Bateman gets chapped labia

13 Comments

I know I’ve been away for a while. I wanted to step away from the 2014 election and let things cool off a little. To say I have little faith in the GOP and its ability to accomplish anything of actual value to this country is an understatement. Although, I will admit that the teeth-gnashing, hand-wringing, spin-filled reaction from the butthurt Democrat camp was amusing to watch, as they tried to make excuses for their significant losses – everything from the DERP-filled “VOTERS WERE DISENFRANCHISED!” to “WE MADE #GUNSENSE PROGRESS!” to “REPUBLICANS ARE POOPY HEADS AND THIS ELECTION DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING.”

I admit it. I laughed.

I always like a good chuckle, especially when the now-infamous, violence planner, oath-breaking coward LTC (ret.) Robert (mastur)Bateman pens another angst-filled screed about the evils of guns, the evils of the NRA, and the evils of Second Amendment advocates. Because RIGHTS BAD!

What has Bob’s panties all bunched up in his puckered anus this time? Apparently, someone had the unmitigated gall to exercise their Second Amendment rights in his presence!

And because Bob considers himself an authority on what the citizens of this country, whose Constitution he swore an oath to defend, need and what rights they should be allowed to exercise, he took a wet, nervous dump in his Underoos when he saw a guy open carrying his pistol.

I’m not going to fisk his sniveling treatise, because a) I have no time to address gun banner monkey turd flinging not based in any fact and 2) I don’t want to give (mastur)Bateman more attention than he deserves. So I’m merely going to give you his bottom line, which consists of whimpering that no one needs a gun in a family restaurant (as if a paunchy, half-literate, retired, attention-whoring O-5 is somehow a viable arbiter for anyone’s needs) and a plaintive whimper about America’s “gun culture” and how it (the culture – not criminals, or negligence) kills or wounds something like 100 thousand Americans (without acknowledging that deaths by firearms, and violent crimes in general have been declining steadily over the years, while gun ownership has risen).

B0JTUOVCcAAK0wg

I’m also going to ridicule Bob a bit, because Bob is an idiot. Bob sneers about the motto Second Amendment advocates (and the big, bad NRA!) have adopted as a defiant warning to the politicians and retired O-5s who bloviate about taking away their natural rights. “Molon Labe,” Bob claims, was appropriated from the movie “The 300” by gun rights advocates, who are unaware of  its history. soccent-2 Never mind the movie came out in 2006, and gun rights advocates have been using this particular phrase since at least the 1990s. Never mind that it’s the current motto of the United States Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), and has been used in that very same spirit of defiance during the Texas revolution. Not that Bob has any respect for actual members of the military or anyone fighting for actual freedom – you know, those who didn’t spend their careers warping the minds of young cadets or lounging around at NATO, “planning violence” – but it’s always useful for panty-shitting cowards to excoriate others based on their alleged “knowledge” of King Leonidas’ Sparta, from whom the quote allegedly originated, rather than comprehend the spirit of the quote itself, which has been used by modern day armies and individuals as a cry of defiance for several hundred years.

And because Bob has no comprehension of honor, but rather chooses to crawl like a cockroach and lick the hands of his masters in vain hopes of perhaps getting appointed to some bureaucratic position somewhere in DC, he would rather focus on the “apocryphal” source of the quote than its meaning and what it has come to represent.

It’s OK, Bob. We understand that your lack of testicular fortitude prompts you to consistently bait gun owners from the relative safety of your computer at home. We also understand that despite your teary-eyed claims of being victimized by threats from gun owners, the vast majority of gun owners wouldn’t waste their time on vermin such as you other than to ridicule your lack of basic understanding of natural rights and your sneering contempt for the very people whose rights you swore an oath to protect. (Unlike your gun grabber friends who gleefully celebrate the thought of someone’s child being harmed, and plan how to best cause the deaths of gun owners by SWATting – such nice company you keep, Bob!)

crazyswat

So it’s time to once again ridicule Bob for being an oath-breaking, snot-nosed coward who soils himself at the sight of a normal guy peaceably exercising his right to keep and bear arms in public. Someone hand Bob a tissue and one of these.

Vagisil

The Stupid Grows

7 Comments

If you enjoyed the lunatic Moms Demand Action leader in my last post pontificating about what a wise man Josef Goebbels was, you’ll LOVE this!

