A Sense-Free Opinion Piece


I posted this fisk earlier at the Zelman Partisans, but I kept it PG-rated. I’m posting it here as well, because we all need a good laugh at this dumbass’ expense.

The Washington Post editorial page editor tripped and his dick fell into a bout of honesty about the gun grabbers’ true intentions when it comes to our rights. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt vomited forth this bit of douchebaggery entitled “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Here we go. A progtard “courageously” challenging the big, bad NRA and America’s gun owners from the safety and comfort of his computer. Because doing so in person would make him soil his unmentionables.


Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thingy doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

Well, no shit! You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your irrational squawking that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But it hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie.

And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large? Fact is that gun show regulations are no different than other firearm laws.

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

And while you’re sniveling aimlessly that closing the nonexistent “loophole” will stop criminals from obtaining weapons, tell us why you think that your average thug will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn those laws closing the gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

Fact is that less than one percent of guns used in criminal activity come from gun shows, but you need to blame something. You need to do something. You keep playing with your flaccid pee pee in hopes that something will come out of it, but fact is you’re impotent, so you have to pretend to be doing something to make yourself feel better.

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true. And by the way, thanks for admitting that your proposed reforms are meaningless.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason.

That’s why the cultural shift over time has been in favor of the Second Amendment. That gives me a warm fuzzy, while it makes Freddie here shit himself in rage and fear.

Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013. It’s tragic, and it sucks. A lot. Know now many drowned? 568. Know how many died in fires? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Oh, this is rich! Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to actually interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances > 100,000 shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

That would require you to sit out of the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

What Do They Have in Common?


The New York Times published an interesting piece a couple of days ago, detailing “Criminal histories and documented mental health problems” of eight of the gunmen in recent shootings. While the NYT does its usual “fear the big, bad, black glock_19gun” thing, with close-ups and scary pictures of scary firearms, there’s something else that’s notable in this report: the vast majority of the shooters listed passed background checks and purchased firearms legally. They passed background checks that are supposed to keep bad guys from getting guns. None of the jackwagons listed had criminal records, the majority bought guns legally after having passed a background check, and one (Lanza) simply stole legally-purchased weapons from his mother. The majority were also not under the care of a mental health professional… hell, Nidal Hasan WAS a mental health professional!

I also note the Times’ froth-flecked zeal to paint the Roanoke shooting of two reporters as a “mass shooting,” but hey… it advances the narrative, so why not, right?

Several of these malcontents should have been prohibited under current law. John Hauser, who opened fire in a Louisiana theater was ordered into a psychiatric hospital by a judge and had been denied a concealed carry permit. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The white supremacist maggot who killed nine people in a church in South Carolina should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from that incident. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The father of the kid who used his dad’s gun to shoot up his school in Washington state, should have been prohibited as well, since he was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database. But he bought the gun legally, a background check failed to come up with the protection order as it was never entered into the system. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The dildo who shot up disarmed victims at the Washington Navy Yard passed local and state background checks, even though he was nuttier than squirrel shit and twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. Bureaucracy FAIL.

And despite the fact that he communicated with a terrorist and advocated terrorist acts in his presentations, authorities were apparently too scared of being accused of cultural insensitivity or something to actually take action on Nidal Hasan. He wasn’t under the care of a psychiatrist. He was a psychiatrist and an Army Major with a clean criminal record. But apparently the exchanges with a radical cleric  and attempts to contact al Q’aida, weren’t enough to give the feds a clue that maybe something wasn’t quite right in Hasanland. Bureaucracy FAIL.

So what is it that Uncle Fester and other gun grabbing shitbirds think enhanced background checks and increased gun control will do in light of the fact that the bureaucracy can’t even handle current standard background checks correctly? How would banning private sales have stopped any of these murders, in which the perps easily walked into a store, passed a background check, and waltzed off with a gun? And more importantly, what kind of law would stop any criminal from obtaining a gun on the black market, avoiding a background check altogether?

And yet, the first words out of the maw of the White House spokeshole after last week’s tragedy were lies about public support for more gun control, including the hackneyed mantra about the nonexistent “gun-show loophole.”

Here’s a clue: no law would have done so. None. No law would have prevented the bureaucratic failures that resulted in the legal purchase of firearms by these violent fruitcakes. And yet, every time one of these yambags loses his shit and proceeds to kill innocent people, opportunistic swine all over the nation try to put limits on those of us who committed no crime.

In their zeal to foment fear of the big, black, scary guns, the NYT pointed out something most don’t think about: the failure and inadequacy of the background checks system that was supposed to prevent violent scum from purchasing firearms and the folly of growing said bureaucracy.

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.

Fear the Walking… gun


After initial resistance, because I’m generally not a fan of the zombie genre, I became one of the biggest fans of the show “The Walking Dead.” It’s not because I’ve suddenly become a zombie fan, but because the show portrays in very gritty, realistic detail how various personalities deal with an apocalyptic event. What I previously wrote about the original, I strongly echo in the AMC spinoff “Fear the Walking Dead.”

“The Walking Dead” is one of the best written shows out there. It injects gritty realism into what is an otherwise unlikely scenario about zombies stumbling around the countryside and feasting on flesh. Yes, children would die. Yes, a mother could conceivably be forced to deliver a child via Cesarian section with no anesthesia. Yes, that mother would die in the process, and her son could very well be forced to put a bullet in her head to prevent reanimation. Yes, there would be people who turn to cannibalism to survive. And yes, there could be individuals – youngsters even – who cannot comprehend the danger the dead represent when they reanimate, and without thought or malice kill their younger sister to “prove” that zombies represent no danger. And yes, there would be individuals strong enough to have to take out the threat – whether it’s a non-comprehending child murderer or an individual infected with the flu.

Even more realistic are the characters and their disparate ways of dealing with the situation.

“Fear the Walking Dead” deals with the tribulations of one family on the West Coast at the start of the outbreak. There’s the bratty, annoying, whining teenage daughter (Alicia). There’s the heroin addicted son (Nick). There’s the widowed mom (Madison) and her divorced boyfriend (Travis), who has an ex wife(Liza) and an annoying SJW caricature of a son (Chris).

They’re joined by an immigrant from El Salvador (Daniel) and his family (Griselda and Ofelia), who initially provide shelter for Travis and his ex and their son in their barber shop during LA riots where savages start destroying property due to what they claim to be a bogus police shooting. Mix the rioting savages with some already reanimated walkers, and you have chaos.

It is quite obvious that Daniel has come from some nasty shit in El Salvador. He knows and understands what needs to be done, and doesn’t hesitate to do it. While Travis tries to reason with his zombie neighbor, after seeing what should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain when he finds him chowing down on a dog, Daniel simply takes a shotgun and pulls the trigger, killing the walker. Griselda seems a very much old fashioned type of wife, who is all “Anything my husband says, I will do, because I trust him.” I don’t think it’s just the cultural subservience of women, but I think she’s definitely seen some trauma, and Daniel has been able to protect her in the past.

Madison has potential. She appears willing to do what needs to be done to protect her family. When their neighbor and close friend Susan turns and tries to eat Alicia (I really wish she had. That whining teenage angst drama got old after five minutes into the pilot episode), Madison fully intends to take out the zombie threat – this after she took out the principal of the school where she worked, her friend Arnie. You’ve got to have some intestinal fortitude to take out your friends, and more than that to tell your boyfriend’s ex wife that if you ever become a zombie, you want her to take you out and not Travis, because it would destroy him. That’s some grit right there. I think if there’s one criticism I would make of Madison is that she’s too much of a protective mom. Geeze, just be honest with your kids and tell them what is going on! It’s not like they’re too young to hear it, and maybe it will actually wake them up. Maybe Nick will find survival much more important than his drugs – and he’s already showing potential and understanding of the situation much more than the whining bitch of a boyfriend. And maybe Alicia will stop with the teenage drama queen act and actually contribute to the defense of her family. Madison is a typical mama bear, I think. She’s willing to do what it takes to survive.

The neighbor: Susan the neigbor was among the walking dead

Surprisingly, it’s Travis that whines that she shouldn’t. It’s Travis that refuses to neutralize the threat despite having seen it almost destroy his family. It’s Travis that whines, “You know how I feel about guns!” in protest when he finds Daniel teaching his commie kid Chris how to use a shotgun to defend himself. It’s Travis that prevents Madison from taking a hammer to Zombie Susan’s head, choosing instead to allow her to be trapped in her garden where her unsuspecting husband who returns from a business trip finds her and nearly becomes dinner until the military steps in.

Is Travis the kind of person you want on your team in the event of a zombie apocalypse? A panty-soiling coward, whose emotions prevent him from neutralizing obvious threats to his loved ones, and worse yet… whose hoplophobia is so severe, he does not see the utility of having firearms during a zombie apocalypse?

Sorry, but in any realistic world, Travis would be the first one to be come a Scooby snack for the Walkers. He’s such a pathetic hipster douche, that Daniel refuses to go with the family, because he’s so weak! How much of a clueless prog do you have to be that a guy would rather stay and defend his injured wife against zombies himself, rather than accompany you on a jaunt out of the city to avoid the chaos?

I realize that on the left coast, the realistic scenario would show all types of people – from the most clueless leftist, to the most hardened conservative – dealing with the chaos. But I also realize that in a realistic scenario, those whose political views prevent them from doing what it takes to protect themselves and their families, will be the first to be eliminated. So Travis had better man up and grow a pair, because right now, this dude is too stupid to live and will become a liability right quick. He needs to get over his intense dislike of those evil guns and learn how to use them right quick, if he wants to survive in this new reality. And he’d better quickly get it through his thick skull that there’s no reasoning with zombies.

This Really Happened: Hoplophobe Soils Itself Because… GUN!


September 11 was a historic day in America. It was tragic. It was emotional. It was dark. But it was definitely historic – a painful part of American history that is never to be forgotten.

Enter this asshole. OH NOES! Teh EEEVIL NRA™ put a GUN on display in its museum! A GUN! How awful!


New York Police Officer Walker Weaver did not survive that horrific day on Sept. 11, 2001, but the NRA is pleased that his gun was recovered.

The NRA writes, “Officer Weaver never made it out that day … but his revolver was recovered from the ashes.”

Let’s start with the fact that the pistol is a bit of history. There are cameras that survived the 9-11 attack that belonged to a photographer – Bill Biggart – who did not, that are displayed at the Newseum in Washington, DC. Why? Because it’s a NEWS museum, and therefore, tools that a photojournalist used to capture the news are prominently displayed there as part of news history.


Likewise, the NRA’s museum is a FIREARMS museum. The pistol that belonged to a fallen officer who died on 9-11 is part of history! Therefore, it’s perfectly appropriate that the tool the officer used every day to protect his life and the lives of others is prominently on display there as part of firearms and American history.

Yay for the gun! #GunsLivesMatter.

Yay for lack of rational perspective! #HoplophobicBuffoon.

After Weaver’s family donated the gun to the NRA National Firearms Museum and with the 14th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the NRA writes, “Weaver’s revolver holds a place of honor today and serves as a somber reminder of the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line daily.”

I don’t know where any of you were during the bombings, but I was one or so miles from Ground Zero,  just hoping that one gun would survive as we watched in horror as citizens and first responders tirelessly dug through the rubble, day after day.

So you’re using your alleged presence near Ground Zero to give yourself credibility? Well, I was pretty near the Pentagon – where 125 military and civilians died at the hands of psychotic murderers. And some of those folks even carry guns as part of their jobs… you know… in the military, you cretinous coward! In the military – especially when we deploy – we carry our firearms with us all the time. They are tools.

This look familiar? Care to make fun of it, you deplorable, callous cunt?


These weapons are part of our jobs – especially on deployment. Just as Officer Weaver’s pistol was part of his job – and the only part left his family was able to recover. So your smarmy, oleaginous sarcasm is neither warranted, nor appreciated.

With each dig into the ground, we hoped to see just one barrel peering out into the sunlight.

With each word you show yourself to be a pompous, insensitive nitwit, that has not a gracious bone in its body. This is the only thing his family had left of him in the wreckage of that horror – the tool he used every day to protect himself and others. And you have the unmitigated gall to wax sarcastic about it?

And one did. It was Officer Walker Weaver’s gun. He didn’t make it but the NRA is very happy that yet another gun is OK.

I’m sure Officer Weaver’s family is gratified that they are able to donate the only thing left of him they were able to recover from the rubble to a museum to honor the the man who courageously bore that tool on the job and preserve it as part of history – history you apparently do not understand or respect, you sniveling cock monkey.

The courageous gun lobbyist organization used social media yesterday to attack surviving family members of gun violence.

And by “attack,” you mean “asked a legitimate question about the #whateverittakes movement and its intent toward our rights.”

We’re sure the gun rights group was relieved to hear that the guns used in the aforementioned acts of violence survived, too.

We’re sure relieved that your pusillanimous pantshittery against guns is so profound, that you would denigrate the only item that was recovered from someone who was murdered by psychotic terrorists and begrudge that tool becoming part of history merely because you insist on personifying an inanimate object.

Forget the thousands of lives lost 14 years ago, and let’s take a moment to honor the gun that pulled through such a terrifying event.

Forget the fact that the gun is the only item that was recovered from one of those victims. Let’s hate on it, because GUNS!

And now, I’m going to go throw up.

Translation: Look how sensitive I am! I’m going to throw up because INANIMATE OBJECT! I sarcastically attack the memory of one of the victims of a vicious terrorist attack on our nation, but I’m righteous, because I’m attacking a GUN!

Be sure to give us some ‘like’ on Facebook.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: