"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 areΓÇö
(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 ΓÇô not give up ΓÇô their ΓÇ£assault weaponsΓÇ¥ ** 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 ΓÇ£assault weaponsΓÇ¥ 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 ΓÇô even if you ΓÇ£buy them backΓÇ¥ ΓÇô youΓÇÖre 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. YouΓÇÖre 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 leadersΓÇÖ 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: YouΓÇÖve done absolutely nothing to help any of the situations youΓÇÖre concerned about, and turned tens of millions of ordinary citizens into felons.

The good news: ItΓÇÖs better than a civil war.

Some of you will say, ΓÇ£No, only weapons of war like the AR-15.ΓÇ¥ 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 ΓÇ£assault weaponsΓÇ¥, 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, ΓÇ£View the complete findings of the survey.ΓÇ¥


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.