Congresscreature trying to push gun control in the wake of Paris


Jan Schakowsky (D-umbass, IL) has never been a friend of freedom or the Second Amendment. After all, this is the harpy who suggested in 2013 that the plans for another scary black gun ban and the proposed elimination of the right to lawfully sell your own property to another individual were only the beginning of the leftard assaults on your Second Amendment rights.

The opportunistic sow from Illinois has never been one to allow a crisis to go unexploited, so this week, she decided to use the terror attacks in Paris, France for her own odious purposes – namely, more gun control in the United States.

“No, uh, obviously it is frightening for every western country, but I do want to remind you, before we killed a jihadist named Awlaki, he did a video that said to Americans, ‘join the jihad and get guns, because it’s so easy in the United States of America to get a weapon,’” Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky said on SiriusXM radio this week.

“And that ought to be a chilling reminder because, aside from blowing themselves up, which is uh, of course, not about small weapons,” she continued. “These people used the kinds of weapons that are still available in the United States of America. And I think it ought cause us to have another consideration of sensible gun safety laws.”

Uh… does she even.. uh… know what it takes to legally acquire a machine gun in this country? Well, NRO lists the steps

  • Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500

  • Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government

  • Submit photographs

  • Submit passport photos

  • Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application

  • Wait for the results of your background check to come back

A violation of the national firearms act results in a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison, a $100,000 fine, and forfeiture of the individual’s right to own or possess firearms in the future.

Moreover, because the 1986 Hughes Amendment made it illegal for non-dealers to own automatic weapons that were manufactured after May 19th 1986, the cost of the guns Schakowsky fears is astronomical. You want an AK-47 of the sort used in Paris? You’re looking at spending at least $10,000.

enhanced-buzz-25589-1447858875-7Maybe the opportunistic sow ought to shut her yap before she embarrasses herself any further.

Oh, and we want to also gently remind Schakowsky that the not-so-dearly departed Awlaki wasn’t the one pointing out the alleged “ease” of getting guns in the United States. That was the pig-fucking dick weasel Adam Gadahn. In her froth-flecked zeal to shred Americans’ Second Amendment rights, Schakowsky couldn’t even get her camel humpers right.

And if you want to hear this sow squeal, you can listen here.




Self-Defense “Expert” Speaks Out Against Self-Defense


You ever read something so stupid, it makes your eyes bleed? I’ve been wanting to blog about this all weekend, but with no computer and only iPhone access to the Internet, this wasn’t going to work. The blog post would have looked like it was written by a slow child.

But now that I have a computer, the urge to address the utter dumbassery coming from the ignorant maw of alleged “self-defense expert” Mary Anne Franks is strong. In a recent debate about whether or not to allow concealed carry of personal firearms on Florida campuses, Franks testified in the Florida legislature against restoring the right of trained, law-abiding Floridians to defend themselves while studying in the state’s universities.

“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.

Franks’ ridiculous claim would come as a surprise to anyone who is actually capable of reading comprehension.

Why, just in the past few days, the media has reported on a concealed carry license holder who stopped an armed robbery in a Chicago neighborhood store, a pizza delivery guy in Florida, who used a gun to defend himself against an armed thug,  an armed Oklahoma man who successfully defended himself against an assailant in his own driveway, an armed father who protected his daughter from an armed thug who held a gun to her head, an armed Michigan homeowner who held off eight… that’s right EIGHT thugs until police arrived, and a California gun owner who ended a hammer rampage. That’s right, hammer rampage.

So maybe Franks just doesn’t have access to the Internet. Maybe she doesn’t make enough money as a “self-defense expert” to purchase a newspaper. Or maybe she’s just too stupid to read. Whatever the reason for the hoplophobic ridiculosity that she spewed, she’s obviously wrong. Very wrong.

Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.

A study that examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police and civilians revealed that armed civilians successfully stopped criminals 83 percent of the time, compared 68 percent of police. Additionally, only 2 percent of shootings by civilians resulted in an innocent being shot, compared to 11 percent of shootings by police who mistook an innocent person for a criminal.

So what does this mean? Apparently, armed civilians are much more effective at actually preventing crimes than police. This is not to impugn police officers. Many of them are dedicated, skilled professionals. But fact is they can’t be there all the time, and when seconds count, they’re still minutes away. Additionally, while police do have training requirements, many gun owners I know impose much stricter requirements on themselves. They enjoy the training. They practice longer and harder – not because they have to, but because they want to.

And yes, as a member of the U.S. Army, my training was extensive – in basic training. After initial entry training was over, we were lucky if we got the opportunity to qualify once per year.

Again, I don’t say this to impugn our military, but given our jobs, and especially on deployment, it’s not like we could go out and plink whenever we wanted.

Franks then doubles or triples (I’m having trouble keeping up with this much dumbshittery) down on the stupid.

“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.

Is that why 92 percent of defensive gun uses result in no injuries and no shots fired?

And then comes the real doozy from a woman who obviously has never experienced sexual assault, but whose goal is to ensure that everyone else is unable to prevent it should the situation arise. She noted that most assault victims know their attackers.

“Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Franks then went from full retard to full turnip when she inexcusably squawked that “it’s an illusion to think crime victims will exhibit the calm, objective demeanor of a movie hero in defending themselves.”

“Studies done by many, many professional have shown that it is really, really unlikely for anyone to use a gun effectively in self defense, especially in cases of sexual assault,” said Franks.

What’s disgusting is that this is a woman who actually is testifying in a legislative proceeding that women are too incompetent to use a gun in self defense! What’s appalling is that she wants to keep women defenseless, because most sexual assaults are committed by those known to the victim.

While it’s true that 82 percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by a “non-stranger,” Franks thinks (if you can call her twisted logic that) the other 18 percent don’t deserve the opportunity to defend themselves against someone they don’t know. Additionally, she assumes that every sexual assault happens on a “date” and that a woman shouldn’t carry a self defense tool in those instances.

Franks is like many other hoplophobes who believe that if the odds are against you successfully defending yourself, you shouldn’t even try. Much like the sniffly gun grabbers who point out that the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings were unsuccessful in stopping the slaughter of Jews, and therefore, why even bother, Franks assumes that since a rapist will likely be someone whom the victim knows, she is less likely to be successful at fending off a sexual assault, so why try?

anti-rapeThat’s how little this “self-defense expert” cares about the lives of women! Why bother, ladies? Just lie back and enjoy it. Or piss yourself, because rape isn’t about power and control, but about getting one’s rocks off!


This repugnant invertebrate is an insult to feminism and an affront to all women!

The fact that she considers women too incompetent and emotional to successfully use firearms to prevent assault flies directly in the face of logic and empowerment, as well as actual research.

A 2005 study revealed that resistance does reduce the chances of the rape being carried through to completion. What will armed resistance do? An article by Dave Kopel in the Washington Post this year quotes this study to show that armed self-defense does, indeed, stop an assailant.

The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of those 26 cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon.

That’s right. Women who admitted to have used firearms in self-defense to prevent a rape were successful in doing so.

Franks’ contention that women are incapable of rationally defending themselves is offensive to its core. It’s cowardly. It’s false. It’s insulting to strong, independent women.

Those who think the right is waging some kind of “war on women,” because goddammit, every woman should be able to buy condoms at taxpayer expense, and if you don’t think so… SHUT UP MISOGYNIST! are apparently not appalled at this barely coherent snatch impugning the ability, good sense, skill, and judgment of fellow women. They’re apparently not disgusted at Franks’ lack of respect for her females and their lives and dignity. They don’t care that she advocates rendering women helpless – unable to use the most effective self-defense tool on the market today – apparently as long as she supports taxpayer funded condoms and abortions!

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that this progtard would advocate disarmament of women, given her publication history in such notably leftist publications as the Huffing-glue Post and the Atlantic.

We also shouldn’t be shocked that her political agenda trumps all, including common sense, women’s dignity, and safety on campus.

Virginia Gives the Finger to Bloomberg


Billionaire busybody and self-anointed nanny to all Michael Bloomberg has spent lots of money in Virginia, trying to turn the state Senate over to the gun grabbing leftist dick weasels, so that our carpetbagging, opportunistic governor can easier implement his progtard gun control agenda. Bloomberg spent $2.2 million on ads targeting Virginia Republicans – repugnant spots that use the relatives of violence to push a political agenda. Frankly, I don’t know what’s worse – a non-resident, busybody jerk trying to affect Virginia politics and the lives of the residents of this state, or the opportunistic jagoff Andy Parker, the father of television reporter Alison Parker, who was killed in Roanoke in an August on-air shooting along with her cameraman.

This is the same Parker, by the way, who physically threatened Virginia Senator Bill Stanley in a direct message on Facebook that said, “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard” and threatened “YOU BEST WALK THE OTHER WAY LEST I BEAT YOUR LITTLE ASS WITH MY BARE HANDS.” Class act, Parker.

Makes me wonder why gun grabbers are such a violent lot. Perhaps that’s why they demand more gun control – they’re projecting their violent tendencies on the rest of us.

Dear Terry and Mike, Sit and spin, motherfuckers!

Dear Terry and Mike,
Sit and spin, motherfuckers!

Luckily Virginians gave Bloomberg (and Parker) the big, fat middle finger yesterday, and Bloomberg’s millions bought governor Terry McAuliffe McAwful exactly nothing.

The Senate still belongs to the Virginia Republicans, and no amount of Bloomberg cash changed that. Let’s just hope the Virginia GOP remains true to the Second Amendment and torpedoes any attempt on the part of McAwful to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Virginians.

For a while there, the Democrats screeched “VOTER IRREGULARITIES!” in one hotly-contested district, and Democrat Dan Gecker refused to concede to his Republican opponent last night, even after the AP called the race in favor of the GOP candidate. Thankfully, that’s all over now, as Gecker conceded to Glen Sturtevant today.

I will admit, I have no idea about either of the candidates in Powhatan County. I just know one thing, anything that kicks Boomberg and McAwful in the nuts on election day is a positive thing!

Virginia Democrats – Disgraceful, Corrupt, Unscrupulous Bottom Feeders


I don’t normally write about Virginia politics. I’d rather let the husband do that, since he’s much better versed than I am in the state political game. I’m actually pretty non-partisan, and my political views are generally libertarian in nature. Just leave me alone to live my life, and I’m happy.

That said, when it comes to Second Amendment rights, I’m a non-compromising purist. When it comes to property rights, there is no middle ground. And when I see local Democrats playing dirty games with people’s livelihoods and taking a crap on the Second Amendment in an effort to foment discord and controversy in time for elections, I can’t NOT say something.

JB Gates, the owner of NoVA Firearms originally intended to open a store in Arlington County, but thanks to bullying, manufactured outrage, and outright abuse by sniveling hoplophobes in the area – the same morally corrupt band of gun-grabbing invertebrates who are now politicizing Mr. Gates’ livelihood in order to gain election traction – the landlord of the store’s original location canceled the lease and forced Gates to move elsewhere.

That elsewhere was McLean, VA – near Franklin Sherman Elementary School.

I see evil guns, and I feel a moisture in my frilly panties.As expected, the panty shitters in McLean shat their collective panties. OH, JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN! A GUN STORE NEAR A SCHOOL! CHILDREN!

Remember, this is a peaceful business, legitimate commerce, and a product that’s obviously in demand. Additionally, there was absolutely nothing the Fairfax County Democrats could do about the store’s location, but that didn’t stop them from hectoring the peaceable, legitimate business owner and working to destroy his livelihood. My disgraceful, unresponsive, snotty bitch of a State Senator Barbara Favola (Yeah, we tried – as her constituents – to see and talk to her about gun rights in Virginia on several Lobby Days, but she wouldn’t even give us the time of day; quite the representative, that one) who was instrumental in bullying the landlord into cancelling the store’s lease in Arlington, gave the crooked, praetorian dick weasels in Fairfax some sage advice about how to destroy Mr. Gates’ business, according to emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Virginia blog Bearing Drift.

The emails show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Favola and her cohorts conspired to harass and bully Mr. Gates, while that shriveled colostomy bag John Foust (D-ickhead) fucked with Mr. Gates’ livelihood in order to get re-elected.

Delegate Kathleen Murphy, McLean Democrat, wrote an email to state Sen. Barbara Favola, Arlington Democrat, seeking help in shutting down the gun store. Ms. Favola was instrumental in organizing opposition to Mr. Gates’ shop in Arlington.

“Basically, we convinced the land owner that his business tenants would lose business,” Ms. Favola told Ms. Murphy in a reply. “In other words, moving a gun shop to a small cluster of shops in the middle of a neighborhood was bad for business.

“The argument has to be about supporting small businesses,” Ms. Favola wrote in her email. “The ‘we’ versus ‘they’ argument is winnable with the NRA.”

Ms. Murphy forwarded that email Sept. 25 to other Democrats in her district, including Fairfax County Supervisor John Foust, who is up for re-election Tuesday, saying, “Lets do it.”

Fairfax County Supervisor John Foust

Fairfax County Supervisor John Foust

How abhorrently perfidious. A bunch of petty tyrants plotting to destroy the livelihood of one of their constituents for purely political purposes – to re-elect this… loathsome, cowardly, dishonest creature with a bad toupee.

Foust knew the store was there legally. He knew it was in compliance with the law before it opened, according to Bearing Drift, but he chose to politicize the issue in an effort to drive up voter turnout in an off-year election while smearing his opponent with false attacks.

And what were those attacks? She apparently supports the gun store! *GASP!*

What, exactly, is wrong with a perfectly legal business that sells a constitutionally-protected product being located next to a school, I’ll never know. The writers at Bearing Drift and Foust’s opponent Jennifer Chronis are acting as if Mr. Gates has done something wrong! Oh, he has to “work with” the McLean Citizens Association, who are apparently soiling themselves at the thought of a legitimate business that has followed all the laws and regulations selling a perfectly legal product – after conducting background checks, as required by law – to their fellow citizens wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Really, Bearing Drift? “Parents who oppose the store’s current location may be stuck with a gun store next to an elementary school…” Stuck? Stuck with a peaceable, legitimate business? Stuck with a business owner dedicated to educating the community and providing firearms training? Stuck with a veteran-owned small business? What is it, exactly, are they stuck with? I appreciate the FOIA and the publication of the emails, but you’re proving yourselves to be whining cowards.

Why should Mr. Gates be forced to move again?

Why should he have to move his legitimate business to appease these howling, turd-flinging howler monkeys?

He has already been forced out of his contract in Arlington, he had to move his store a few blocks away from its original location, and now this.

Mr. Gates sponsors local charities, including the conservation efforts of local Ducks Unlimited chapters and programs supporting veterans and their families. At his Arlington location, he planned to offer expanded firearms safety training to the community. Oh, and by the way, he’s a Marine Corps vet.

This is the kind of man Favola, Foust, and that opportunistic sow Murphy are harassing. This is the kind of business they aim to destroy.

Do yourselves a favor and read the Bearing Drift Article I cited above. It’s got all the details about the obscene efforts of the area Democrats to not only destroy a veteran and his livelihood, but use his store as a political prop, while blaming his legitimate business for “gun violence.”

Foust, Favola, and the rest of those malignant warts do not deserve the public trust. They don’t deserve to hold public office. They are an embarrassment, and a twisted reminder of the moral corruption of the Democrats in this state.

“It’s not going to prevent anything…” Except when it does


The debate about having guns on college campuses continues, and government bureaucrats seem to be getting more shrill about their belief that guns should be kept away from college campuses.

Yesterday, University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling said she hopes a proposal to revoke a ban on guns in campus buildings doesn’t even get to the point where she would have to testify against it at a hearing.

Because REASONS!

“I hope the people of Wisconsin realize that college campuses are different and are unique,” Riseling said. “Where does this end? Do we then make sure that our school zones are not gun-free anymore? It just keeps going on and on. The proliferation of weapons in our society is actually leading to more problems, not fewer problems.”

Yes, college campuses are, in fact, different and unique. They’re much bigger than your average elementary school, where an armed resources officer can respond to an incident in a reasonable amount of time, and most of them forbid law-abiding adults – both students and professors – from carrying firearms on campus, rendering them and those around them defenseless. Even police will admit it takes them a few minutes to respond to a violent event. How many innocent people can an armed thug gun down in that time?

No. The best way to stop a violent attack is with immediate violent response. An armed, trained civilian is there at the onset of an event. Does Riseling honestly think this will create more problems than it will solve?

There are currently three states that allow concealed carry of firearms on campus: Idaho, Colorado, and Utah. passed legislation to allow concealed carry on its eight public colleges and universities in March 2014. Since then, there have been no mass shootings, no blood in the streets, and no incidents of students shooting one another on campus. There was one incident of a negligent discharge when a professor carrying his firearm in his pocket (REALLY?!) shot himself in the foot. Other than that, no incidents, no shootings, nothing.

In Utah, 13 universities and colleges permit concealed guns on campus. Again, nothing happened. No one has been shot on campus, accidentally or otherwise. Gun grabbing nuts will screech about the cancellation of feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian’s speech at Utah State University last year due to alleged “threats,” which authorities didn’t even think were credible. However, the cancellation was not the result of concealed carry being allowed on campus, but rather because Sarkeesian pitched a fit when the university refused to treat her like a VIP and spend time and money securing the venue against questionable threats.

Colorado has numerous colleges that allow concealed firearms on campus. In the 12 years that the state has allowed guns on campus there hasn’t been a single crime committed by permit holders. There have been no mass shootings, no blood running on campus streets, and only one negligent discharge by an employee resulting in no injuries and a firing of the employee in question.

But facts don’t matter to Riseling, who went on to claim that “In essence, it’s going to increase the likelihood of an accident, mistake, a fight that would have been settled with fists being settled by gunfire as we saw recently at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.”

Of course, Riseling conveniently forgot to mention that students are prohibited from carrying guns on that college’s campus, and the shooter, who has been charged with one count of first degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault by the Northern Arizona University police department, wasn’t carrying that weapon legally on campus in the first place. But hey… anything to advance the narrative, right?

Riseling’s final point advocates mental health intervention and threat assessment teams as the best way to prevent campus shootings. “That’s the way to prevent these things from happening. It’s not the way to react by letting everyone be armed. That’s not going to solve any of our problems.” Here we see the typical gun grabber fallacy. Allowing trained, law-abiding individuals to defend themselves and others with a firearm in case of an armed attack is in no way equivalent to “letting everyone be armed.” Ultimately gun ownership and the will to carry is a choice that far from everyone will be willing to make. It’s a responsibility for others that many don’t want. And while mental health services and threat assessment teams are all well and good, when it comes to an active shooter incident, they have already failed.

“It’s not going to prevent anything,” Riseling ignorantly claims. Well, except when it did.

Like in the 1997 Pearl High School massacre that was stopped by vice principal Joel Myrick with his Colt .45, which he had to retrieve from his car

Like at the Parker Middle School dance in 1998 when 14-year-old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others before being subdued by James Strand – the owner of the venue where the dance took place, who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived.

Like the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002 where two armed students stopped an armed nutbag from committing more carnage.

It really boggles the mind that these spineless amoeba are so terrified of guns, that they don’t even think one should try to stop a violent offender! It’s not often that armed students or teachers on the scene stop a rampaging armed derelict (mostly thanks to the disarmament policies at schools and campuses), so therefore no one should even attempt it, according to these panty shitters.

These are the same invertebrates who claim that because the Warsaw Ghetto uprising still resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jews, arming victims does nothing, so why bother? Does that mean you just genuflect in front of your abusers? Does this mean you don’t try to resist? Does this mean you just give up your life without a fight?

They don’t want you to have even a fighting chance at survival! They’re cowards who would rather die on their knees and fight for their lives.


Probably because they believe that giving students on our college campuses an opportunity to fight back will reduce the need for armed authorities, bureaucrats, “threat assessment teams” and anything else that justifies their existence. After all, an armed individual is an independent human being, capable of taking immediate action should the situation warrant intervention. A priggish bureaucrat can’t possibly match that ability, making the bureaucrat as useless as Roseanne Barr at a gym.

Lawson Clarke Dutifully Polishes His Chains and Licks his Masters’ Boots


Lawson Clarke is an ad exec and a “Gun Owner Who is Perfectly Comfortable With Gun Control.”

Translation: he’s a serf, who has no comprehension of the meaning of a right and thinks the Second Amendment protects his “right” to hunt.

In his article for NPR, he details the laborious process he underwent as a Massachusetts resident to get state permission to exercise his rights, and he apparently doesn’t mind the numerous forms, background checks, and exorbitant costs associated with being able to exercise a fundamental right, because MASS SHOOTINGS!

STEP 1: I enrolled in a four-hour firearms safety course registered with the state.

A safety course is always a good idea. Only four hours? Most gun owners I know train much more often and much longer with their self-defense tools. But when mandated by the state, it really becomes a perfunctory gesture. I won’t even get into the whole “registered with the state” thing!

STEP 2: I joined a properly licensed gun club to demonstrate I was merely interested in hunting and recreational shooting. While this was by no means mandatory, it was encouraged by my local police department.

I wonder how much the kickback is for said “encouragement.” And I wonder why this particular brand of stupid doesn’t consider paying to join a club “encouraged” by the police to “prove” that you are only interested in exercising your right to engage in activities that have little to do with the intent of the Second Amendment isn’t a gross violation of said right and a twisted perversion of freedom.

STEP 3: I then visited my local police station, where I presented my application for a license to carry, my firearm safety certificate and a letter from my gun club stating my membership was in good standing.

STEP 4: Along with my paperwork I had to pay a $100 application fee. NOTE: In Massachusetts a firearms license is only valid for six years, and the $100 application fee is due any time I reapply.

A $100 fee to exercise a right, eh? I have to wonder once again if this serf even understands the basic definition of a right.

I also have to wonder how poor people, who ostensibly don’t live in safe, often gated communities unlike Boston ad executives, but want a means to protect their homes against armed thugs, can afford all these extra expenses in addition to the several hundred dollars for the purchase of the actual gun!

Why do you hate poor people, Lawson?

STEP 5: I sat through a face-to-face interview with a police officer and submitted to a preliminary background check.

STEP 6: My photo and fingerprints were taken and filed digitally with the Massachusetts State Police, along with the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and the national criminal records database.

Are you applying for a top secret clearance or begging the “authorities” to allow you to exercise a fundamental right?

STEP 7: I made an appointment at the police firing range on Moon Island in Boston Harbor to demonstrate my proficiency with a firearm in front of a state trooper.

Hopefully it wasn’t this guy.

A Massachusetts State Trooper is expected to survive after accidentally shooting himself in the leg, State Police said.


STEP 8: I waited approximately 30 days for my license to be approved.

STEP 9: My class A license to carry arrived in the mail.

I’m sure if you ask any assailant trying to victimize you really nicely to wait until you get your state-sanctioned permission to own a firearm, they’ll oblige. No. Really! Stop laughing!

STEP 10: I visit a nearby gun store, which by law is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau. After presenting my license to the clerk, I was then allowed to browse the store’s inventory.

It’s instructive that you need a license to even go shopping in the People’s State of Massachusetts!

STEP 11: I selected my very fist firearm: a 30/30 Winchester Model 94, a tried and true staple of New England deer hunting.

Because that’s what the Second Amendment is really about — deer hunting. It says so right there in the text. Wait… no? But… but… but… we in Massachusetts know what the Second Amendment is about!

STEP 12: While in the store I submitted to yet another background check, this time over the phone with the FBI.

Sure! What’s another background check to make a constitutionally-protected purchase between a master and its slave?

STEP 13: I waited three days.

Luckily you weren’t a woman who was being stalked and needed a tool to protect herself, eh? But I’m sure if you asked very nicely, the stalker or a violent ex would wait for you to finally purchase your gun!

STEP 14: I returned to the store and picked up my Winchester 30/30, effectively adding my name to the list of over 250,000 legal gun owners in Massachusetts.

Good to know that you don’t mind being added to a state-maintained list of innocent people whose only crime was a desire to exercise their rights. How do those chains taste?

From start to finish, the entire process unfolded over the course of several months, but then again so did acquiring my driver’s license and first car. In fact, one could argue automobiles and firearms are equally lethal machines: each responsible for over 30,000 deaths per year in the United States; so perhaps there’s justification for requiring patience in this endeavor.

I’m willing to bet that acquiring your driver’s license took several months, because the state wanted to ensure that while you’re operating a machine weighing several tons on public roadways, that you are properly educated and trained to do so.

Did you have to pass a background check to buy your car? Did you have to get fingerprinted like a common criminal? Did you have to wait several days before you could take your car home? I don’t think so, Sparky.

Don’t conflate purchasing a car with the months of bureaucratic hoops you had to jump through to purchase a gun. The auto purchase takes a couple of hours and the mere ownership of it does not require training, background checks, fingerprinting, or even a license! The mere purchase requires you have money or sufficient credit to pay for said vehicle. Of course, I don’t expect someone who doesn’t comprehend or respect the plain language of the Second Amendment to understand the difference.

As a gun owner, I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion of sensible gun control, and in the stark light of recent tragedies, I’d say the process of acquiring my first firearm in Massachusetts was exactly as difficult as it needed to be.

While we’re all thrilled that you’re “perfectly comfortable” – OK, we really don’t give a shit, but still… – let me ask you something, Lawson: Are the people who take the time to go through months of background checks, the training, the fingerprinting, and the waiting periods the ones committing violent acts with firearms? Are all these measures effective crime reduction techniques?


Massachusetts has a national reputation as a bastion of gun control, but crimes and injuries related to firearms have risen — sometimes dramatically — since the state passed a comprehensive package of gun laws in 1998.

Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.

But… but… but… that’s because illegal guns are flowing from other states!

That’s not what I asked, Sparky. Are the people who are legally licensed to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts the ones committing the crimes?

gun stats

Not if you judge by the records kept in these states! The majority of people willing to undergo all that rigamarole will, in fact, never commit a single crime with that gun, so how is it, exactly, you think you’re helping mitigate violence by subjecting yourself to statist regulations?

Some vocal conservatives are quick to accuse Massachusetts of being a bastion for the liberal elite who are grossly out of touch with the fundamentals of the Second Amendment. It seems they’ve forgotten this is where the “shot heard round the world” was fired in the name of Independence; where simple colonists in 1775 formed a militia and rose up in arms against a formidable force of British Army regulars.

Do you think those colonists registered their weapons? You think they paid some gold to be able to keep a simple defense tool in their homes? They would have probably slapped you stupid at the thought, you quivering-lipped coward! I would submit that given your ardent willingness to submit yourself to onerous infringements of your rights, you are the one who has forgotten Massachusetts’ history of liberty. Not only that, but you spit in its face!

You’re welcome, by the way.

Oh, please fuck off! 

If it had been you and your fellow vassal colostomy bags fighting the war for Independence, begging the government’s permission to allow you to own a simple firearm, we’d still be a British colony!

Trust me, in Massachusetts we know our history and we know the significance of the Second Amendment. However, we also understand that owning firearms is an immense responsibility, and we have carefully balanced our right to keep and bear them with what I would argue are an appropriate amount of institutional safeguards.

You keep referring to that knowing the significance of the Second Amendment thingy… I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you know your history and the significance of the Second Amendment, then you should also know that responsibility has nothing to do with paying what amounts to bribes to petty statists to allow you to exercise a fundamental right.

And no, I don’t trust you when you tell me how much you respect the right to keep and bear arms, even as you gleefully submit to noxious infringements on said right! I know how to reason. 

Is it a perfect system everyone can agree on? Certainly not. But in a time when contentious shouting has largely supplanted meaningful debate, perhaps that’s too much to hope for. However, there is data to suggest our state gun ownership laws are working. Well, that is to say, they seem to work better than the gun policies of most other states. In a recent study, Massachusetts stands out as having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to Hawaii, a state with a population one-fifth our size.

Actually, no. You lie. And the statistics you cite for only one year are deceptive at best. If you refer to the Boston Globe article I cited above, you will see that gun-related deaths have nearly doubled from 1998 when your state first ushered in its tyrannical infringements on people’s rights!

In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, a striking increase from the 65 in 1998, said Fox, the Northeastern professor. Nationwide, such murders increased only 3 percent from 1999 to 2010, the CDC says.

There were increases in other crimes involving guns in Massachusetts, too. From 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7 percent. Robberies with firearms increased 20.7 percent during that period, according to an FBI analysis conducted for the Globe.

So not only has gun-related violence increased in Massachusetts since the package of draconian gun control measures was passed, but said violence has increased at a higher rate than the rest of this country! How are those “gun ownership laws” working out for you, Lawson?

Clearly the epidemic of gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed on a national level. For any gun owner or gun rights advocate to suggest otherwise is not only stubbornly myopic, but inhumane.

And here we have the emotionalist rhetoric we’ve so grown accustomed to from gun-grabbing freaks and their obedient chattel.

If you don’t support tyrannical infringements on your rights, you’re heartless.

If you don’t like useless bureaucracy making your right to self defense cost-prohibitive, you’re stubborn.

If you aren’t willing to submit yourself to a metaphorical anal probe in order to exercise your fundamental rights – an anal probe that has no hope of actually reducing violence – you’re myopic and inhumane.

Clearly you haven’t heard the news that overall, violence has been on the decline in the United States. So maybe, before you decide to spew another load of nonsense into the Interwebz, you’ll do some research, and also look up the meaning of the word “epidemic.”

So if we’re earnestly looking to take steps towards reducing the number of gun-related deaths in the United States while respectfully preserving our Constitutional right to legally own firearms, perhaps the rest of the country should, once again, look to Massachusetts to lead the way.

And watch our gun-related violence nearly double, as it did in Massachusetts? You’ve got to be shitting me!

Please keep your statist mitts off my rights. I can see you obviously enjoy your shackles, but the rest of us are just a bit smarter than that!

Stick to advertising, Lawson. Obviously logic, basic research, and policy are not your strong points!

Glock Trumps Brick


The Detroit News reports that some loon tried to attack a pastor at a Sunday service with a brick.

“Tried” is the operative word.

Violence marred a church service Sunday when a man with a brick attacked the pastor, who whipped out his Glock handgun and fired several shots, killing the man, Detroit police said.

The pastor has apparently had issues with the brick-wielding derelict before, and the assailant has previously threatened the pastor with physical harm.

But guns don’t save lives, right?

Guns in churches are a bad idea, right?

Guns just make a bad situation worse, right?

The racist prick who attacked a church in Charleston, SC didn’t choose his target because of any lack of security, right?

“I don’t think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school,” Scriven said Friday. “But I think he couldn’t get into the school because of the security … so I think he just settled for the church.”

It’s unfortunate that Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who was one of the victims of the killer’s racist attack, voted against allowing firearms in churches and other venues  as a member of the South Carolina State Senate.

This isn’t the only time a gun in church stopped an attack. Maybe things would have been different if someone – ANYONE – had a way to defend the congregation in Charleston.

They would have at least had a chance.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: