let's do a comparison:

Let's say we banned ownership of Corvettes to "cut down on drunk driving deaths," because "no one needs a car that does three times the speed limit."

And then there was a drunk driving death with a Ferrari, so we ban those, too.

And then the Dodge Viper.

And then the Lamborghinis.

Meanwhile, up in Chicago, hundreds of people die in drunk driving accidents every day, but those are black people, and they get killed in Toyota Camrys, Chevy Impalas and old Ford Tauruses, which are "normal" cars.

Then tomorrow there's a high profile crash with a Lotus.

And you say, "We need to ban Lotuses to save lives.  It's only one car."

Would you really be surprised when I first stare at you, then tell you to grow up and learn something about the subject before you start opining?

It's not the cars.

It's not the guns.


Next I heard, "All we want is age limits and background checks. It's 'common sense.'"

Per Federal law, you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. That is an age limit. It's the same age limit as for marriage, legal contracting, military service, employment and several other things.

Outrageously, while 18 year olds can carry pistols in the military and in police service, they have to be 21 to buy their own. But, as outrageous and immoral as that is, it's an age limit.

When one does buy a gun from a dealer, even at a gun show, one must fill out a BATFE Form 4473. Then, a phone call is made to the FBI to verify if this person, at this address, with this Social Security Number, is eligible.

That's a background check.

Now, if you're admitting you don't think the age limits are doing anything, I agree with you.

And if you don't think the background checks are working, I agree with you.

But my solution isn't, "Keep trying the same thing but harder, until it works." That's like drinking until you're sober, or smashing your hand with a hammer until it stops hurting. When I see something isn't working, I STOP DOING IT.

And this is why we can't have a discussion on the subject.  You're so ignorant of the matter you're not even wrong.

Did you see any of the debate around the recent "cut up your AR-15" fad?

To summarize:  There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AR-15. There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AK-47.  In fact, every firearm out there has a specific, ATF-approved way of destroying it.  The people who just chopped them in the middle:

FIRST, did not actually render the weapon inoperable. And if you don't know enough about guns to do that, then I'm probably glad you got rid of yours, though possibly selling it to someone more competent would be a better choice.

SECOND, they committed a felony by chopping the barrels short, per the National Firearms Act of 1934.  "Intent" does not matter.  Creating the felonious weapon is a crime.  If you then make a few more cuts, or hand it to the police, you have not destroyed the weapon in the approved manner, and that is a SECOND felony.

Do you grasp that? The gun control laws we already have make it illegal to even destroy your own gun in the wrong way.

Does it sound like more laws will make things any better?
Please. Do some research. It will require going to "gun nut" sites and the ATF's website, to find sources that actually understand the subject. And even on the "gun nut" sites, there will be errors, because the law is THAT complicated, incoherent, contradictory, outdated, obscure and specific all at the same time that compliance is a minefield even for people who want to comply and learn about it.

The danger you face is that by learning about the subject, you may come to agree that most of these laws serve zero purpose and only make matters worse.

Either way, once you have an idea what laws are out there, we can have that "Discussion" you want, rather than you demanding we do things that are already the law, or have already failed, or both.

It's actually the best thing they can do for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (Well, other than support the Constitution, but we all know liberals are incapable of that.)

By doing so they demonstrate:

That they don't know enough about firearms to render one inoperable.  They keep chopping the middle of the barrel, leaving the receiver, bolt assembly and fire control mechanism intact, so it still shoots bullets. And no, I'm not "Gunsplaining" (per some gamma cuck who apparently got into the Marines).  I'm EDUCATING you. Because if you have no fucking clue how a firearm works, then your opinion on the matter is on par with a "Car safety" activist who doesn't know the difference between an engine and a transaxle.

AND in the process, creating an illegal sawed off rifle.  Which shows that:

They aren't even aware of the National Firearm Act of 1934--one of the oldest federal firearm laws, and most important (per their arguments). And if you have no fucking clue what laws are already on the books, then you should learn that before you start publicly masturbating for more.

That they believe "intent" matters for the NFA. Now, I'd actually like to see them accomplish this--it would reduce the power of that complete Fascist regulation. But if they aren't aware they're actually making points for our side, they should continue doing so. Thanks, fucktards.

That the NFA is obviously irrelevant, because even you, gun hater, thought it was perfectly okay to violate it and are defensive about doing so. "I didn't MEAN to be a criminal!" Yeah, you know how many innocent people have been trapped with that crap? Who never harmed anyone?

That telling the police they're going to break the law makes it okay--sort of like if they started a meth lab, but informed the police first. It just proves that the NFA is a complete pile of shit. Did I already say that? Well, it should be said again.

And that they believe they're too unstable to be trusted with a gun. "This gun will never harm anyone!" Neither will any of mine.  In my case, it's because I'm stable. If you're afraid yours will hurt someone, it means you believe the operator--yourself--is the problem.  So at least you got that part right. I'm actually totally cool with a ban on liberals having access to dangerous weapons, like firearms and ballots.

And if ATF doesn't follow up, then they've helped weaken the NFA. Thanks. That's actually a good thing. Every video of someone violating the NFA and not getting punished is an affirmative defense down the road. Of course, sawing off, rather than milling or turning a short barrel, is usually a criminal trick. So you've helped all their legal defenses, but then, no one ever claimed you were smart.  I know, I'm "gunsplaining" again.

If the BATFEces do follow up, the chopper is going to jail. Also a good thing.

So yes, let's encourage more Democrats to chop up their weapons, making normal people safer, and nibbling away at their previous bullshit law, which is such bullshit they instinctively recognize it's pointless, but want to pass something else.

You know what they say about people who keep repeating the same actions, expecting different results?

They're insane, and therefore shouldn't have access to firearms.

PS: Oh, yeah, and every one they cut up will be replaced within minutes by the quiet professionals of our firearm industry.

"It says' well-regulated.' You gun nuts keep forgetting that."
Title 10, USC, Ch 13, sec 311:
§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a national organization dedicated to training and educating U. S. citizens in responsible uses of firearms and airguns through gun safety training, marksmanship training and competitions. The CMP is a federally chartered 501(c)(3) corporation
The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military. Formation was precipitated by adoption of the M1903 Springfield rifle as the national service arm. Civilians experienced with popular contemporary lever-action rifles were unable to sustain an equivalent rate of fire from the unfamiliar bolt action M1903 rifle.

But as someone reminds me, that is once again the second part of the problem. Here's the first part:

"A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to keep and read books? The people, or the well educated electorate?
"A nutritious breakfast being necessary to the development of a healthy child, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to keep and eat food? The people or the nutritious breakfast?
No, you anti-gun nuts have simply never understood that. Defined, subject to order, provided with a means of training. That constitutes "Well-regulated."
That YOU are 100% derelict in your duty to the nation is no surprise--you're liberals, after all.

It's almost always civilians who say this based on their non-experience in the military.

First of all, it would terrify me to believe that there was nothing I could do to stop an invader or rogue government. But apparently, they fear me more than it, while believing I'm impotent to do anything about it.

I would suggest anyone with this combination of neuroses seek mental health help.

But moving on.

To believe that lightly armed forces can't defeat a government one has to believe that the Vietnamese lost and the Iraqis didn't tie up the US Army for a decade.

Let's start with the concept of an invader.

Said invader is likely at the long end of a supply chain. (Canada is not a likely invader, nor Mexico.)

Now, even if we accept the claim that very light infantry can't do anything effective...it can be a screening force for the military members who can. Every veteran or trained hunter with a rifle acting as support, perimeter security, reconnaissance and facility guard is one more active duty troop freed up to engage.

And they are far more effective if they have commonality of ammo, magazines and parts with the regular forces. AR-15s don't have quite the same internals as M-16s, but the pins, springs and accessories are interchangeable, as are ammunition and magazines. Suddenly, the US Army has a potential 30 MILLION more basic Riflemen.

But the claim they can't do anything effective (beyond what we've shown) is false.

Rifle fire is just fine for harassment of troops in garrison, ongoing casualty infliction among support elements, and more importantly, their administration.

An invader, once amongst the populace, has limited options. If his goal is simply to destroy the nation, then there's no reason to waste time within anything below strategic weapons. But what point does that serve?  And if that happens, with no subsequent invasion, then the utter chaos, collapse and starvation that will follow dictates that being heavily armed is among the top survival priorities.

If his goal is to transform the nation, he must have offices, bureaucrats, support personnel. Almost none of those will be military, nor armored, nor armed. They will have to drive or walk the streets, and they can be assassinated easily with rifles.  Rifles being better than pistols, because even a 100 meter head start greatly increases survivability. Semiautos being better than manual actions, because an area can be saturated so that even if the target dodges, he is more likely to be hit.

Keep in mind that a few dozen active PIRA/IRA shooters and bombers kept entire British regiments tied up for decades. A lone rogue cop kept four departments in the LA area tied up for a week. Two bombers in Boston crashed the economy and stopped the city for three days.

Can the invader secure a port on the coast, with air support and materiel ships and a garrison?  Possibly.  Can he move inland with patrols? Yes, while taking horrific casualties.  Can he roll convoys in and establish inland garrisons? Not without great difficulty, coming back around to that "you destroyed what you were trying to claim" problem.

What about his tanks and planes?  

What about them?  First they have to get here, then they have to have a secure facility. Modern planes are very susceptible to damage. Rifle fire can destroy engines, airframe integrity, avionics. It can kill all the necessary support personnel--up to 100 per craft.  This means the aircraft must be outside of rifle range of the perimeter, or protected by a revetment constructed by engineers. Those engineers and security are susceptible to rifle fire, while any remaining operational military elements bring mortars or drones into play.

As far as tanks...they have to have a place to laager every few hours, and the tankers have to get out.  Then they're as susceptible to attack as any other troop.  And that laager will need security and a perimeter. This gets insanely expensive very fast, as many liberals have noted with the operation in Iraq..which they insist the US lost.

No other nation has that ability to project force.

And even if they do, they rapidly lose any possibility of "winning hearts and minds" and are back to the problem of having to destroy the nation, its population and its resources and infrastructure, in order to conquer it.

The arithmetic is simple:  Even if a nation the size of China could mobilize all 5 million troops into the US, the 100 million armed American households, with potentially 2.5 rebels each, means it's possible for the US to soak up casualties 50:1. Even if major population centers were nuked first, we could manage 20:1, and we'd pick the softest targets first.

Then, when our partisans do eliminate a tank element, or ground unit, its weapons then become ours, and we're no longer "fighting tanks with rifles." Because we have diesel mechanics, electronic experts, and rifles.  Will they be as effective as a professional force? No.  But they'll be effective enough to tie up yet ANOTHER armor unit trying to stop them, which will pin that unit in place for even more harassment and attack.

It is simply ridiculous to claim an invasion is realistically possible.

Now, this doesn't mean we don't need those rifles.

Let's move to a repressive government in the US.

This is not likely to be a fast process.  However, we've seen increasing asset forfeiture, denial of due process, corruption, violation of rights.  If it continues unchecked, it's possible to conceive of a point where the average American will decide enough is enough.

And part of such process is making it harder for the population to resist. Which includes gun control.

One of Diane Feinstein's arguments for her desired ban on .50 caliber rifles was that they could be used to attack armored cars the police use.

So the question becomes, for what purpose do the police need to send an armored car to my house?

And for what purpose might an even less facilitating government do so?

And if the first argument is armored cars, then what about body armor?

Quickly, the safety of government agents becomes more important than that of the citizens it is supposed to serve.

Well, such a government is not going to send any fighter planes. First, they'd have to find a pilot willing to bomb US civilians, and if they can find that, you better get every weapon you can into the hands of every person you can.  Because that means they're willing to blow up your house and damage or destroy your neighbor's house in the process to get you. What kind of crime could you possibly have done to merit that?

As far as tanks, those require a tank hauler to deliver them to the location.  If they're sending that down the road to an American citizen's house, for any reason whatsoever, it better have an armed convoy, because I guarantee, I don't care what crime you may have committed, that is far beyond a reasonable response and I'm going to try to stop that convoy with roadblocks, caltrops, rifle fire, and whatever else. It's very likely that after you, it's going to be me anyway, so I may as well get the party started. And I won't be the only one.

Seriously, what world do you live in where you believe the government could or should use that kind of force, and you're not offering to pre-register with the resistance? Do you hate any of your fellow men that much?  Do you not see a problem?  Or do you in fact endorse that kind of despotic force? Because the way some of you toss it out there makes me wonder.

Do you see my problem?

And if it comes to that, we'd be back to the position where it's time to shoot every bureaucrat, every manager, every secretary of that kind of government.

But that's actually the second part of the problem.

Here's the first part:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power ...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Read that again, if you haven't read it before.  Congress has the power to license WARSHIPS that are not part of the US Navy.

This means privately owned warships, WITH CANNON were common enough in 1789 that it was worth writing a rule for their usage.

Quite a few artillery units through the US Civil War were privately owned.

Now, warships are pretty expensive these days...but old torpedo boats can be had for $50,000, and people do own tanks and aircraft with disabled weapons, as well as artillery pieces.

And my question is, why do they have to be disabled?

Well, that comes down to the National Firearms Act of 1934, declaring that such things had to be licensed, both the weapon, and every individual shell, at $200 each.

Then in 1968 there were a few more restrictions.

Then in 1986, the so-called "Firearm Owners' Protection Act," which does nothing of the sort, made it illegal to manufacture new machine guns for civilians, even with the tax and license.

So your argument is, "We've already violated this amendment to the point where all you have are very basic infantry weapons, and now we're claiming those aren't effective without the stuff we've already banned, so it's reasonable to ban that, too."

And I'm saying, we need to fix the entire problem, which we both recognize, and eliminate those laws so veterans (and determined civilians who for whatever reason were unable to serve), can have the weapons they need so we CAN fight tanks and planes in such an emergency.

The only people who could possibly object are the kind who want to send tanks and planes against civilians.


Right after the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban," I bought an AR-15 receiver (the bare frame of the weapon) from a friend for $65.  My then wife liked how mine handled, and wanted one of her own.  I wanted one that could have all the "evil" features, just for completion's sake. (NOTE: Per the law, it would be illegal to assemble those features even on a pre-ban receiver, if it hadn't already been a complete weapon. This had been a complete weapon.)

The previous owner before my friend had attempted to modify it. He'd done so within the law, but cosmetically it was damaged and had a small crack. A friend of mine welded it up and we re-heat treated it and refinished it.

Flash forward to 2002 when I got around to completing it. It turned out, as my wife was of small stature, she didn't need the full length nor adjustable stock. A standard old fashioned short stock worked fine for her.  Since she preferred the 16" barrel, the bayonet lug wasn't really useful.  This meant that if the muzzle brake was welded in place, a post-ban receiver would work fine.

So I sold the $65 repaired receiver for $400, since it was "pre-ban."  Then eventually the ban went away and nothing changed.

So the two relevant facts are:  I made a huge ROI from the single receiver, and the so-called ban did not stop me from building an AR-15, only an AR-15 with certain cosmetic features that did nothing to stop it from shooting bullets--the important part.


PART 2: As of May, 1986, it is illegal to make a new machine gun that is civilian transferrable. Dealers and manufacturers can have samples pursuant to government sales, but those can't be sold to non-licensed civilians.

As of that date, the price of full auto, legally transferrable weapons went through the roof.  $300 MAC-10s turned into $750 MAC-10s by 1995, and into $8000 MAC-10s now.



I own, among others, a very nice submachine gun with changeable barrels, a silencer, multiple magazines, and a custom fitted case. When I bought it, it was $13,000.  A week later, the manufacturer (Who is STILL selling guns they made in 1986) raised the price to $14,000.  A realistic price for this without National Firearm Act and Hughes Amendment bullshit is probably about $4000.

I own some other stuff.

If the Hughes Amendment was repealed and all these could be legally made again, that SMG would probably drop back down to $4000. I'd lose $10,000 in value instantly, on that gun alone.

If there is another pointless "Assault weapon" ban, I have enough liquid assets to buy several hundred AR-15 receivers.  With a call to the bank I could buy several thousand. My wife could buy several thousand of her own, using her assets. If I bought that many, the manufacturer would sell me receivers for about $25 each. I'd mount each one with an upper, for ten seconds, just to make them "finished" rifles per the letter of the law, and photograph them, timestamped and notarized by my firearm attorney (As noted previously, my firearm collection is incorporated and has an attorney on retainer) to prove it.

And in ten years, I'd sell them for $400, $500, $600 each.

In twenty years, possibly $1000 each.

In thirty years? Who knows.

I am in a position where, if you pass one of these stupid laws, I stand to profit a million bucks or more.

And if you repeal one of the previous stupid laws, I lose several thousand dollars instantly.

I know how to exploit every retarded gun control law for fun and/or profit.

And despite that, I'd vote to eliminate every single one of them tomorrow.

Because morals trump profit, and gun control of any kind is utterly immoral, classist, racist and disgusting.

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.