Found this through Bob Owens at Bearing Arms asking if this is possibly the most ignorant gun control op-ed in history.

I think it just may be. The historically ignorant, obtuse blatherings contained in this editorial are burning stupid. Flame retardant stupid. Weapons grade stupid. Beat your head against the wall until cerebrospinal fluid leaks out of your eyes stupid. Are we getting the message here?

I won’t fisk the whole thing, because frankly I value my sanity, and I can’t look at this cross-eyed dimbulbery without wanting to burn my own eyes out with sulfuric acid. I will just point you to a few items of note.

Kasie Strickland, the author of the abject dumbassery in question, thinks that:

1) The First Amendment protects a “right to life”

2) The 1993 Brady Bill and 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were both passed by a Republican president (George H.W. Bush).

3) Our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future.

She also feels it’s not actually necessary to bring facts into her diatribe, because it’s an “opinion piece.”

One can only shake one’s head in disbelief. But then after Allison A. Martin’s laudatory words for the wise Josef Goebbels, nothing much surprises me.

Maybe we should make it mandatory that newspaper columnists actually pass a history class before being allowed to spew. After all, we’re not limiting their right to free press. We’re just making sure that they publish the truth – for the common good…

Or maybe we should just beat this dumb harpy over the head with a history book. I’m thinking this is the only way anything will penetrate her thick skull.

 

Proof that shitbag blood is thicker than water

5 Comments

It’s pretty obvious to me that entitled thugs who think their perceived “need” obviates others’ “rights” come from families who support that kind of attitude. If you remember a few years ago, there was this genital wart named Lakesha Thompson who screeched in the national media that her thug of a brother-in-law who broke into the home of an elderly man deserved a “warning,” letting him know that there was a gun on the property, and that he was going to get shot.

My attitude toward the entitlement mentality of these savages hasn’t changed.

It galls me to no end that this defective, cretinous cuntwart had the balls to show up at this gentleman’s home making demands! It doesn’t occur to her that her brother-in-law did not deserve the courtesy of a warning. Her sense of entitlement tells her that even though Pipkins was a criminal thug, he somehow DESERVED a chance to get away – and maybe victimize others.

There have been other “families” over time who somehow decided that their slimy, criminal spawn/siblings/etc. deserved to live after attempting to victimize innocent victims. But this one takes the cake.

Thug comes into store to rob the place.

Thug is unsuccessful, because shop owner has gun and fatally shoots thug.

Family of thug comes into the store and threatens store owner.

The would-be robber’s brother came into the store Saturday morning, threatening to kill the family, Seth said.

“We are continuously getting threats from them,” said Seth’s 59-year-old father, who bears the same name as his son.

These filthy savages are actually coming into the store and threatening innocent victims who would likely be hurt or dead if it wasn’t for the fact that they refused to become prey to their odious family member! But I guess that doesn’t matter, because shit begets shit, and it probably doesn’t make sense to expect that they would acknowledge the fact that their boy got ventilated because he was a predator who tried to victimize innocent people.

As I said… shitbag blood.

Frankly, if it was MY store, and they came in threatening me or mine, they wouldn’t walk out. They would be carried out sporting a few significant holes.

Holy crap! Customer rep from hell!

3 Comments

I will admit I have Comcast. I haven’t had a problem with them, and their customer service, and I’ve had Comcast for probably 10 years. I have NEVER, EVER had anything like this experience! This guy needs a kick in the nuts.

This is a painful, whining, stalky, clingy ex, begging his girlfriend to not leave him – PROMISING he will no longer be a douchebag! This was quite possibly the most awkward, uncomfortable eight minutes I have ever had to listen to!

Please! Don’t leave me! I’m the best you’ll ever have! I’ll give you anything you want! Don’t go away!

Ryan Block – the guy who was calling to cancel his service – gave this sniveling moron way too much of his time.

After two minutes, my answer would have been: “I want to speak to your manager now, you whining dipshit. You either put me on with a supervisor, or I will personally hunt your stupid ass down and rip the confirmation of my cancellation of service out of your urethra. With a set of garden shears.”

 

Chicago police superintendent proves he’s insane

11 Comments

Or an idiot. Or both.

Chicago’s police superintendent lashed out at what he called lax state and federal gun laws after a violent Fourth of July weekend that saw 11 deaths in dozens of shooting incidents in a city already known for frequent shootings.

He might be both, because to blame lax gun laws for what is obviously a much greater, more complex problem in the city of Chicago is beyond absurd!

Now, let’s explore what is required to purchase a firearm in Illinois, shall we?

A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.

So. You need to get a FOID card even before you purchase a firearm in Illinois. To get this little piece of statist heaven permission to exercise your rights, you must apply for one through the State Police.  Here are the requirements to possess a valid FOID:

(i) He or she is 21 years of age or over, or if he or she is under 21 years of age that he or she has the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and that he or she has never been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent, provided, however, that such parent or legal guardian is not an individual prohibited from having a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and files an affidavit with the Department as prescribed by the Department stating that he or she is not an individual prohibited from having a Card;
(ii) He or she has not been convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction;
(iii) He or she is not addicted to narcotics;
(iv) He or she has not been a patient in a mental health facility within the past 5 years or, if he or she has been a patient in a mental health facility more than 5 years ago submit the certification required under subsection (u) of Section 8 of this Act;
(v) He or she is not intellectually disabled;
(vi) He or she is not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States;
(vii) He or she is not subject to an existing order of protection prohibiting him or her from possessing a firearm;
(viii) He or she has not been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
(ix) He or she has not been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before, on or after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-158). If the applicant knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have an offense described in this clause (ix) tried by a jury, and by guilty plea or otherwise, results in a conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a required element of the offense but in which a determination of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) is made under Section 112A-11.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying the issuance of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card under this Section;
(x) (Blank);
(xi) He or she is not an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), or that he or she is an alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is:
(1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes;
(2) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or
(B) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
(3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;
(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or
(5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);
(xii) He or she is not a minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(xiii) He or she is not an adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(xiv) He or she is a resident of the State of Illinois;
(xv) He or she has not been adjudicated as a mentally disabled person;
(xvi) He or she has not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility; and
(xvii) He or she is not developmentally disabled; and
(3) Upon request by the Department of State Police, sign a release on a form prescribed by the Department of State Police waiving any right to confidentiality and requesting the disclosure to the Department of State Police of limited mental health institution admission information from another state, the District of Columbia, any other territory of the United States, or a foreign nation concerning the applicant for the sole purpose of determining whether the applicant is or was a patient in a mental health institution and disqualified because of that status from receiving a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. No mental health care or treatment records may be requested. The information received shall be destroyed within one year of receipt.

An applicant for a FOID must consent to the Department using the applicant’s digital driver’s license or Illinois ID card photograph, if available, and signature on the FOID, and must furnish the Department with his driver’s license or Illinois ID card number. The Department must approve or deny the FOID within 30 days, and is authorized to deny the FOID only if the applicant does not meet the listed qualifications. The FOID fee is $10 and it is valid for five years from the date of issuance. The Department shall forward to each FOID holder, a notice of expiration and a renewal notice application, 60 days prior to expiration.

A FOID may be revoked and seized if the holder made a false statement on the application, is no longer eligible, or whose mental condition poses a clear and present danger to self, others, or community. A written notice must be given with the grounds for denial or revocation and seizure.

A person whose FOID has been revoked or seized or whose FOID application was denied or not acted upon within 30 days may appeal the decision to the Director of the Department of State Police, unless it was based upon certain violent, drug, or weapons offenses. In that case, the aggrieved person may petition the circuit court in the county of his residence. If the Director upholds the Department’s decision, the applicant may appeal to the courts. Any judicial review generally will be limited to the question of whether the Department’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”

And those are just the state requirements, which mirror federal gun laws with a few more tyrannical bells and whistles!

So, in order to become a gun owner in Illinois, one needs to be clean, sober, in the country legally, without a criminal record, a state resident, not crazy, not mentally deficient, not violent, not a minor and not a felon. Then, once you have received permission to become a gun owner in Illinois, you must wait several days before you can take possession of your purchase.

Oh, and if you want to actually BEAR said arm…

Well, that’s another set of requirements that includes a $150 fee, fingerprinting for an additional fee in order to avoid delayed processing of one’s application, and 16 hours of training (which includes a “live fire” component), for which you will also pay.  (Eight hours of prior training may be credited   if it is “approved by the Department [of State Police] and recognized under the laws of another state or if the applicant is an active, retired, or honorably discharged member of the Armed Forces.”)

But apparently, the unhinged and quite possibly retarded Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, that’s not enough, because Chicago’s violence is through the roof.

Maybe… just maybe if you actually made it easier for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against armed assailants, the problem would be mitigated. But no…

More infringements and tyrannical kicks to the metaphorical balls of every law-abiding citizens are obviously necessary, according to this buffoon!

At this rate, what we need is to fence off Chicago a la “Escape from New York,” trapping all the savages inside, along with their corrupt mayor and fuckwitted police superintendent, with no way out, and let them kill one another. After a while, just move in, clean up the bodies and ensure some kind of common sense intelligence test is administered before another douchebag takes charge and proceeds to turn the city into yet another warzone.

Oooh! I know! Let’s violate the law in order to prevent others from lawfully exercising their legal right!

20 Comments

Yeah, that’s a great idea, you immature, irrational, panty-shitting dumbass!

The link I provided above shows the puerile mentality of a hoplophobic assplunger that claims to blog on behalf of something called the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life, whose philosophy apparently involves cowardice and theft.

Yes, theft!

See, said assplunger doesn’t like the fact that there are citizens out there who exercise their rights publicly and perfectly legally. He/she/it doesn’t like said rights, and thinks that peaceable citizens should be prevented from exercising them in public by any means possible. One of those means is outright theft. This moron proposes that anytime someone sees a citizen openly exercising their right to keep and bear arms, they should just leave.

My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.

But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.

In a real, moral world, that’s called theft, assplunger.

The owner of the restaurant spent money purchasing food and paying a cook to prepare it. They also pay servers to keep your drinks refilled and bring you said food. If you leave without paying, you are appropriating said resources – that’s STEALING for those of you whose moral compass has been eaten by zombies.

The owner of said supermarket pays employees, who work hard to keep the shelves stocked, the carts stacked, and the products in their proper places. You walk out on a cart full of groceries without paying, you’ve just appropriated those efforts.

This is what this “Institute” claims people should do – commit illegal acts in an effort to prevent others from committing legal ones.

Yeah, makes all the sense in the world!

Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If the second amendment is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive. If it weren’t, I’d be reading this on ESPN during prime time, not posting this on Blogger.

This author has the reasoning ability of a rabid warthog. Forcing businesses to respect people’s legal rights by stealing from it? Great. Forcing people who legally exercise their rights to pay for the illegal acts of those who cannot or will not? Terrific. Carrying a firearm in the open without infringing on anyone’s fundamental rights? Must be stopped at all costs.

Hate to tell you this, you incoherent sack of dessicated donkey gonads. It’s not the price of the First Amendment that’s keeping you off ESPN and on Blogger, drooling your specious brain droppings to a limited audience. It’s the fact that you’re a bungling sack of fetid smegma, who is incapable of intelligent thought, and no network executive with a shred of business sense would ever pay you to actually broadcast your insipid, hysterical cretinism to a breathing audience!

Now, I have blogged before about some open carry advocates setting the gun rights movement back with their irresponsible, disrespectful behavior. I don’t agree with the way they choose to “normalize” the presence of guns in society. I think it reeks of infantile “HA HA! You can’t stop me!” behavior. That said, they are doing nothing illegal, and they have not violated anyone else’s rights with their presence.

Rudeness and inconsiderate behavior are annoying, but not illegal. And they certainly should not be punished for said rudeness by being forced to pay for hoplophobes’ outright theft merely for choosing to exercise their rights!

I would certainly hope that any cockrocket who decides to engage in such behavior and attempts to “dine and dash” as a way of proving a political point gets arrested and charged.

But my guess is, the vast majority of them will 1) shit themselves in fear 2) whip out their smartphones and proceed to voice their indignation on social media about the presence of armed individuals, and 3) slink away quietly after paying their bill as quickly as possible in the sincere and hysterical belief that any sudden move will result in their quick ventilation.

How About We Regulate Alcohol And Cigarettes Like We Regulate Firearms?

9 Comments

How about a waiting period for that bottle of vodka you want to buy?

Stephen King thinks we should regulate firearms the way we regulate booze and cigs.

How about we regulate alcohol and tobacco the way we regulate firearms? Bet Stephen King would squeal like a pig.

via How About We Regulate Alcohol And Cigarettes?.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: