Newsflash! Oregon Shooter’s Dad is a Jackass!


After finding out that his abominable offspring, in whose life he apparently didn’t participate all that much, shot and killed a bunch of innocent people, Ian Mercer has decided that inanimate objects, i.e. guns, are to blame for the massacre.

Ian Mercer, during an interview outside his California home Saturday, told CNN that he didn’t know his son had a single gun, let alone 13. He asked, “How on earth could he compile 13 guns? How could that happen?”

Well, shitstick. Had you actually been in his life, instead of somewhere on the periphery, you would have known the answer to that question, but since cowards like him would never accept responsibility for the fuckups in their lives, blaming the gun not only allows them to shirk that responsibility yet again, but also promote their pusillanimous political philosophy.

Mercer said he has never held a gun. He doesn’t want to, he said. He laid out his personal philosophy on the issue: “I’m a great believer (in) you don’t buy guns, don’t buy guns, you don’t buy guns.”

I’m imagining this petty, testicle-deficient invertebrate running away from the responsibility of being a positive influence in his son’s life. I’m picturing him whimpering on his knees, begging for his pathetic life as an armed thug victimizes him and his family. Amoeba like him would never actually take a positive step to defend himself and his family. They consider it a lot more virtuous to beg and plead in front of monsters.

And then, as the interview wore on, he doubled and tripled up on the stupid.

“It has to change. How can it not? Even people that believe in the right to bear arms, what right do you have to take people’s lives? That’s what guns are, the killers. Simple as that. Simple as that. It’s black and white. What do you want a gun for?”

There’s so much fail in this incoherent rambling, I’m having trouble finding the right words to properly convey the level of stupid! He equates the right to own a tool with a nonexistent right to kill people, which no one claimed exists. He appoints himself the arbiter of other people’s wants and needs. He ascribes human qualities to guns.

It’s not difficult to picture someone this irrational spawning a psychotic murderer.

And then, there’s this asshole…

Yep, Uncle Fester is at it again, scrambling for relevance in a world that has long ago recognized his hypocrisy.


Kelly said lawmakers in Washington need “to close these loopholes that make it very easy for the mentally ill to get firearms.”

Interesting. Was the Oregon shooter in psychiatric care? Did he have mental issues? Was he seeing a mental health professional? Is Uncle Fester a mental health professional in his own right?

He noted that there are fewer deaths from gun violence in states that have strong laws restricting firearm sales and ownership.

“The idea is where there are more guns, people are less safe. If you have a gun in any kind of situation where things start to get heated, there’s a higher likelihood that somebody’s going to get shot,” he said.”

Of course, he missed the part where some of the most violent states writ large are ones with strong gun control laws, as if deaths by other means don’t matter. Obviously, they don’t matter in Uncle Fester’s world, because that little fact doesn’t support his political agenda.

Fact is there was nothing in the shooters background that suggested he should have been prohibited from buying a gun. He did not have a criminal record, and he and his mother purchased guns legally, as it is every American’s right to do. There is no law and no background check that would have prevented this.

But that won’t stop Uncle Fester from pontificating on gun control, using his injured wife as a poster girl for his twisted agenda, and cashing in on yet another tragedy.

So Now What?


Well, if you aren’t aware, there was another campus shooting yesterday. An unhinged loon opened fire on unarmed students at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. I didn’t want to write anything about this yesterday, because details were scarce, and initial reports are almost always wrong.

Preliminary information indicates 10 people were killed and more than 20 others injured in a shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College on Thursday, said Oregon State Police spokesman Bill Fugate.

Of course, that didn’t stop the White House from doing a blood dance on top of the bodies of the victims before they were even cold. Spokeshole Josh Earnest spewed the usual “sensible gun laws” mantra before the details of the shooting were even revealed.

Earnest said the “vast majority of Americans” support stricter gun laws, including closing the so-called gun-show loophole. But he said Obama is “realistic” about the dim prospects of congressional action on gun control.

Dear Spokeshole – you might want to check your information before puking forth utter garbage.

Most Americans do NOT support stricter gun laws. This has been proven again and again by various polls. But in addition to that, Oregon already has universal background checks! That law has been in effect for two months, genius, and it did absolutely nothing to stop this shooting.

But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good panic mongering!

It doesn’t matter that we don’t know how Christopher Mercer-Harper got access to firearms.

We don’t know if he was in any way prohibited from owning them in the first place.

We don’t know his motives, and we don’t know how long he had planned this massacre.

This White House doesn’t care. It just continues to push the old, hackneyed “sensible gun control” mantra, disregarding the fact that it’s about as sensible as a football bat…

Ignoring – apparently willfully – the fact that this loon was specifically executing Christians (because apparently only minorities, non-Christians, and other “protected individuals” can be victims of discrimination and hate)…

Overlooking the fact that by the time police arrived at the scene, nine people were killed and several more wounded.

Dial 9-1-1 and wait.

I don’t mean to impugn police response to this tragedy. They got there quickly and took out the maggot efficiently. But the average police response time to an emergency in this country is nine minutes. Even if the cops had arrived at lightning speed, and even if they only took five minutes to get to the scene, it was too late. How many victims do you think could be shot in that awesome five minute time period?

I hurt for the victims and their families. What happened is a horrifying tragedy. My son is in college now, and I do think about what would happen if there was an active shooter on campus. Certainly, he has no access to firearms over there, and he’d have to cower under a desk with his fellow students should this ever happen, waiting for the police to arrive, and hoping against hope that they don’t take too long as he watches his fellow classmates get murdered.

Yes, these thoughts do stomp on my brain. He’s my child. He and his sister are my life. He’s the sweet, redheaded baby I held in my arms 18 years ago and whose little face I kissed as he grinned that toothless grin at me. Would I demand more disarmed victims should, dog forbid, something happen to him? Would I pressure the legislature into giving psychotic murderers more targets to shoot at with impunity?


I’d want as many trained, law-abiding citizens as possible to be able to carry their tools of self defense in as many places as possible, including my son. I’d want him to be armed, trained, and ready. No, I wouldn’t want him to live his life in fear, but I would want him to be situationally aware and to know what to do in case tragedy strikes.

I will probably never see those common sense changes to this nation’s gun control mentality – at least not in my lifetime. After all, never one to let a crisis go to waste, Hillary Clinton is already making gun control part of her presidential platform. So I guess for now, I’ll settle for this administration shutting the fuck up until they get the facts, instead of rolling around naked in the blood of innocents and then doing a little dance on their graves.

Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes


In 2012, a deranged loon shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. It was a tragedy in which 12 people were killed and 70 others injured. James Holmes fired 76 shots in the theater: six from a shotgun, 65 from a semi-automatic rifle, and five from a .40-caliber handgun. The shooting prompted the usual calls for more gun control, and Holmes this year was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision over sentencing him to death.

In the aftermath of the shooting, and in an obvious effort to take advantage of an opportunity, the Brady Center and its attorneys brought a pro bono lawsuit on behalf of the parents of one of the victims Jessica Ghawi against Lucky Gunner – the company that sold Holmes ammunition.

They lost.

Further, they were ordered to pay $203,000 in legal fees for this frivolous lawsuit. They’re now crying that they don’t have the money, while at the same time absolving the Brady Center of responsibility for paying this bill, even though they instigated the suit.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I hurt for Lonnie and Sandy Phillips. I know what it’s like to lose a child, and it’s an agony I don’t wish on anyone. But at the same time, when your reaction to such a tragic loss is to work to relieve others of their rights, abuse the legal system in order to punish lawful citizens for engaging in legal business, and then whine about the legal consequences of your actions, you deserve a fisk.

We brought our lawsuit because we thought it was outrageous that companies could sell a dangerous man an arsenal without getting any information about him, and without making any effort to see if he was a dangerous killer — which he was. When the killer had left a voicemail with a shooting range, the range operator knew that he was bad news and shouldn’t be given access to guns. But these companies set up their business so people just like this killer can arm themselves at the click of a mouse. We wanted to change that. And we still do.

The shooting range operator received bizarre phone calls from Holmes after having applied for a membership there. The range owner tried to call him back, but never got in touch. Holmes never reappeared at the range after having made that call. The range owner thought the call was bizarre, but the claim that he knew the caller was bad news and shouldn’t be given access to gun is disingenuous. As a matter of fact, Glenn Rotkovich called Holmes several times to invite him to a mandatory orientation at the range. What that has to do with an online ammunition company making a legitimate sale is unclear. The company set up an online business to sell a legitimate product in a legitimate manner.

Attorneys at Arnold and Porter and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the lawsuit for us, pro bono. We knew the risks of bringing the case. We knew that Colorado and Congress have given special protection of the gun industry, and we knew that under Colorado law we could even be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees because of those special protections.

“Special protection” = Protection from frivolous lawsuits for a legitimate industry to conduct business without being legally harassed by those seeking to cash in on tragedy and hold them accountable for the negligence of others.

Got it.

They knew the lawsuit was frivolous.

Got it.

But we thought it was important to take a stand, to fight to prevent other families from suffering as we have. We did not seek any money in our case. We just wanted injunctive relief — to have these companies act reasonably when they sold dangerous materiel, like 100-round ammunition magazines, ammunition, body armor, and tear gas.

Background checks were performed on Holmes. He passed. He bought three different firearms at three different stores. Legally. He also didn’t wear body armor, despite having purchased it, which by the way is designed to protect people. But of course, facts don’t matter when you’re hysterically trying to use emotionalist rhetoric to sway people to your side.

The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law. If you couple the PLCAA law with Colorado’s law HB 000-208, (which says in essence: If you bring a civil case against a gun or ammunition seller and the case is dismissed then the plaintiff must pay all the defendant’s costs), you have an impenetrable barrier to using the judicial system to effect change in gun legislation in Colorado.

Actually, that’s not what the judge said. What he said was the suit was filed for propaganda purposes. “It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order.”

Everyone else in society has a duty to use reasonable care to not injure others — except gun and ammunition sellers.

Selling a legal product to a customer does not qualify as “injuring others.” This is what the Phillips don’t seem to understand and the Brady Center tries to obfuscate. The mere sale of a gun or a box of ammunition does not injure anyone, and holding lawful businesses for the evil of those who misuse their products is absurd. No other industry can be held liable for the misuse of their products by others. Not a single one. The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act merely brings the industry to standards that apply to any other manufacturer of consumer products. It does not prevent gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

To make matters worse, the judge ordered that we pay $203,000. This is an outrageous amount, especially given that this case was decided after one single motion! Lucky Gunner has said that it is going to donate all these fees to “gun rights” groups. The thought is disgusting to us that Lucky Gunner does not even plan to use this money to pay for their attorney’s fees.

You knew you’d be obligated to pay for abusing the resources of the court with frivolous suits, trying to ruin a legitimate business via the courts, and doing so for political ends, and now you’re complaining that the company you attempted to abuse is going to donate that money to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens? That is what’s nauseating!

Lucky Gunner wants to use blood money to fund the NRA and like-minded groups. See for yourself. Check out Lucky Gunner’s self-serving description of our case then click on “Head Here” (the green words at the end of Lucky Gunner’s last sentence) to find out how the money is to be distributed.

Translation: the company we tried to destroy wants to donate the money we owe them for trying to ruin their business to groups that protect the rights of all Americans! OH THE HORROR!

The law says we are responsible for these fees, which we recognize. We do not have the money to pay this amount. The Judge insinuated in his order that Brady should pay since he said they were the instigators. If this was a ploy designed to give the appearance that Brady was responsible and turn us against each other, it did not work.

Brady is still fighting for us pro bono and we see no evidence that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will not help us raise funds if and when that time comes.

Translation: We’re too stupid to know when we’re being used by a morally corrupt organization for its political and propaganda ends, so we’re going to whine about not having money, while hoping the Brady Center will pay our legal fees – the same group that duped us into this frivolous lawsuit to begin with, knowing there was no chance in hell we were going to win.

Yeah… good luck with that.

We believe that the judge’s decision was wrong, and that it is unconstitutional to financially punish people for bringing a lawsuit, especially a public interest case that did not seek a dime. But rather than risk possibly being ordered to pay even more fees, we are changing our focus from going after these laws in the judicial branch (we have dropped our appeal) to getting them overturned on the legislative level.

You’re not being punished financially for bringing a lawsuit. You’re being forced to pay the legal costs of the company you tried to ruin by abusing the resources of the courts.

We hope that we are spearheading a movement to expose these egregious and unconstitutional laws for what they really are. They are an attack on our civil liberties. With these laws in place ordinary citizens are effectively barred by the exorbitant cost from bringing any civil action against sellers of firearms and ammunition.

Nope. They’re barred from abusing the legal system in order to advance a political agenda.

It is un-American and outrageous that these special laws can deny us our day in court simply because we were victimized by the gun industry. Our lawsuit was not frivolous. Our Jessi was shot multiple times with high-velocity, armor-piercing bullets that were designed by our military to inflict maximum damage on enemy combatants.

Nope. You were victimized by an insane, violent lunatic who will spend the rest of his deranged life in prison. Your lawsuit sought to hold lawful businesses accountable for his actions – actions for which he was already punished. You had your day in court, and you lost – as you knew you would – because you tried to abuse the system with the full knowledge that trying to hold a company accountable for the actions of someone who used its product for nefarious ends is unlawful. And by the way, your daughter was slaughtered by a deranged nutjob, so stop using her loss to garner sympathy for yourselves. The blood dance doesn’t make you more sympathetic figures. It makes you opportunists, who would allow themselves to be used by the Brady charlatans to further their political agenda.

It is abhorrent to us as the parents of a child who has been killed by a person with outwardly obvious mental issues who was able to easily access a one hundred round magazine and 4,000 rounds of armor-piercing bullets online without a valid ID.

See above.

Who is our last line of defense that makes that conscious decision to not ask for ID before selling large orders of lethal, military-grade armament? Online sellers, knowing they are shielded by immunity laws, refuse to put into place even minimal safeguards that would save lives. That is abhorrent to us.

See that bit about these so-called “immunity laws” above.

One of the ways that we can level the playing field is to create precedents in our court rooms that make gun and ammunition dealers pay a price for conduct that contributes to gun violence. Another way is to lobby our state and federal legislators to repeal these laws. That is our objective.

So you want to encourage others to make the stupid decision to frivolously abuse the court system? You don’t learn, do you?

We are calling on the citizens of this country and the gun violence prevention community to stand ready to help us get in the face of state and national legislators. Join us in helping to get the word out to the American citizens who are not aware of how these laws take away the rights of victims of gun violence.

Victims have the right to see those who commit these crimes tried in a court of law. This has happened, and Holmes will thankfully never walk free again. Victims certainly do not have the right to use the courts in an attempts to ruin businesses engaged in legal commerce.

Well… I guess they do, but they will lose.

Interesting observation


I blogged about two things yesterday: the Davis toad and guns.

Now, granted the gun article was what I considered to be interesting media treatment of a hoplophobe in an apocalyptic environment, but I thought it was relevant, considering what a huge following “The Walking Dead” and its companion series, “Fear the Walking Dead” have. I find the media’s and the entertainment industries portrayal of a complete societal breakdown and its effects on numerous types of people (including those who refuse to acknowledge what’s happening, those who hate guns, those who are willing to victimize others, etc.) fascinating.

Politics is downstream from culture, and I think it’s vital that we understand how popular culture eventually impacts policy, as well as the political views of the public writ large.

And yet, the most heated discussion is taking place on a much more micro level. It’s Kim Davis that is getting all the press. It’s Kim Davis that’s getting all the hits on this blog. It’s the Kim Davis issue that’s getting the debate and the conversation.

Maybe the Davis issue is also a cultural one and deserves the debate. But she’s one person. One intransigent zealot, whose only claim to fame is the refusal to do her job, and brief imprisonment for contempt of court. And yet, she is the one that is causing contention in people who are otherwise allies on the majority of issues.

I don’t know about you guys, but I find this interesting. While this case will eventually have implications nationwide, I find social issues to be generally less critical to the survival of the republic. And frankly, had this case not been littering every news report, my Facebook timeline, my Twitter feed, and every other website I visit, I doubt I would have given it the time of day.

Maybe it’s just me, but Kim Davis just never interested me all that much. And yet, even though I published both posts around the same time of day, the Davis post is the one with scores of comments, while the post I, personally, find more interesting is barely getting a glance.

What I really hate about the Davis issue is that it has become so contentious, it’s causing a rift between people who generally otherwise are allies. There are some good, intelligent comments in response to that entry, but at the same time, I’m frustrated that someone whose only claim to fame is using the cover of religion to discriminate against people at least some of whom ostensibly put her in power and pay her salary, is causing said split when there are bigger, more important issues we face as a country.

The economy.

Resurgent Russia.

ISIL and terrorism writ large.

Soaring debt levels.

Possible government shutdown without a continuing resolution to keep the doors open, so to speak.

And never forget, we still have troops in Afghanistan. We still have service members dying in the war against terror. We still have security issues with which we must deal. But here we are… discussing Kim Davis. At least a good chunk of my distaste for this woman comes from this fact. It’s a micro issue in a world where macro problems are, by definition, much more significant.

Anyway, if anyone has a good analysis of the reason why this Davis woman is so much more interesting to discuss than issues such as gun control, foreign policy, national security, etc., please let me know. I’d love to get some insight.

Because, frankly, I’m a bit flummoxed.

Another Soccer Mom Vomits Forth Anti-Gun Loonery


Why is it that no matter how much you correct, inform, reason, and debate with gun grabbers, they continue to contend long-discredited, disingenuous crap in order to promote their odious agenda? It seems there’s a cabal of soccer mommies out there whose sole mission is to become the next Shannon Watts. Frankly, they’re unoriginal and uninformed, and yet some newspapers pick up their spew and run with it as if they’ve discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such is the case with the latest anti-gun mommy in my own backyard, who recently penned a column for The Roanoke Times entitled, “Why should it be easier to own and operate a gun than a car?”

Let’s put aside the obvious stupid of this question, and do a little fisking.

Melynda Dovel Wilcox lives in Alexandria, and she’s the mommy of two high school students. Alexandria is in my backyard, so I take a keen interest in any kind of disinformation being spread “for the children.” She writes:

In no other country is driving and owning a car as quintessential to the culture and lifestyle as it is in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that, for Virginia teenagers, turning 16-plus-three-months is noteworthy because they can get their driver’s license. With two 17-year-olds in my household, I’m well-versed in the steps required for the commonwealth to grant this privilege. It’s an arduous process — rightly so — and as a citizen I’m grateful to the government for implementing these measures to better protect all drivers and pedestrians.

Here Wilcox makes an interesting statement. Driving on public roads is, in fact, a privilege. Many will confuse the right to travel with the right to drive, and that’s just not right. U.S. jurisprudence confirms this fact in Miller v. Reed. There is no right to drive a vehicle on public roads enumerated in the Constitution, and since driving a motor vehicle on public roads is, in fact, a privilege, the government is well within its right to regulate it.

Wilcox then goes through a litany of allegedly “arduous” steps one must take to become a legal driver in Virginia.

Personally, having had two kids go through the process, I don’t think it’s all that onerous, but then again I’m not a spoiled Alexandria mommy, who thinks attending a 90 minute session with her kid (twice)  to cover parental responsibilities of having a teenage driver in my house, is a terrible imposition.

First, all 10th-graders receive 36 hours of classroom driver education in their required health and physical education classes.

Students can apply for their learner’s permit at age 15 ½ and must produce original documents proving their identification and residency. They must also pass a knowledge exam and a vision screening.

Next, provisional drivers must log 45 hours of driving time with an adult passenger and take a behind-the-wheel course consisting of fourteen 50-minute in-car sessions from a commercial driving school. One program in Northern Virginia, I Drive Smart, costs $499 and is taught by current and retired police officers. During the final session, the instructor administers the driving test and issues a temporary license. Not counting time spent on homework for the classroom portion and studying for the Department of Motor Vehicles exam, that’s more than 82 hours of instruction and training.

It’s amazing how first world problems can impact one’s worldview! Eighty-two hours of instruction is a little more than 10 days. Ten days’ training to operate a complex machine made of steel, glass, and plastic, capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour – a machine that was involved in 32,719 deaths in 2013, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hey, Melynda! Know what it takes to gain the privilege to drive in Germany?

First, you have to pass an onerous theory test, which a full third of test-takers fail. You need a vision and a road test, as well as first aid training. That’s right – first aid – an eight-hour class. An actual license is handed out when the driver turns 18, by the way. None of this 16 and three months garbage. Oh, and by the way – you bitch about a $500 cost to train your precious snowflake to drive? It costs about €1400 in Germany. Still think that’s onerous?  You’ll need a minimum of twelve 90 minute on the road training sessions, four of which have to be on the Autobahn and at speed, and about three of those have to be at night. That’s a minimum By the way, if you take your training in an automatic transmission, you’ll only be licensed to drive that. Driving a manual transmission automobile when you’ve only qualified on an automatic is considered driving without a licence.

These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.

The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.


The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.

The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.

The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.

The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.

Still want to complain how hard it is, Melynda? Didn’t think so. Moving on.

To own a car in Virginia, you must register the vehicle in both the state and local jurisdictions, and registration must be renewed annually or bi-annually. The owner must carry liability insurance or pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee, and have annual safety inspections performed on the car, and in some areas, periodic emissions inspections.

Wrong. To DRIVE a car in Virginia, you must register it. You don’t need insurance to merely own it, and you don’t need to register it if it’s merely sitting on your property. There’s a difference.

The comparison between car ownership and gun ownership is remarkably apt.

No. It’s not. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the other is a car.

There were about 254 million cars registered in the U.S. in 2012, and varying estimates of 270 million to 310 million guns. In 2012, there were roughly 33,500 traffic fatalities and almost 32,000 people died from gun violence.

How many of these were suicides? Oh, two-thirds? You know what a suicide is? Intentional. Can we say “disingenuous comparison,” boys and girls? I knew you could!

But there are some startling differences: Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have been on a downward trend since 1963 due to safer cars, safer roads and better-trained drivers. In some states there are fewer highway deaths now than there were in the 1940s. By contrast, between 2000 and 2013, the number of mass shootings and resulting casualties rose dramatically, according to an FBI study released last fall. (There have been 135 school shootings since Newtown.)

I knew we would eventually get to the lies, obfuscations, and lies. Oh, did I say “lies” twice? Using Everytown’s misleading statistics doesn’t bolster your credibility, Melynda. Neither does quoting an FBI study which the media clubbed to death like a baby seal without actually understanding the misleading verbiage in the study.

And then there’s the vast difference in requirements to own and operate a gun. No permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia. No registration is required either, except for machine guns. 

Guess what, Melynda! No permit is required to purchase a car either. You need a permit and a license to DRIVE a motor vehicle on a public road, but if I want to keep a vehicle in my garage, or drive it on my private property, I can! You obviously don’t know the difference between “drive” and “own.” Perhaps an English lesson is in order?

Gun sales at licensed gun dealers require a criminal background check, but private sales or sales at gun shows by private individuals do not, despite repeated efforts in the state legislature to change that law.

The law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else in Virginia, Melynda. Differentiating private sales at gun shows from anywhere else shows how ineptly you manipulate words.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no information about whether gun owners know how to safely store a gun and ammo, for example, how many guns they own, or whether they have committed a violent misdemeanor or have a history of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no business knowing how many guns one owns – or how many knives – or how many cars, for that matter. As we said previously, no one needs to register a car if they don’t plan to drive it on public roads. The state also doesn’t know how many motor vehicle accidents any given driver has had, UNLESS they were reported to police and the DMV. Care to guess how many Virginians commit hit and runs, or merely settle the cost of repairs among themselves?

One wonders how many mass shootings and other gun deaths could be prevented if prospective gun buyers were required to have just eight hours of training from police officers—one-tenth of that required for drivers;

Police officers such as this?

Hate to tell you this, Cupcake, but you quite obviously don’t know most gun owners. Most gun owners train much more than just 8 hours with professionals much more skilled than the “professional enough” DEA agent giving a presentation on gun safety in that video. We shoot consistently. We practice, because shooting and handling firearms is a skill – a perishable one. Additionally, if you think a lack of training is responsible for mass shootings, you may want to check your facts.

Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista… you know what they had in common? Mental health issues. If you think registering firearms will somehow prevent violent acts by crazies, I have this bridge…

if they were required to register their guns each year (with a new background check performed each time); and if they were required to carry liability insurance, with insurance proceeds used to compensate victims of gun violence and their families.

You know how many are killed by accidental shootings? About 600 per year, according to the CDC. That’s what liability insurance covers. Since about 21,000 of the firearm fatalities are suicides, I doubt most insurance companies will cover that.

None of this would pose a significant burden on hunters or other recreational gun owners.

No? An average pistol costs several hundred dollars. Add to it registration fees, training fees, and insurance premiums, and you’ve just made a tool of self defense cost prohibitive for the people who need it most. People in not so nice neighborhoods that you and your shielded cohorts in Alexandria only tremble at the thought of entering. Those poor people, who want to protect their families, may not be able to afford to do so, because Melynda thinks that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to hunters and recreational shooters.

As much as the DMV is loathed and derided, certainly almost no one decides against buying a car because the registration process is too onerous. It’s likewise absurd to allow people to own and operate a gun without any safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens and innocent children.

You don’t allow me to exercise my rights, you pernicious, misinformed fascist! I protect my innocent children with that tool of self defense you think you and your petty tyrannical pals think you have the authority to allow me to keep.

Every year, legions of teenagers happily give up 82 hours of free time in exchange for the privilege of driving. It’s the price that our society has deemed appropriate and acceptable to advance the common good. Isn’t it time that we make the same trade-offs for guns as we do for cars?

I’ll make you a deal, Melinda. Let’s regulate cars the way we regulate guns, OK?

Your precious teenagers won’t be able to purchase a car until they are 18. Sorry, Punkins! You’ll have to wait. They will have to pass a criminal background check, and if they committed a crime, got caught with some dope, or aren’t able to prove their residency, they will not be able to make said purchase. They want to buy an extra fast sports car? They don’t need that, but they will have to get a special license to own one, and they will have to be 21 years of age to purchase one. Every time they purchase a vehicle, they will have to undergo a background check, fingerprints in some states, and fill out a form that will be kept on file with the auto dealership for the duration of that business’ existence. And if the State Police come back with an inconclusive check, or they have a record, or mental health issues, no-go on that car boys and girls! Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you’ll have to wait three days before purchasing said car.

Subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Are you 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Were you adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.) Sorry, you can’t buy that car.

Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received? Sorry, can’t buy that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner? Sorry, you aren’t purchasing that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member? No car for you!

So will you call for closing that car loophole that permits private individuals to sell motor vehicles to others without a background check?

I didn’t think so.

“Shocking” Study: Criminals Don’t Buy Guns Legally


I know you’ll be shocked to know this, but apparently criminals don’t undergo background checks at shops or gun shows in order to purchase guns they use in crimes. I don’t know how this happened, but I, for one, am surprised beyond all belief! After all, don’t criminals get guns from evil gun dealers/gun shows/pawn shops/flea markets?

Apparently not. Believe me, I was just as shocked as you were to find out that criminals get guns from… well… mostly other criminals!

I don’t know about you all, but my worldview has now been shattered.

And if you think all that was easy to write with a straight face, trust me, it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, I kind of look like this now.


In all seriousness, researchers Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Parker found some interesting results about where criminals get guns – results gun rights advocates knew about: Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or theft.

[S]urvey evidence provides strong evidence that the gun market is sharply differentiated by the characteristics of the individual who is seeking a gun. Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms.

Translation: law-abiding citizens purchase guns legally. Criminals purchase their guns through illicit sources or personal connections.

The study discusses a social network – personal connections that allow criminals who would otherwise be ineligible to purchase guns to easily get them. Whether it’s addicts who get their hands on firearms and sell them to get a profit to buy drugs or someone in the “hood” that hasn’t been nabbed for a major crime, has a FOID card, and can legally purchase firearms and resell them to others in the hood who cannot, obtaining firearms illegally despite stringent laws doesn’t appear to be all that difficult based on this study.

Oh, and then I find this little tidbit interesting. The same gun grabbers who whine that only police and military should have access to firearms will find the following finding disturbing: two respondents in the survey mentioned that guns come from corrupt police.

Guns are from the “government” or corrupt police. R52. “Police take guns and put them back on the street.” R69: “Crooked officers put guns back on the streets.” 

A few things I get from this study:

  • Enhanced background checks will do nothing to stop criminals from using their social networks from procuring guns.
  • Government is part of the problem.
  • All it takes is one person who is not prohibited from owning guns to start distributing them to his buddies who are.

So what can be done?

Certainly more laws called for by feckless politicians won’t remedy the issue. Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they’re criminals. I was struck by the fact that many of these criminals were apparently purchasing firearms primarily for self defense. “Many gave some version of the phrase ‘I’d rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six.’ ” Pollack said.

These people live in rough neighborhoods. They don’t exactly have access to gated communities and armed guards. They are the ones who are more likely than not to need armed protection. Now, by saying this, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THIS IS A MITIGATING FACTOR. I’m certainly not an apologist. That said, I can also understand why the people in “the hood” would feel the need for armed protection more than your suburban soccer mom screeching for more gun control because of something she saw on the news. (Yes, I’m talking to you Shannon Watts!)

Given the fact that most of these criminals obtained guns from their connections in the hood, will any politician call for denials of gun purchases merely based on where the buyer lives? Cue screeches of RAAAACCCCCIIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMM!

Given that these connections are social in nature, will politicians call for limiting cell phone usage of people in “the hood”? Maybe preventing them from associating with one another? Or maybe deny certain individuals who legally are eligible to purchase a firearm the right to do so based on who their friends are? Yeah, can’t wait to see how that works out!

But in their zeal to appear as if they’re “doing something” some families of the victims demand,  they forget that doing something that would prove to be ineffective is akin to doing nothing at all. Well, nothing other than interfering with the rights of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

I suspect politicians know this, but the urge to get re-elected is much like the urge to mate during Pon Farr. Common sense pretty much flies out the window, and what’s left is this primal urge to remain in power. My own State Delegate Patrick Hope confirms this phenomenon. “People are angry,” Hope said. “People are angry by the inaction.”

So strong is the urge to remain in office, that politicians are even willing to lie. Yeah… I know you’re shocked by this phenomenon.

Currently, there is a loophole in Virginia that doesn’t require background checks for sales at gun shows. Hope said he went to a gun show and asked if he could get a gun without a background check. Instead of raising red flags, the vendors were more than happy to help him.

A) The majority of vendors at gun shows who sell guns are FFLs, which means they are required by law to run a background check! And they are meticulous. Know why? Because any discrepancy in records, any anomaly means they could lose their license and their livelihoods!

2) What Hope and other gun grabbers want isn’t background checks at gun shows, where the “loophole” is nonexistent. What they want is to stamp out private sales – to prevent people from legally selling their own property to others – an inexcusable infringement on property rights.

And here’s the thing. Nothing in these proposals would have stopped the shooting of two television station employees in Roanoke. The shooter had no criminal record, no mental health disqualification, nothing that should have prevented him from making that purchase.  The illegal alien who shot Kate Steinle got the gun from a careless law enforcement officer, who left his firearm in the car. The Islamic fundamentalist loon who shot up recruiting stations in Tennessee was also able to pass a background check. Would politicians now calling for more gun control advocate a denial of Second Amendment rights if one is a Muslim? I’d love to see the screeching from CAIR if that ever became a proposal!

Bottom line is this: the study above shows without a doubt that law abiding citizens are not the problem, and more laws are not the solution. As a sheriff I know once told me, laws are for the law-abiding.

Maybe politicians should focus on root causes of violence, rather than blaming the tool.

What Your Reaction to My NRA Sticker Says About You


OK, so I don’t have an NRA sticker. Although I’m an ardent gun rights advocate, I am not an NRA member. The NRA and I never really got along all that well. But nonetheless, bear with me here, because I’m about to explain why the NRA sticker says much more about the metrosexual douche pickle who wrote this column than it does about anyone who has that sticker on their vehicle.

I see that NRA decal on the rear window of your car and my eyes narrow. I look at the back of your head in the driver’s seat and I wonder if you are a threat.

A threat to my children. A threat to me. A threat to society.

I see you quivering in your panties about a sticker, and I snicker just a bit. I look at you and I wonder if you ever had any courage, any integrity, and any understanding of the laws and principles on which this nation was founded. And I wonder if you’re a threat.

A threat to my freedoms. A threat to my way of life. A threat to the Constitution.

I see a news report about the latest shooting deaths in the United States. I brace myself for the NRA talking points on social media.

I see a news report about the latest shooting deaths in the United States. I brace myself for screeching politicians and panty shitters like you spreading the “common sense gun control” mantra without an understanding of what that means or the possible unintended consequences of its implementation.

I try not to read them. I fail at that. I am appalled and saddened and sickened and angry.

I always read them, because I need to ensure that I am able and willing to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones against unimaginable evil. I need to remind myself that it exists.

I am reminded why I consider you a potential threat.

I am reminded of why I consider you a sad, pathetic little coward.

To me, that NRA decal on the rear window of your car represents violent death.

To me, your reaction to that NRA decal on the rear window of my car represents gutlessness.

By displaying that NRA decal on the rear window of your car, you are endorsing violent death.

By cringing at that NRA decal, you are endorsing an abdication of your rights and responsibilities as a citizen and as a human being.

By endorsing violent death, you show me that you do not care about the tens of thousands of gun deaths in the United States every year.

By shirking your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones you show me that you don’t care how many crimes are stopped and how many lives are potentially saved with the responsible use of firearms.

You don’t care about the gun deaths at Columbine. You don’t care about the gun deaths at Virginia Tech. You don’t care about the gun deaths at Tucson. You don’t care about the gun deaths at Aurora. You don’t care about the gun death at a movie theater up the road from here in Wesley Chapel. You don’t care about the gun deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown. You don’t care about the gun deaths at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.

You don’t care about the gun deaths this morning at Bridgewater Plaza in Virginia.

You don’t care about the lives Jeanne Assam saved by shooting an armed madman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. You don’t care about the toddler who was saved by mom’s dispatching of an intruder breaking into her home. You don’t care about the 9-year-old twins whose lives were saved by their mother using a revolver. You don’t care about the countless lives of students that Joel Myrick saved by retrieving a gun from his car and stopping Luke Woodham at Pearl High School. You don’t care about the lives of the congregants at the Boiling Springs’ South Side Freewill Baptist Church that were saved by one man taking responsibility for the lives of others. You don’t care about the lives of innocent shoppers at Clackamas Mall that were saved after an armed citizen confronted a gunman. You don’t care about the construction workers whose lives were saved because one armed foreman stopped a disgruntled employee. You certainly don’t care about hospital workers, doctors, nurses, and patients whose lives were saved by one armed doctor after a mental patient marched in and started shooting. And we know you don’t give a rancid rat’s ass about the twins whose lives were saved by their teenage brother after intruders broke into their home.

That is what the NRA decal displayed in the rear window of your car tells me.

Is that fair?

Nope. It’s also not rational, but we don’t expect fairness, justice, and logic from quivering self-soilers who infer all this nonsense from a simple window sticker.

Is it just of me to conclude that you don’t care about the loss of human life because of the proliferation of guns in the U.S., simply because you choose to display an NRA decal in the rear window of your car?

Maybe not. Yet, how am I to know that you are not the next “good guy with a gun” to snap?

Here’s a clue, dimwit: The vast majority of NRA members are law-abiding citizens. But more than that, how do you know? You don’t. I don’t either. And while crimes of passion are relatively rare, since I don’t know, I’d rather be able to at least try to defend myself with an effective tool than cower, soil myself in fear, and hope the bad guy goes away. I’d rather have a fighting chance. But then again, I’m a responsible adult, not a sniveling coward.

How am I to know that something about the way I drive, or something about the way your day or life is going, or something imagined by you and unimaginable to me triggers the compulsion to shoot, and to kill?

If you really believe that you might be a trigger for someone’s violent road rage, wouldn’t you rather be able to defend yourself and potentially save your own life and those of your kids? Oh, wait… I forgot… Your mangina forbids such acts of masculine courage.

Because of that NRA decal in the rear window of your car, because I am the father of two beautiful boys who are growing up with a backdrop of rampant gun violence, the only responsible conclusion for me to draw is that you are armed – and dangerous. That you are a threat. That you could, if you chose, pull out your gun and shoot me or my children without a thought or even provocation.

Because of your whimpering reaction to my NRA decal, and because I’m the mother of two beautiful, responsible children, one of whom is a U.S. Marine, while the other is an ROTC student at UNC Charlotte, and both of whom were able to responsibly use firearms under adult supervision, and later on their own, since they were tiny tots, the only logical conclusion for me to draw is that you are a coward, who is an easy victim for armed thugs, who doesn’t care enough about the lives of those beautiful boys to take steps to responsibly defend them.

Maybe that is not fair. Maybe you are a gentle, kind person who happens to enjoy shooting sports.

Maybe you are an ignorant and have no comprehension of what the Second Amendment is about.

Here is a fair conclusion, though: You care more about your “right” to own a gun than you care about my right to live without the fear that members of my family or my friends might be shot and killed at school, at the movies, in our car, on the job, in church … anywhere. Anywhere at all.

Here’s a fair conclusion, though: Your inclusion of the word “right” in quotation marks shows you have no concept of what a right actually is. You are incapable of comprehending that your “right” to live without fear does not obligate me or anyone else to stroke your pusillanimous fantasies and make you feel all comfy and cozy. You care about your imagined “right” to impose your cowardice and ignorance on millions of innocent people who happen to be gun owners. You are a selfish prick.

It is more important to you that the 300 million guns in the United States remain in the hands of their owners than it is for my children to grow up in a country where violent gun deaths are an anomaly, rather than the norm.

It’s more important to you to impose your arbitrary, subjective standards of “security” on others than recognize that others should have the ability to protect themselves without whining invertebrates such as you forcing them to conform to your gutless wankery.

You would rather risk more lives, thousands more, than take responsible action on gun control. In your world, there is an “acceptable” number of violent gun deaths.

You would rather see your fellow citizens defenseless at the nonexistent mercy of armed thugs than put on your big boy pants, man up, and support all law-abiding citizens’ right to defend themselves with the most effective tool on the market today.

I conclude that about you, because you choose to display that NRA decal in the rear window of your car.

I conclude that you’re a heartless, senseless, hysterical, walking mangina because you view your fellow Americans as threats merely by looking at a decal on their car window.

How does it feel to know that the father, the husband, the son, the friend, the writer in the car behind you is afraid of what you might do because of that NRA decal displayed in the rear window of your car?

It makes me feel sad for the state of our society that sniveling pussies like you exist, that you will likely raise your sons to be just as gutless and sad as you are, and that some poor woman chose to reproduce with you in the first place.

How does that feel to you?

Actually … never mind.

I don’t think I want to know.

You wrote that senseless dreck, so now you know.

Note: Apparently this sad little excuse for a gonad didn’t like the response he received from his fellow Americans, whom he frames as potential threats for absolutely no reason, so he shut the comments down for his blog. It’s typical. He apparently couldn’t respond in a mature, rational way, so rather than put in the effort, he simply decided to shut down others’ ability to respond to his drivel. Much like his response to an NRA label in someone’s window, this makes him a coward.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: