You are viewing mzmadmike

Egalitarian Misogynistic Right Wing Liberal Anarchistic Screeds

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> My Website
> profile
> previous 20 entries

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013
12:36 pm - Dismantling the Mouthbreather in Chief's Gun Policies

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 


 


Meaning "nothing."  This is supposed to already exist.  The mass of the bureaucracy makes it awkward, and adding more bureaucracy is not the answer.


 


2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 


 


So, abolish HIPAA?  Because that's exactly what it does in this case.


 


3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 


 


More nothing.


 


4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 


 


In other words, tell him to do his job?  And would this include NOT selling guns to Mexican drug lords?


 


5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 


 


This is already the case.


 


6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 


 


I've never met an FFL who didn't know how to do that.  It's already in the "guidance."  You can even call ATF and they'll talk you through it.


 


7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 


 


Ads about gun safety from idiots who don't know a fucking thing about guns.  Great.


 


8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 


 


Because criminals are very concerned about keeping their weapons secure.


 


9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 


 


You want to do what the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA and most conservatives have been asking the Feds to do for 30 years?  And people say you can't teach a pig to sing.  Will this actually happen, though?


 


10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 


 


This might help, if it's actually a searchable database...and if local LEO actually use it...something the President has no control over.


 


11. Nominate an ATF director. 


 


Oh, right.  You haven't had one for several years. [Popeye voice]  How embarassking! /Popeye voice


 


12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 


 


"You:  Curl up in a ball in the corner and kiss your ass goodbye.  You:  set up a command post and have press releases ready about how bad guns are."


 


13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 


 


Will this involve a paradigm or actualization and implementation of core competencies?  Because it sounds like corporate board room bullshit.


 


14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 


 


What about knife violence?  Domestic violence?  Drunken violence?  Maybe the cause is People?  Nah, that's too hard and would require real thinking.


 


15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. 


 


"Hey, head lawyer:  What do you know about mechanical engineering?  No?  DAMN!"  But let's look at that:  We should spend billions, most of our profits, to develop something that won't work, is easily disabled, that police and military will be exempt from using, and might get me sued if it fails and someone dies, or fails and lets a criminal shoot?  How about, "Go fuck yourself." Does that work for you?


 


16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 


 


So what?  What exactly does asking someone about guns in their homes do?  And as I read the 1st and 5th Amendments, I can tell the doctor to go fuck himself, or say nothing at all.


 


17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 


 


Wow!  There are doctors who don't know that?


 


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 


 


So...exactly what the NRA proposed...hidden down around the end.  Sneaky, sneaky. I see what you did there.


 


19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 


 


Assuming they all have the same floorplan, environment, local demographics and threats, that's brilliant.  Wait, what?


 


20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 


 


I won't comment on this because it might actually be useful, but I have no idea what he actually said. 


 


21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 


 


Ditto


 


22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 


 


I'm withholding comment until I'm sure that doesn't mean "Waste more money, create a bunch of buzzwords not in DSM IV and outrage the mental health community."


 


23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.


"Mental health is a good thing.  We should definitely get some for Washington."




Read more

(6 comments | comment on this)

Saturday, January 12th, 2013
1:54 pm - Who Really Needs An AR15?

This question has been bandied about by people who don't know guns, as some sort of rhetorical trump.  The answer is somewhat complicated for people not versed in the subject, but I'm going to have a whack at it.


The AR15 is a development of an earlier rifle in a larger caliber—the .308 caliber AR10.  The "AR" is from Armalite, the designing company, which at the time (early 1950s) was a division of Fairchild Aircraft.  Some of the most sophisticated alloys and machining techniques were used in its development.


Keep that timeline in mind—1950s.  AR15s have been in military use since 1959, and on the civilian market since 1963—longer than most of you have been alive.  If you're just now becoming aware of them, you're 50 years, half a century, behind the curve.  There have been improvements in this time, but it's been around for two generations.  This might even be your grandfather's gun.  The 30 round magazine, by the way, has been STANDARD CAPACITY for 40 years.  You don't get to redefine it as "high capacity" just because you've recently become aware of it.


The AR15 receiver is made of light, very strong aluminum alloys, to quite tight tolerances.  The barrel and operating parts are various steel alloys, chosen for specific characteristics.  The gun weighs 5-9 lbs depending on configuration.  This is quite light, at the bottom end for rifles, which makes it easier to handle for smaller people.  It's a fact that without the AR15, and its military analog the M16 (which fires in full auto or burst, which civilian AR15s are not capable of), there would be a lot less women in the armed forces or shooting sports.  Not only are earlier self-loading rifles heavier, they usually have heavier springs and operating masses, beyond the capability of many women and smaller men, and youths, to operate.


Also, the AR15 operates by what is called "direct gas impingement."  Instead of using barrel gas pressure to shove a piston to work the action, the gas directly hits the bolt carrier—the cycling part of the action.  There are pluses and minuses to this, but the big plus is a much lighter operating mass.  That means a lot less recoil, which makes shooting easier, and more accurate, for everyone, and makes it usable by some small people for whom a bigger rifle would cause bruising and injury.


It generally comes in 5.56mm, or .223 Remington, developed from what was considered a "varmint" round in the 1950s. Again, there are pluses and minuses.  One plus is that a lighter cartridge means even LESS recoil.  So again, there's an advantage for smaller people.  It's still an advantage to larger people, because recoil itself doesn't offer ANY advantage.  It's a side effect of shooting.  The less side effect, the better.  Also, it's more powerful than a handgun.  The recent case of a lady firing 5 shots from her revolver http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/ without reliably stopping the attacker is an indication that handguns have limitations.


I mentioned "5-9 lbs depending on configuration."  The AR15 is a brilliant design that can be changed in caliber, barrel length and even stock type in a few moments, literally a matter of seconds for most changes in barrel or caliber, by swapping out an entire assembly held in place with two pins.  You can shoot .22 for practice, .223 for varmints, or .458 SOCOM in a carbine length for home invaders.  You can attach a heavier barreled assembly for long range target shooting or sniping.


And the adjustable stock, that 'evil feature' that makes it an 'assault weapon' to some people, means it can be adjusted to fit shooters of different statures or wearing various clothing –parkas vs T-shirts.


Detachable magazines do enable faster reloading, which is a good thing.  Fumbling with a gun while someone is trying to kill you is a bad thing.  Also, a detachable magazine makes it easier to UNLOAD a weapon, which also increases safety.


So, it's a light, versatile, reliable, accurate, easy and safe to use weapon that is excellent for home defense, pest control, recreational shooting and making a political point against invaders and tyrants.  Every home should have a few.


As far as the AK47, it has some advantages over the AR15, some disadvantages, and generally costs ½ to 2/3 as much, so it's better for people on a budget.


Now, let's address some of the snide comments people are going to want to post.


Its political opponents like to bleat, "Guns are only good for killing," as if they've discovered some profound revelation, are standing on some moral peak, or have played some kind of trump.


Well, no, that is not true.  However, as far as killing, or at least stopping people, it is pretty good, and quite accurate.  They also seem to think that killing is a bad thing.  It's not.  Murder is a bad thing.  Killing should generally be avoided, but thousands of years of Common Law, and most state laws, do not prohibit the killing of an attacker, if your own life is threatened.  And unless you're Chuck Norris, an AR15 is a much better tool for this than your fists or a kitchen knife.


There's also the possibility of local or national insurrection or despotism.  While the US has avoided this so far, it is not an impossibility.  It has happened in dozens of prosperous, liberal nations over the last century.  If you deny this fact, or the possibility, please stop reading now and go back to your reality shows.


Don't take my word for it, though.  Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say:



There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander
Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better
able to resist tyranny.
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)



~~~



The most significant of these commentators was Joseph
Story. Contrary to the Court’s assertions, however, Story
actually supports the view that the Amendment was
designed to protect the right of each of the States to maintain
a well-regulated militia. When Story used the term
“palladium” in discussions of the Second Amendment, he
merely echoed the concerns that animated the Framers of
the Amendment and led to its adoption. An excerpt from
his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States—the same passage cited by the Court in Miller34—
merits reproducing at some length:

“The importance of [the Second Amendment] will
scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected
upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence
of a free country against sudden foreign invasions,
domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of
power by rulers.

...."The right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation
and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even
if these are successful in the first instance, enable the
people to resist and triumph over them."



~~~



3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents.
This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.



~~~



Story’s Commentaries
also cite as support Tucker and Rawle, both of
whom clearly viewed the right as unconnected to militia
service. See 3 Story §1890, n. 2; §1891, n. 3. In addition,
in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: “One of the ordinary
modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without
resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it
an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular
army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” A Familiar
Exposition of the Constitution of the United States §450
(reprinted in 1986).


All from District of Columbia vs Heller, 2008.



There.  Several references to being able to fight a tyrannical government, all from four years ago, from the highest court in the land.  DC lost, by the way.


So, yes, the AR15 is made to kill people, and there are some people who need killing, so says common law, codified law, and the Supreme @#$ing Court.  Therefore, if you say, "The only purpose of a gun is to kill people," you're not entirely correct, but you are in fact making a statement that supports gun ownership. Thanks.  We're glad you've figured it out.  One of the main purposes of guns is to kill people who need killing.


"When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails."


No. However, when the problem IS a nail, beating it with a screwdriver accomplishes nothing, and beating it with your fists only causes injury to yourself.  One well-placed hammer blow makes the problem go away.  Thanks for playing.


Just to reinforce this, here's the money quote from Heller:


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."


~~~


In America we have a constitutional right to own modern firearms for the purpose of killing people who need killing to defend ourselves, our communities and our nation.  If you don't like it, there is no law stopping you from leaving.  In fact, as an immigrant myself, I'd encourage you to find a nation better suited to your philosophy, as I did, and move there, as I have done.  In exchange, I have friends and relatives overseas who'd be happy to swap with you.


And my daughter thinks you're a sissy:





Read more

(comment on this)

Wednesday, January 9th, 2013
12:39 am - WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS

I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars.  They don't really mean that, of course.  What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.


I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns.  Let's start:


To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old.  Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory.  This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.


To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21.  A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos. 


For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving.  Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.


New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase.  They may approve or decline or delay the sale.  If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board.  If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.  


Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime.  There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.


Federal Automobile Licensees must agree to submit to 24/7/365, unannounced, unscheduled searches of their entire homes, businesses and any relates properties and personal effects to be named later.


Then you will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street.  Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education.  Also, not all states will accept all licenses.  You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted.  It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through.  Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all.  Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing.


To have a turbocharger, supercharger (External Engine Compression Devices) or a muffler will require an application to the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  A $2000 tax stamp will be required for these High Performance Vehicles.  Your request must also be signed by the local chief law enforcement officer, and you must provide fingerprints.  If approved in 10-16 weeks, you will be responsible for keeping your High Performance Vehicle in secure storage, and request permission in writing to take it out of state.  You will need to carry this documentation with you.  There are 13 states that do not allow possession of High Performance Vehicles.  Be sure you are aware of those laws before planning your trips. (But really, what do you need such a vehicle for anyway? Who really needs to drive that fast? You must willingly accept and adhere to the socially accepted idea that you are inherently evil for merely possessing such a fast, high powered automobile.)


Additionally, superchargers and turbochargers must be manufactured before June 1, 1986. They may be sold and refitted by a FAL who also has a Special Occupational Tax license authorizing him to work on these.  New superchargers, however, are a violation of federal law, except for use by the police or military, or specific government contractors. Expect to pay $15-$30,000 each for these items.  Mufflers will only cost from $250-$1000, plus the $2000 stamp.  However, once the muffler is damaged, it must be disposed of by cutting it into three pieces. Failure to do this may result in your family going through the next decade only knowing you in a prison jumpsuit and all your bank accounts seized and never replenished.


Imported sports cars will be prohibited. You may purchase other items from foreign manufacturers, but your automobile is in a special class of prohibition due to its inherently evil and sinister nature. The frames may be imported, cut into three pieces, and reassembled with US made engines and suspensions, as long as 60% of the parts are American.  Shortly, though, the Transmission Loophole will be closed.  The purpose of allowing imports is for spare parts, not to build more destructive "race vehicles.”  Transmissions will have to be US made.


Repairs may only be conducted by a licensed FAL, who will send a truck to retrieve your vehicle.  It must be a flatbed type truck, winch/dolly trucks are not allowed, under 10/$10,000 penalty.  You may work on your own vehicle, but any repair that exceeds emission or performance standards will be subject to federal criminal charges. And violation of this reasonable regulation could result in not only your imprisonment and the confiscation of your assets but imprisonment of any employee or family member who was insane enough to repair your “race car” for you.


Be aware that an existing HPV may have multiple HP Features.  A new HPV will require a license for each feature you wish to add to it—one each for muffler or external engine compression device. And you must request and receive, in writing, permission from the federal, state and local governing authorities prior to making such modifications.


Converting a standard car to a sports car will require payment of a $2000 tax, even if no HP features are added.  However, if an FAL/SOT does the conversion on a new frame before the vehicle leaves their premises, it will only be a $50 tax.   You will need to carry this documentation in the glove box at all times, the mere failure of which alone can result in an arrest and possible conviction.


There is discussion of closing the Car Dealer Loophole, through which private individuals sell cars to friends without going through an FAL.  It is important we have these background checks.  Surveys show criminals prefer to buy unlicensed to get around their legal liabilities so they can commit crimes in stolen vehicles, which evidence has proven for many years to be true.


There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.


In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry.  There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check.  Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them to an FAL/SOT to dispose of on your behalf.  Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.


These laws and regulations are due to drunk drivers, reckless drivers and other criminals.  The automobile community should be glad it is allowed to exist at all, given all the deaths and environmental damage caused by these vehicles.


The president said today that he strongly supports your right to own and drive basic, standard vehicles for farm use and carpooling. But he and many other people have made it clear that eventually – maybe this month – we need to cease all manufacturing of such high powered automobiles for the civilian market.


Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need.  There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people.  This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.




Read more

(10 comments | comment on this)

Monday, January 7th, 2013
4:41 pm - Why Not Car Control?

Cars are involved in 50% more deaths than guns. About 1/3 of car fatalities involve a driver under age 21. Most lethal car accidents involve multiple casualties. If it's unreasonable to allow someone under 21 to handle a handgun, it is positively insane to allow them behind the wheel of a car, with 6 million times the potential energy, where a SINGLE error or act of will can kill dozens. 

No reasonable person can object to raising the driving age to 21, and improving our background checks--no one with a history of mental illness or psychotropic drug use should ever be allowed to drive a car. Likewise, anyone with a history of anger-related violence is a threat to those around them.

Ultimately, we need to ask the hard question: Who really NEEDS a car? Certainly urbanites with access to mass transit have no need for a personal vehicle, given the inherent dangers and cost to society.

The fallacious response to this is to argue that "cars aren't meant to kill." But, if they are not meant to, but are 50% more lethal than handguns, no reasonable person can argue against tighter restrictions.




Read more

(2 comments | comment on this)

Saturday, January 5th, 2013
9:16 pm - Yes, Nukes
My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.


"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'"  To such people, nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."


No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame close to 100 million honest people for the actions of a less than 10, and to compare the ability to wipe out cities to the ability to defend one's home.


Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda.  After all, they killed Jesus.


And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.


Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.


And most blacks are drug dealers and hookers.


So, yes.  I have a right to own a nuke.  While you jabber in mock fear over the unlikelihood of that ever happening, keep in mind that a rifle, or even a machine gun, isn't a millionth of a nuke.  Trying to play that card just makes you look like a panicky idiot.

My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.


"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'"  To such people, nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."


No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame close to 100 million honest people for the actions of a less than 10, and to compare the ability to wipe out cities to the ability to defend one's home.


Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda.  After all, they killed Jesus.


And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.


Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.


And most blacks are drug dealers and hookers.


So, yes.  I have a right to own a nuke.  While you jabber in mock fear over the unlikelihood of that ever happening, keep in mind that a rifle, or even a machine gun, isn't a millionth of a nuke.  Trying to play that card just makes you look like a panicky idiot.





Read more

(5 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, December 30th, 2012
12:53 pm - More Hilarity Regarding Magazine Bans

I need to keep mentioning this because it's important:  If you aren't well-trained in a subject, it's dangerous and foolish to try to legislate it.  Consider all the internet "equality" and "freedom" and "safety" acts to come out of Congress.


One of the items during so-called "Assault Weapon Ban," is being bandied about for renewal—a ban on "high capacity clips," by which the proponents mean a ban on standard capacity magazines that they don’t like—because 30 round has been standard for AK rifles for 65 years and for AR rifles for 45 years, for example.


Here's the problems: 


The military regards magazines as expendable.  It's desirable to hang onto them and bring them back, but in combat, or even a field exercise, it's expected that some will get dropped and lost.  During an engagement, one should be shooting, communicating, moving and reloading.  "Remembering to secure your partial or empty magazine and stow it back in a pouch somewhere" is a dangerous pain in the ass.


But of course, while there was a civilian ban on new mags in effect, they had to be controlled items, and completely accounted for.  So this law did, in fact, hinder military combat readiness.


Of course, billions of existing magazines were grandfathered and in existence.  So new standard magazines had to be marked with a date and "military and police" or similar nomenclature.  And so did guns during that time.


Here's the wrench in the works:  When the ban went away, millions of mags could be and were surplus sold, as were millions of guns.  All of them marked "military/LE use only," but perfectly legal for civilians.


So, if there's a new round of restrictions, there will have to be a new round of dates stamped on things, and a new round of "ILLEGAL" markings.  In the meantime, some states still have restrictions and their own markings.  Which means there will be an entire catalog of markings to determine what is legal and what isn't.


So, you can expect lots of stuff to slip through the cracks, and lots of people to get falsely accused/detained/arrested/have their property confiscated due to misreading of marks.  It's also entirely possible most cops will just say, "Fuck it" and not bother, especially as one pretty much has to have the magazine in hand to read the marks.


And of course, once again, the military will be required to account for an expendable item as a controlled item, which means troops will be learning to retain their mags rather than engage the enemy.


Given the billions of grandfathered mags, and the millions more being sold every day right now, in case there is such a restriction, it will have no effect whatsoever on crime.


BTW, I said in 1994 that the ban would have no effect, and I was right.  When it expired in 2004, and there were screams of "Blood will run in the streets!" I said nothing would happen, and I was right.


Why did it even exist in the first place?


Charles Krauthammer was at least honest: "The claim of the [ban's] advocates that banning these 19 types of 'assault weapons' will reduce the crime rate is laughable," he wrote. "Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents daren't enunciate. . . . Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity (sic) of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. . . . The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first. . . .Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. . . . The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go."


The purpose is to define an acceptable level of control over a civil right.


I decline.




Read more

(11 comments | comment on this)

Friday, December 28th, 2012
5:21 pm - THIS Is What A "No Compromise" Position Looks Like.
We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing.  We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing.  There are now proposals that we "Compromise" on any weapon more advanced than the 1870s.
I am unwilling to compromise. I have a right to own a nuke and a Minuteman III.
Regardless of how my friends may perceive me, it means one, simple thing:  My position cannot be assailed or deconstructed.  "Keep and bear arms" = "Own and carry weapons."  I don't see an "Except what some people don't like" in there, anymore than I do in the First Amendment.
I demand a right to antimatter once its containment is developed, too.
As far as any small arms--they are so ridiculously easy to make, I regard any firearm law as a complete waste of time and resources.  There are laws against murder.  Murder is wrong whether its done with a kitchen knife, ball bat, gun, car, poison or explosive.
Most of the people I know in code enforcement would rather be chasing real criminals.  I propose to enable them.

(11 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012
11:51 am - Post to a Friend: Shootings and Statistics

More on that Mother Jones article one of your friends posted:

Liz Blankenship: Fun with Statistics: Mother Jones reported that in 62 cases of mass killings, none were stopped by an armed civilian. Whereas Larry Correia states that "The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5." Turns out, Mother Jones' analysis includes only events in which more than 4 people were killed. It's the rather obvious logical problem that if the killer is stopped before he kills lots of people, it never becomes a true mass shooting, so by definition, their analysis excluded any evidence contrary to their conclusion. (thank you Jane)
~~

So, one has to question their motives, since picking that arbitrary cutoff was obviously deliberate--does this mean they prefer to see children die than citizens armed? If not, why deliberately exclude successes?

Point 2: Police are "civilians." If we wish to stop the militarization of police, we need to get away from the notion that police are somehow special and above the rest of us.

You can see the historical list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

The Bath attack in the 1920s involved dynamite. Most incidents are 1-2 people, sometimes a murder suicide. There are some interesting observations:

The rise in body counts parallels two things: Glamorization of shooters with 24 hour news feeds, cable, satellite and the internet, so just maybe some "reasonable" restrictions on free press should be a matter of discussion, and...

Bans on legally owned guns in schools (since for some reason, people bent on violence ignore posted signs to the contrary).

The large body counts are in well to do liberal areas with low crime and no armed presence in schools. The inner cities, who already HAVE cops in schools, have occasional onesies and twosies, but no mass engagements (And again, the US has a third of a billion people).

Average body count with no armed responder present: 14

Average body count with an armed responder present: 2.5
(And easy to check Larry's numbers long term as well as just short term).

Now, when there is a violent crime of any kind in a school, there is GOING to be an armed response.

So, would you rather that response was 10 minutes later, or 20 seconds?

Take your time.

Then see this comparison between police and fire response, vis a vis cultural acceptance, by one of the world's leading experts on the psychology of armed force:

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/

Final point: killers seeking headlines tend to avoid places where they can't get a high body count. So yes, in fact, (a certain amount of) more guns IS the answer, because the killers are going to find access to guns, dynamite, cars, or whatever else it takes to make their headlines--any high school chemistry student can figure out Sarin nerve gas, and while not effective on moving adults in the Tokyo Subway, it could be DEVASTATING on small children in an enclosed room.

This is not to suggest all teachers should be armed, or school students. But observable data indicate a couple of modestly trained personnel first act as deterrent, then act as immediate response.

And the shooters don't seem to "target the defenders first." But even if they do--that's EXACTLY THE POINT of having a defense. Shots fired at professionals are shots not fired at victims.

Final, final point: Neither Sandy Hook nor Columbine involved an assault weapon, by federal or state definition. So renewing a ban on "Assault weapons" will have no effect because it didn't. I covered that in detail in a separate post which I'll be happy to share--it has nothing to do with political position and everything to do with technical definitions and practicality.




Read more

(5 comments | comment on this)

Friday, December 21st, 2012
1:37 pm - How A Rational Debate On Guns Actually Goes:

"Do guns exist?"


"No!"


"I'm sorry you have chosen not to live in the real world.  Next."



"Do guns exist?"
"Yes."


"What can you do about it?"


"We could ban them."


"I'm sorry, there are hundreds of millions of them, and the Constitution and Supreme Court say they're a right."


"I don't like that.  It shouldn't be true."


"I'm sorry you have chosen not to live in the real world.  Next."



"Do guns exist?"


"Yes."


"What can you do about it?"


"Not much, really.  They're made all over, of durable materials, and there's a demand for them, so any law is at most a stopgap."


"What about guns in schools?"


"NO!  There should be laws against that!"


"There are laws against that.  I'm sorry you have chosen not to live in the real world.  Next."



"Do guns exist?"


"Yes."


"What can you do about it?"


"Not much, really.  They're made all over, of durable materials, and there's a demand for them, so any law is at most a stopgap."


"What about guns in schools?"


"Sometimes, a deranged person is going to take a gun to school.  I don't like it, but it happens."


"What should be the response?"


"The police should take care of it."


"Why not have police, or armed citizens, there ahead of time?"


"No!  That would endorse violence!"


"I'm sorry you have chosen not to live in the real world.  Next."



"Do guns exist?"


"Yes."


"What can you do about it?"


"Not much, really.  They're made all over, of durable materials, and there's a demand for them, so any law is at most a stopgap."


"What about guns in schools?"


"Sometimes, a deranged person is going to take a gun to school.  I don't like it, but it happens."


"What should be the response?"


"The police should take care of it."


"Why not have police, or armed citizens, there ahead of time?"


"That would make sense.  They'll be able to respond a lot faster."


"YOU RACIST, NRA, CHILD MURDERER!"




Read more

(3 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, December 20th, 2012
1:44 pm - Why The Assault Weapon Ban Failed, And A New One Would, Too

I will try to make this a layman's presentation.


First, we have to look at the definition of "assault weapon." 


There is a military definition of "Assault rifle," which is a rifle of intermediate caliber, firing from a closed bolt, in select fire (both self-loading, and automatic or burst), intended for engagements primarily under 200 yards.  Assault rifles are strictly regulated by the National Fireams Act of 1934 (It predates assault rifles by a decade), requiring a background check, law enforcement approval, a $200 tax stamp, and are illegal in 12 states at the state level.  No new ones can be manufactured for civilian sale since 1986.  Current market prices are around $12,000 and up.  My research shows none have ever been used to commit a crime of violence.


There are two cases of registered full autos that were not assault rifles used for violence.  Both perpetrators were law enforcement officers.


Using the AR15 as an example, the civilian version has 7 different components inside, than the military version.  There are ways to convert an AR15 to automatic or burst, but it generally requires a machine shop.  If you have a machine shop and the diagrams, you can illegally make your own anyway without much difficulty.


There have been very few illegal conversions used in crime, for the twofold reason of the complication of doing so, and that autos eat a LOT of ammo.  Regardless of movies, the standard 30 round magazine would be expended in 2.8 seconds.  As anyone who shoots auto can tell you, most of those will miss.  A burst longer than three rounds is rarely of effect.  That even drug dealers aren't mowing each other down with Uzis (not an "assault rifle," btw)(except on TV) should prove that this is really not a concern, even if you could do anything about it, which you can't, unless you plan to ban milling machines.  Except, of course, you can see a previous post where I built several AK style rifles in my garage.


The Congressional and some state definition of an "Assault weapon" attempts to FURTHER restrict guns.  However, there are only a few ways to make a rifle cycle, and any attempt to use those definitions means a ban on common hunting rifles.  Instead, the bans focused on cosmetics.


"Flash hider."  Not having a flash suppressor on a rifle doesn't stop it from shooting, or change its shooting characteristics in any way.  Many modern guns have some form of muzzle brake to reduce recoil or climb, or improve accuracy, and these remained legal.  The only difficulty was that they had to be permanently attached instead of threaded.  This made normal sport and hunting guns more awkward to build, without affecting the ability to shoot, changing the power, or anything else. 


"Grenade launcher."  This was a deliberately chosen term to promote hysteria.  Since the 1950s, NATO nations and many others have used 22mm as the diameter for the flash suppressor/compensator/brake.  There are projectiles that fit over the muzzle device, that are launched with a high power blank cartridge.  These are more powerful than regular blanks, and can damage the weapon.  To make use of this, one would need the blanks, and a 22mm projectile (some are explosive, some illumination, some marking).  Such projectiles are very hard to find and not even used much by the military, if at all.  In 25 years of service, I saw one dummy device.  And since 22mm muzzle brakes were still legal, it made no difference whatsoever.  The presence or absence does not affect the rifle's ability to fire.  Also, they remained legal on non-semi auto rifles, because apparently, grenade launchers aren't dangerous on those. 


"Collapsible or folding stock."  Folding stocks enable a weapon to be transported more easily in a case.  Collapsible, or more accurately, adjustable stocks, are a useful feature because the rifle can be adjusted to fit users of different size, or for various seasons of clothing.  The lack is irrelevant at best, frustrating to legitimate shooters at worse.  It makes no difference on the ability of the weapon to fire.


"Barrel shroud."  This stops you from burning your hand on a weapon that doesn't have an existing handguard.  Relevance?  I'm not really sure.  Of course, you have to be careful how you define it, or useful things like free-floated handguards used in competitive shooting become illegal.  But the gun still shoots.


"Pistol grip."  At one time, guns were straight sticks with barrels banded to them.  These days, we have a much better understanding of ergonomics.  A great many modern guns of every type have pistol grips that enable a more secure grip and better shooting.  The inconvenient workaround is a protrusion from the stock that doesn’t enable quite the same grip on the weapon.  In any case, it makes no difference to the ability of the weapon to fire.


Now, one might ask, "If they don’t affect anything, why do you object?"  This is the wrong question.  If they don't affect anything, by what right do you dictate?  What will you dictate next?  Since there was no negative effect on crime when the ban went away, why should we consider any such laws ever again?


There are ongoing attempts to ban weapons by name.  The problem is, a name can be changed, and, the Courts have ruled that it violates equal protection to name one brand and not another.  How hard is it to change brand names?  Not hard.


So, then it was "AR15s or copies."  No good.  The courts say you must define "copy."  Since the terms address cosmetics only, there's no way to do that.


In fact, California shooters have a brisk business in "off list lowers."  A manufacturer makes an AR compatible lower.  They buy it.  Eventually, CA gets around to adding that brand to its "list."  That means a window opens during which it can be registered as an "assault weapon," and all the evil parts that don't affect shooting can be added, thus creating a valuable new transferrable restricted weapon.


I guess if there wasn't such an obsession with banning them, there wouldn’t be such an obsession with owning them.


"High capacity magazines."  This is not only inciteful, it is dishonest.  The AR15 has had a STANDARD 30 round magazine since 1967 (replacing the original 20 round magazine).  The AK series have had 30 and 40 round magazines since 1947.  What you propose is REDUCED capacity magazines.  But, three 20 rounders are as effective as two thirty rounders, and a magazine change takes about a second. (This, btw, is a clear indicator the opponent in debate knows nothing functional about guns.)  The question of course is, if 20 round limits won't do the job, what's next?  15? 10 (which was the law during the ban)? 5?  Once I allow you to dictate a limit, it can be changed arbitrarily.  After all, you've already vilified my STANDARD CAPACITY magazines by claiming they're "high capacity."


However, this was an item that backfired massively, and why I make the snarky comment that amateurs need to not regulate guns because they'll get hurt.


The AR magazine is the NATO standard, or STANAG.  The British L85, the German G36, the French FAMAS, the Korean Daewoo, and quite a few other rifles take the exact same magazine.  There are approximately 63 bajillion of them in existence (and the manufacturers are cranking out more as we speak).  So a ban on new ones doesn't really have any effect on crime or availability.  There are tens of millions of AKs in the world, and billions of magazines.  And of course, under that pesky 5th Amendment, a ban on possession would mean the government having to buy them from us at market value of $12-$50 each.  Some idiot even proposed registering them, without any thought as to how, or who'd keep the records, or how transfers would be conducted.


SIDENOTE—gun haters love the concept of "registering" things.  To what end?  You can't inspect my premises without a warrant, and registering cars certainly hasn't had any effect on drunk drivers or accidents.


But, billions of magazines are out there.  And the same is true of common pistol magazines.  So if you're going to design a new gun, you can choose to design with a proprietary magazine of ten rounds, or adapt existing magazines.  The result of this was lots of manufacturers creating new carbines that took existing Glock magazines, and rifles that took AR magazines.


And…during this timeframe, Colt's patent on the AR15 expired, meaning anyone with a Class 07 Federal Firearms License (Manufacturer), could turn out as many AR receivers as they could mill, without paying license fees.  And they did.


The receiver is the numbered part that is legally the weapon in the US.  All other parts attach to it.  Regulation of those parts is impossible, because they're consumable replacement parts, and exist in the trizillions. 


The AR is almost unique in its flexibility.  It can be anything from a .22 caliber pistol to a .458 SOCOM entry carbine in a matter of seconds, just by changing receivers and stocks (assuming your gun is listed as a pistol on its original purchase form, because going the other way, from rifle to pistol, violates a law.  Why?  You tell me, it wasn't a shooter who came up with that idea).  Its basic design, btw, is from 1955, and the first civilian production guns from 1963, which means that in the coming year, it starts to achieve status as a "Curio And Relic," meaning it's more valuable as an historical artifact than as a rifle.  There are specific subrules for C&Rs that avoid much of the paperwork for modern guns.


The AR's lower receiver and trigger group can also be used to operate other weapons or devices.


It is also now used in quite a few modern hunting guns, such as this http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx which as you can see, is not being marketed for "Shooting up schools."


So, the law changed nothing functional or practical, and instead led to an explosion of new weapons of various designs, and when it went away, nothing changed.


Except one thing:  Gun owners are not inclined to agree to an acceptable level of control, since that level can be changed, until the "right" to keep and bear arms means Airsoft guns.


And thanks to this ruling, we don't have to:


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."


So I ask again, politely:  Please address school security, mental health, and the need of the media to glamorize killers.  Because 94 million law abiding citizens didn't kill anyone last year.




Read more

(2 comments | comment on this)

4:43 am - A Favor of My Liberal Friends


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."

Those of you who know me are aware I was, and am, an outspoken supporter of the rights of gays to serve in the military, and to marry, even while I was serving in the military.


Likewise, I was, and am, vocal about the rights of pagans, wiccans, atheists and other cultural groups not favored by the Christian majority.


I support reproductive choice for women.


I support these because it's the right thing to do, regardless of my personal feelings.


I chastise conservatives who would like to forget the rights of certain groups, based on their feelings, including recently, those who wished to blame the gay community for the child molestation at Penn State.


The Heller Decision regarding the Second Amendment is linked below, with an important excerpt:


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."


I do not ask that you participate in any activity.  


I do ask that you respect the rights of 94 million Americans who were not involved in the incident at Sandy Hook, and who condemn it.


I ask that you return the favor and defend their rights, regardless of your personal feelings.  It is easy to take the moral high ground for a cause one agrees with.  A true challenge for an activist is to support positions one is not comfortable with.


And I ask that you vocally oppose those who claim any such group of Americans enjoys or endorses violence, claims they are lacking in some moral or intellectual fashion, merely for pursuing their Constitutionally guaranteed and court-recognized civil rights.





Read more

(15 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, December 18th, 2012
12:52 am - HOW TO BUILD A FUNCTIONAL STEAMPUNK AK47 IN YOUR GARAGE

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html


Because I can do that.


And guns aren't going away.




Read more

(1 comment | comment on this)

Saturday, December 15th, 2012
7:35 pm - Why It Is Impossible to Ban Guns

Decades later, we're still having this debate.


First, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court stated we do have a right to keep and bear arms.  So that means, you are proposing to violate my civil rights.  That's a dead end issue right there.  If you're trying to find ways to violate my rights only to a certain degree in certain ways, you have to expect that I'm going to fight you as much as any other activist fighting someone who is trying to violate their civil rights.  Hating me for that is irrational, and unless you hate other activists for protecting their rights, there's a word for you--the same word that applies to anti-porn crusaders, anti-religion crusaders and anti-press crusaders.


But, if you still want to have this debate, take a look at this:


http://mackeychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Smith2.jpg



A Smith & Wesson.  It dates from 1882.  I have older ones, but this should prove the point.  Guns don't wear out easily.


And this:


http://mackeychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AKOAL.jpg



I fabricated this (completely legally) in my garage.  It's a nice garage, but that's all you need. 


Consider this project by another gentleman:


http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!


And it works for Browning 1919A4 Machine Guns, too:


http://mackeychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/browningwhite.jpg



(With a few mods to keep it legal)


Guns are a 700 year old technology.  There are modern machine tools that connect to a PC that will produce just about any automobile, machine or gun part.  The barrel is the hard part, but it's perfectly doable—rifled barrels date back only 500 years.  All that's left is knowledge, and then you run into that tricky First Amendment.


Now, even if it became illegal to do so, the knowledge and tools remain.  If there's a black market for illegal drugs, and there is, why wouldn't there be black market for illegal guns?  Britain has a near total ban on firearms and a ready supply from Eastern Europe.  You don't think Central and South America will be happy to meet our illicit needs?  They already produce of a lot of legal guns for our markets.


But even if you manage that, there are millions of existing guns, almost all of them untraceable, in that I mean the only record is of the original buyer from the original dealer, since 1968.  If you make them illegal, most of them will disappear somewhere, because most people do think that being able to defend themselves is a pretty good idea.  And also:  Black market.


By the way, if you only want to ban certain guns, such as "assault weapons" (Which is a meaningless term, but if it makes you feel happy, enjoy it), we tried that.  First, it had no effect on all the existing ones.  Second, the same rifles kept being made, with minor cosmetic changes to meet the law, because there isn't a workable legal definition of "assault weapon." The courts ruled that attempting to ban by name wasn't workable, by function was too vague, and as long as the silly cosmetic rules were followed, they were perfectly legal, by the millions.


Actually, I MIGHT be able to come up with something that would work to define, say, an AR15 in a way that would legally differentiate it from other weapons.  However, I have no intention of helping you find a loophole to violate my rights, you hater  (That's what we call people opposed to civil rights, isn't it?  Hatey hating haters).


But even if you manage that, and somehow get a Constitutional Amendment AND supporting laws through, then you have the fact that you have to pay for the guns you're seizing—curse that pesky 5th Amendment. It seems as if the entire Constitution is against you.  And you're right.  It is.


So, AR15s, times 15 million, times $1200 average value = a shit ton of money.  Okay, $18 billion.  EIGHTEEN FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS just for one type of weapon.  Figure an average of $500 per gun times 280 million guns…I'll let you do the math. 


Take a deep breath.


Okay, this is reality vs your desires, as I've discussed with quite a few other groups.  You can't get what you want.  The end.


Guns are here, readily available, they're not going away, and half the country will fight your attempt, so you're not going to get it.


Now, would you care to discuss some rational approach to fighting crime?  May I suggest we scale back the War on Drugs?  Improve help for the poor and improve education?  Aren't those things liberals support?


And tell those profiteering media types to stop glamorizing killers.  The First Amendment is about political dissent, using lead type and sketches.  Certainly the Founding Fathers never foresaw instant downloads of graphic death into every phone, for the purpose of selling advertising dollars.  How can one defend a "need" for that right?


Food for thought.




Read more

(7 comments | comment on this)

Friday, December 14th, 2012
6:52 pm - School Shootings Are Not My Fault

Okay, I didn't want to weigh in on this, but it's hard not to.


This is a terrible tragedy.  The first and most important thing is medical, moral and legal support for the survivors.  If that wasn't the first thing you thought of, you're an asshole.

I was going to leave it there, but I'm being bombarded with angry posts from people. 


Now, it's perfectly understandable (speaking of the public, not the participants) to feel shock, outrage, impotence, fear.


So, the obvious solution is to BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!!  And I'm a lunatic/hater/right wing retard for owning and using them.

Which is the same bullshit we hear every time there's a crime.


Look, some asshole stabbed a bunch of kids in China yesterday.  The worst school killing in the US was in the 1920s and featured home made bombs.  Some other asshole drove his Cadillac into a schoolyard in the 1980s.  If someone wants to kill people, there are plenty of ways to do so.  Whether or not guns exist, killers will.


As to banning, it'll be about as successful as prohibiting booze.  Guns are a 13th century technology.  They can be built in a modestly equipped garage, and they are.  Peasants in Afghanistan make them in caves.  So any talk of banning is ridiculous.

Also, guns are illegal in schools, so this asshole was breaking the law!  Gee, I guess murderous cocksuckers don't care about laws.  How about that?

In fact, MURDER is apparently illegal in the US, and also not well-regarded. 


Guns exist and you can't make them go away.  If guns didn't exist, there are plenty of other ways to kill people, which were used very effectively for tens or hundreds of thousands of years before guns existed.  

Let the families grieve, pray for them if it makes you feel better, and don't attack the 94 million gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. 




Read more

(26 comments | comment on this)

Monday, November 26th, 2012
2:03 pm - The Additive Property of Bacon or Chocolate

Take an appropriate food--eggs, chicken, steak, or pie, cake, fruit: X


Adding bacon, or chocolate, makes these food MORE AWESOME: X + Bacon = X(qty bacon) or X + Chocolate = X(qty Chocolate)


Eventually, 100% bacon or chocolate is achieved.  This is the maximum coefficient of awesome: MCx(W00t)


The problem comes upon reaching MCx(W00t), some people lose track of the asymptote.


"I should add something to bacon/chocolate to make it MORE AWESOME!"


Sorry, but this doesn't work.  Once maximum awesomeness has been achieved, adding anything else dilutes the awesomeness:  MCx(W00t)-W00t = MCx(W00t)/W00t


Nor does the combination.  In that case, MCx(W00t) X MCx(~W00t) = MCx(blah)


The math proves it.


Maintain your awesomeness.  Don't dilute it.




Read more

(comment on this)

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012
3:10 pm - Papa John's: Econ 101 for Democrats And Complete Morons

So, right after the election, Papa John's cut back hours on a number of employees to avoid the 0care expenses.


Libtards make statements about "greed" and "I guess he's just not very smart" and "it's only a fraction of a percent of his business according to so and so."

First, few pizza places offer ANY benefits, so if he was, he's ahead of most, and if not, it's an indication that the industry can't support said benefits.  Fact.


Second, a fraction of a percent on a business that probably operates on 3% margin is significant.  But even if it's 10% margin, that would mean a 5-10% difference in return, which is significant.


Third, since this man built a billion dollar business, we must assume he does, in fact, have some grasp of business and economics.  You can play "he didn't build that" games all day long.  In fact, he did.  Even if all he did was pick smart people, that would obviously be the winning strategy.


Fourth, we must assume he has those employees because he thinks he needs them.  If he's just employing them for the hell of it, then he's ALREADY an Awesome Liberal Guy.


So, if he's cutting them back, it's not because they're extraneous (And if they were, he'd still be correct to, and, more importantly, as the owner, it's his right to), but because it affects the bottom line of his customers, stockholders and self more than it does the employees.  If you can put yourself first, then he can put HIMSELF first.  If you disagree with this, you must altruistically paypal me $5 to my gmail at mzmadmike.


But, if you're positive you know better than he does, you should absolutely start your own billion dollar business and treat the employees better.  I look forward to it, and will buy your pizza.


Of course, the libtard solution (after gnashing of teeth, wailing of internetz, rending of garments and other demonstrations of impotence) is...BOYCOTT!  Stop buying the Evul Greedy Capitalist's product, and that will TOTALLY teach him!  Maybe a 5% drop in profits will teach him!  He'll have to use austerity measures like... laying off employees!

Yeah, you really are fucking morons. 




Read more

(4 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, October 25th, 2012
11:14 am - What He Said Is What He Meant

Obama: "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."


~~~


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865 British bayonet charge in Basra.  You can also find quite a few pictures of US troops with mounted bayonets.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/06/us/afghanistan-horse-soldiers-memorial/index.html A tribute to the Special Ops guys who went into A-stan on horseback to find intel.  


 If I knew there was a John Ringo book coming out next week, I would not say "John Ringo is outdated," or even "John Ringo isn't publishing as much as he used to." Either statement COULD be correct (They're not, but this is a mental exercise), but the impact of said statement would be lost when the new book came out. 


This would tend to indicate 0 did not know about this monument. It reduces the impact of his statement. So he's really not paying attention to matters military.


Then, his statement on bayonets was wrong. That's a bit more esoteric, when speaking off the cuff, but it was still an assumption based on the information he had, which wasn't adequate for the statement.


That leaves "X is to Y and Z" comparison. So, even accepting Romney's statement as bland and inaccurate (Keeping in mind he is not yet CinC and hasn't had a military brief), the comparison was poor. It indicates he thinks Y and Z aren't as useful or relevant as they used to be, and X isn't either. Yet provably, X, Y and Z are still all relevant. And he should certainly know X is still relevant because that IS part of his military briefs.


So, he made an off the cuff comment that tells us a lot about him--he's not paying attention to the military either operationally or socially, hasn't paid attention to some of the more interesting aspects of the clandestine war, and is dismissive of a suggestion of modernizing or upsizing, with a false comparison.


And this man has the responsibility and authority to send my wife and friends (And hypothetically recall me, as I'm Retired Reserve) off to fight a war he's not really paying attention to.


Unless he meant something entirely different and my grasp of military matters and writing is sub-par.S

So:


If I knew there was a John Ringo book coming out next week, I would not say "John Ringo is outdated," or even "John Ringo isn't publishing as much as he used to." Either statement COULD be correct (They're not, but this is a mental exercise), but the impact of said statement would be lost when the new book came out. 


This would tend to indicate 0 did not know about this monument. It reduces the impact of his statement, as we have seen from the massive mockery in the blogosphere.  Even if he were correct, it was a stupid thing to say in context, which is what a politician needs for good soundbites.  This was a TERRIBLE soundbite for a man trailing in the polls. So he's really not paying attention to matters military.


Then, his statement on bayonets was wrong.* That's a bit more esoteric, when speaking off the cuff, but it was still an assumption based on the information he had, which wasn't adequate for the statement.


That leaves "X is to Y and Z" comparison. So, even accepting Romney's statement as bland and inaccurate (Keeping in mind he is not yet CinC and hasn't had the relevant military brief), the comparison was poor. It indicates he thinks Y and Z aren't as useful or relevant as they used to be, and X isn't either. Yet provably, X, Y and Z are still all relevant. And he should certainly know X is still relevant because that IS part of his military briefs.


So, he made an off the cuff comment that tells us a lot about him--he's not paying attention to the military either operationally or socially, hasn't paid attention to some of the more interesting aspects of the clandestine war, and is dismissive of a suggestion of modernizing or upsizing, with a false comparison.


And this man has the responsibility and authority to send my wife and friends (And hypothetically recall me, as I'm Retired Reserve) off to fight a war he's not really paying attention to.


Unless he meant something entirely different and my grasp of military matters and writing is sub-par.  (HINT:  I am a career professional at both. I may be wrong, but no one has yet offered any substantive explanation as to how, only rants of, "You know what he meant!"  As writer, I perfectly understand metaphor and statement. This was a crappy metaphor and an incorrect statement.)


~~~


From others:


"Outside of the entire conversation before this, I guess that whole shift to the Pacific/Air Sea Battle planning stuff going on now missed 0's desk somehow. So, Romney was absolutely right to criticize him for having a smaller fleet. Just because we have carriers and subs, doesn't mean it's enough to accomplish our mission. 


Given that we do actually need more ships (of today's capabilities), and the impeding defense cuts will make that nearly impossible, Romney's comparison between 1917 and today was most certainly valid. 0's response to it was both flippant and uninformed, neither of which is acceptable for our CinC." (Army Intelligence officer)


__


"Actually being in the Navy, I'd like to point out most of our ships are pretty old, with some semi serious issues (how about a 3 story crack in the superstructure that's been welded closed twice?). And subs and carriers may be the glamorous ships, but without cruisers and destroyers, or even supply ships, they won't last 2 minutes in real combat.


When I worked at the Armory at my last shore command we had crates of Bayonets in our storage area, I think there were 6K when we did an annual Inventory once. One for each rifle in our inventory and some spares." (USN Petty Officer)


__


"Isn't it interesting that this President, who was touted as such an eloquent speaker back in 2008, has to have all these people come out and tell us what he _meant_ to say rather than simply relying on what he actually said?" (David Burkhead:  USAF Intelligence vet and physicist) 


~~~


* Production numbers for the 1905 Bayonet for the Springfield 1903 were ~1.5 million through 1922.  Production numbers of the M7, M9, and OKC3 bayonets from 1965-ongoing are ~2.5 million.  Granted, some have been surplussed, but they are certainly very much an issue item and in use, and in greater numbers than WWII.  He should have said, "Less battleships."


~~~


He was wrong, he was condescending, and he was poory spoken, which is true of just about everything he's done.  Trying to tell me how he's really smarter than I am in my own field and I'm just too stupid to grasp it is hilarious.





Read more

(6 comments | comment on this)

Monday, October 22nd, 2012
11:56 pm - Immortalizing An Idiot


lemontree46 (RockGuitar playin', God Lovin', Conservative, Right Wing, Christian. Connecticut raised. Now living in Upstate Western NY) :  Obama is the worst president in history.


Michael Z Williamson ‏@mzmadmike

@lemontree46 Nah, he's not even close to as bad as FDR.



Thomas

@lemontree46

@mzmadmike I don't don't remember reading that FDR joined with and was supported by countries who hate America. Did FDR ever bow to Hitler?~~~


er, huh? 0bama "joined with" countries that hate America?  How does one do that?  Supported by, you might make a case for, but that's true of a lot of presidents on both sides.  And the bow comment seems to be equating Kiing Abdullah with Hitler, which is ridiculous.  I guess everyone this guy doesn't like is Hitler.  I'd hate to call him a mouthbreathing retard, but the evidence suggests so.


lemontree46 (RockGuitar playin', God Lovin', Conservative, Right Wing, Christian. Connecticut raised. Now living in Upstate Western NY) :  Obama is the worst president in history.


Michael Z Williamson ‏@mzmadmike@lemontree46 Nah, he's not even close to as bad as FDR.

Thomas@lemontree46@mzmadmike I don't don't remember reading that FDR joined with and was supported by countries who hate America. Did FDR ever bow to Hitler?


~~~


er, huh? 0bama "joined with" countries that hate America?  How does one do that?  Supported by, you might make a case for, or at least by certain elements thereof. But that's true of a lot of presidents on both sides.  And the bow comment seems to be equating Kiing Abdullah with Hitler, which is ridiculous.  I guess everyone this guy doesn't like is Hitler.  I'd hate to call him a mouthbreathing retard, but the evidence suggests so.



~~~



Michael Z Williamson @mzmadmike 22 Oct

@lemontree46 FDR put 110K Asian Americans into concentration camps and made it illegal to own gold.  He strongly supported eugenics.




Michael Z Williamson @mzmadmike 22 Oct

@lemontree46 promoted sterilization of undesirables, tried to pack 6 extra judges into the SupremeCourt to get his whims passed. Need more?




@lemontree46

@mzmadmike BO supports killing third trimester babies and Asians were sequestered because we were AT WAR with Japan U bozo So screw..!!

~~~


Ah, yes.  Being at war with Japan totally justifies imprisoning thousands of AMERICAN CITIZENS who may or may not be of Japanese ancestry, may or may not even speak Japanese if they are, because they have slanty eyes.  I'm going from an assessment of "mouthbreathing retard" to "racist cocksucker."


~~~


 Thomas


@lemontree46

@mzmadmike What the hell do U think Obama wants to do with the SCOTUS? Don't bother me with your pro Obama crap anymore..


~~~


"pro 0bama crap," because I happen to know something of history, and apparently the words are too big for him.  So are the numbers--FDR wanted 15 Justices, 6 hand picked by him to rubberstamp his bullshit.  Even his own party wouldn't back him up on that.  And of course, there was that president-for-life gig, in violation of 150 years of tradition, so bad it took a Constitutional Amendment to make sure it would never happen again. Then we can add in the huge police state and welfare state he almost single handedly created, and a dozen other items.  0's an ineffective idiot, but he's got nothing on FDR for pure, narcissistic evil.  FDR, btw, was a Democrat, so he can't even claim partisanship.  Both patients in discussion are from the same party.

But I guess that sounds like "pro-0bama crap" to an ignorant, semiliterate, racist cocksucker who claims to be a Christian.

I have no idea where abortion comes into this debate, or why it's even relevant, given that SCOTUS has consistently ruled the same way on that subject for 40 years through 8 administrations.  Dead issue.  Grow up and move on.

Please.  Comparing people to Hitler is stupid, unless they're Hitler.  And never call someone "worst" unless you've actually got some useful evidence.  "Oh, boo hoo, he disagrees with what someone else told me my religion stands for, he's the worst EVAR!"

Sorry, 0 doesn't deserve that much credit.


Someone feel free to send Lemonhead this URL.  Though you may have to explain the big words for him.



 




Read more

(3 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, October 16th, 2012
10:22 am - Someone Else Tries to Reason with 0bama Supporters
Gillian Gabrielle Barnett

I wonder every morning how my son ended up at this highly Republican school. Every house surrounding it has Romney signs in the yard. I haven't seen one Obama sign...

Share · about an hour ago via mobile · 


Featuring Tristan Swann i seen a bumper sticker that said obama worst president ever i said damn.....HOW?

about an hour ago · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett Racist

about an hour ago via mobile · 1


Scott Hiland My, what an inordinately overused epithet, so widely applied to people who have no other fault than to disagree with the President.

about an hour ago


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett I honestly think a lot of people are mad at his skin color. President Obama hasn't done anything wrong. Romney sounds like an idiot to me yet people support this guy like wow! I even was on the fence until I saw how rude and nasty he was at the debate. I don't want that in a President. I think a lot of people are just mad this guy is black. That's just my opinion.

about an hour ago via mobile · 1


Scott Hiland Painting such a wide stripe on people is called prejudice or stereotyping.

about an hour ago


Featuring Tristan Swann soon as its one black president he the worst!!!!im still saying how?he aint did nothing bad!!!bush cheated in florida.....clinton got head....etc...he just did his job!!!!and again the worse!!!!u got to be a tard to believe that ish

about an hour ago · 2


Scott Hiland And I want to emphasize that I'm not saying he is the worst president ever. I'm trying to talk about the discussion itself.


GiGi, there are plenty of reasons to dislike our current President, or any President. It is a low and unworthy rhetorical tactic to immediately label all who would use hyperbole to support their positions as racist. The term racist is so loaded as to prevent reasoned discourse. It is unworthy of you to use that tactic when I know you're intelligent enough to support your own arguments without ad hominem attacks.

about an hour ago · 1


Iris Edmundson-Kirkland Morning GiGi, I work in Mclean and I'm surrounded by Romney supporters too! I keep asking myself is this some kind of secret society and only the rich are aware of his plan????

about an hour ago · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett Scott, my opinion on people who say my President is the "worse" is they have a problem with his race. That's my intelligent claim of the day. I actuallly thought a few things Romney has been saying made sense but then he really doesn't tell us how he wants to attack his issues and I don't want to make comment on his VP running mate. No one thinks Bush was the WORSE or even Clinton as my brother states and those two... No comment. I am upset someone would say Obama is THE worse. He's done a lot in his 4 yrs or has people forgotten....??????? Bin Laden, Healthy new lives for kids... And, he's working on this economy. He can do but so much in this time with Congress not always backing him. Worse??? No way! Romney is not gonna be any better. The guy is all talk! But I don't go around saying he's the worse.

about an hour ago via mobile · 2


Featuring Tristan Swann right romney worst presidential candidate ever!!!lls...that would be player hatin...lls

about an hour ago · 2


Iris Edmundson-Kirkland Sorry, but I have a BIG problem with an administration that states that their PRIMARY GOAL is to make sure President Obabma does not serve another term, instead of focusing on a way to better America's economy, healthcare, and educational systems.

55 minutes ago · 2


Scott Hiland Every new election brings hyperbole, and superlatives will be used from both sides. It doesn't automatically make someone a racist. Saying or suggesting it does smacks of prejudice and racism on your part.


That sort of claim tends to be divisive and ultimately to drive people away from seeing your point of view. Immediately rushing to judgment and calling names will only solidify their opinions. Sort of like calling Obama the worst president has overcome your intellectual better judgment because it assaults your emotions.


I would stick with the facts and say that whoever has a bumper sticker like that is either focusing on one particular criteria or group of criteria for success in the office, or is misinformed or uninformed.

55 minutes ago · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett I see your point @ Scott. And, saying someone is racist is just like them saying he's the worse. I totally see your point though.... I hate politics and it divides so many people but I'm the same person who wants to run into a car that has Dallas stickers. Lol...


I will say this... Support Romney and have your stickers but stickers saying Obama is the worse makes me not respect who a person is. How can you say something so rude and expect I trust you or who you are following???


@ Auntie... Right. Not one time has the R party told us what they plan to do and how. Sooo worried about Obama. Which tells me Obama, in fact, is doing his job. Not one fact outta the R parties mouth. No plan for our kids. Want to control women's bodies based on THEIR religious beliefs. They tripping!

43 minutes ago via mobile


Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson this man has been disrespected from the onset of his presidency...some news stations wont even call this man President Obama..but still calls Bush President Bush.. if Romney wins...im calling him Mittens...lls

43 minutes ago via mobile · 2


Minister Evelyn Serrano Go Obama U can do it! IDC if Obama was THE worst president eva...I will vote for him just because I don't want to vote for Romney. Romney and I have NOTHING in common. He does not understand my plight and he never will until the day he becomes a single parent struggling to keep my kids safe, finding a job and just the day to day struggle of trying to keep my head above water. I have a problem voting for anyone who has grown up in a seperate world from the one we live in...Obama may not always do the right thing and he will never please EVERYONE but he is trying and doing a great job of keeping his cool and demeanor despite the constant attacks on EVERY thing he does or tries to do. I would like to see some of these folks be president for a day and see how they would handle it.

23 minutes ago via mobile · 2


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett Lmaoooo!!!!!!! Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson they disrespectful as hell calling Michelle, Moochelle and the likes. Who would support people who hate us so much that you dis our name? Obama and Michelle has been better than Clinton and Hi...See More

16 minutes ago via mobile · 2


Scott Hiland Also, a quick poll, did I give anyone the impression that I support Romney? Or was it an assumption made outside of reading the content of my comments?

11 minutes ago · 1


Minister Evelyn Serrano Yeah you came off like a die hard romney-ite....lol J/K.

9 minutes ago via mobile · 1


Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson Exactly!!! Michelle is the prettiest First Lady that has been in the House since Jackie Kennedy...

8 minutes ago via mobile · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett No @ Scott! And, honestly I will love you no matter if you did!


Lol @ Evey!

7 minutes ago via mobile


Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson That's what Im saying! If you wanna vote for Romney...by all means do so..but don't disrespect MY President!!

5 minutes ago via mobile


Scott Hiland I think all presidents get their share of respect and disrespect. It is the nature of the job. I think that in the case of our current president, everyone's sensitivity meter is turned up to 11.

Gillian Gabrielle BarnettI wonder every morning how my son ended up at this highly Republican school. Every house surrounding it has Romney signs in the yard. I haven't seen one Obama sign...Share · about an hour ago via mobile · 
Featuring Tristan Swann i seen a bumper sticker that said obama worst president ever i said damn.....HOW?about an hour ago · 1



Gillian Gabrielle Barnett Racistabout an hour ago via mobile · 1


Scott Hiland My, what an inordinately overused epithet, so widely applied to people who have no other fault than to disagree with the President.about an hour ago


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett I honestly think a lot of people are mad at his skin color. President Obama hasn't done anything wrong. Romney sounds like an idiot to me yet people support this guy like wow! I even was on the fence until I saw how rude and nasty he was at the debate. I don't want that in a President. I think a lot of people are just mad this guy is black. That's just my opinion.about an hour ago via mobile · 1


Scott Hiland Painting such a wide stripe on people is called prejudice or stereotyping.about an hour ago
Featuring Tristan Swann soon as its one black president he the worst!!!!im still saying how?he aint did nothing bad!!!bush cheated in florida.....clinton got head....etc...he just did his job!!!!and again the worse!!!!u got to be a tard to believe that ishabout an hour ago · 2


Scott Hiland And I want to emphasize that I'm not saying he is the worst president ever. I'm trying to talk about the discussion itself.
GiGi, there are plenty of reasons to dislike our current President, or any President. It is a low and unworthy rhetorical tactic to immediately label all who would use hyperbole to support their positions as racist. The term racist is so loaded as to prevent reasoned discourse. It is unworthy of you to use that tactic when I know you're intelligent enough to support your own arguments without ad hominem attacks.about an hour ago · 1


Iris Edmundson-Kirkland Morning GiGi, I work in Mclean and I'm surrounded by Romney supporters too! I keep asking myself is this some kind of secret society and only the rich are aware of his plan????about an hour ago · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett Scott, my opinion on people who say my President is the "worse" is they have a problem with his race. That's my intelligent claim of the day. I actuallly thought a few things Romney has been saying made sense but then he really doesn't tell us how he wants to attack his issues and I don't want to make comment on his VP running mate. No one thinks Bush was the WORSE or even Clinton as my brother states and those two... No comment. I am upset someone would say Obama is THE worse. He's done a lot in his 4 yrs or has people forgotten....??????? Bin Laden, Healthy new lives for kids... And, he's working on this economy. He can do but so much in this time with Congress not always backing him. Worse??? No way! Romney is not gonna be any better. The guy is all talk! But I don't go around saying he's the worse.about an hour ago via mobile · 2


Featuring Tristan Swann right romney worst presidential candidate ever!!!lls...that would be player hatin...llsabout an hour ago · 2


Iris Edmundson-Kirkland Sorry, but I have a BIG problem with an administration that states that their PRIMARY GOAL is to make sure President Obabma does not serve another term, instead of focusing on a way to better America's economy, healthcare, and educational systems.55 minutes ago · 2


Scott Hiland Every new election brings hyperbole, and superlatives will be used from both sides. It doesn't automatically make someone a racist. Saying or suggesting it does smacks of prejudice and racism on your part.
That sort of claim tends to be divisive and ultimately to drive people away from seeing your point of view. Immediately rushing to judgment and calling names will only solidify their opinions. Sort of like calling Obama the worst president has overcome your intellectual better judgment because it assaults your emotions.
I would stick with the facts and say that whoever has a bumper sticker like that is either focusing on one particular criteria or group of criteria for success in the office, or is misinformed or uninformed.55 minutes ago · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett I see your point @ Scott. And, saying someone is racist is just like them saying he's the worse. I totally see your point though.... I hate politics and it divides so many people but I'm the same person who wants to run into a car that has Dallas stickers. Lol...
I will say this... Support Romney and have your stickers but stickers saying Obama is the worse makes me not respect who a person is. How can you say something so rude and expect I trust you or who you are following???
@ Auntie... Right. Not one time has the R party told us what they plan to do and how. Sooo worried about Obama. Which tells me Obama, in fact, is doing his job. Not one fact outta the R parties mouth. No plan for our kids. Want to control women's bodies based on THEIR religious beliefs. They tripping!43 minutes ago via mobile


Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson this man has been disrespected from the onset of his presidency...some news stations wont even call this man President Obama..but still calls Bush President Bush.. if Romney wins...im calling him Mittens...lls43 minutes ago via mobile · 2


Minister Evelyn Serrano Go Obama U can do it! IDC if Obama was THE worst president eva...I will vote for him just because I don't want to vote for Romney. Romney and I have NOTHING in common. He does not understand my plight and he never will until the day he becomes a single parent struggling to keep my kids safe, finding a job and just the day to day struggle of trying to keep my head above water. I have a problem voting for anyone who has grown up in a seperate world from the one we live in...Obama may not always do the right thing and he will never please EVERYONE but he is trying and doing a great job of keeping his cool and demeanor despite the constant attacks on EVERY thing he does or tries to do. I would like to see some of these folks be president for a day and see how they would handle it.23 minutes ago via mobile · 2


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett Lmaoooo!!!!!!! Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson they disrespectful as hell calling Michelle, Moochelle and the likes. Who would support people who hate us so much that you dis our name? Obama and Michelle has been better than Clinton and Hi...See More16 minutes ago via mobile · 2


Scott Hiland Also, a quick poll, did I give anyone the impression that I support Romney? Or was it an assumption made outside of reading the content of my comments?11 minutes ago · 1
Minister Evelyn Serrano Yeah you came off like a die hard romney-ite....lol J/K.9 minutes ago via mobile · 1


Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson Exactly!!! Michelle is the prettiest First Lady that has been in the House since Jackie Kennedy...8 minutes ago via mobile · 1


Gillian Gabrielle Barnett No @ Scott! And, honestly I will love you no matter if you did!
Lol @ Evey!7 minutes ago via mobile


Volitta KeepthenegativitytoYaself Robinson That's what Im saying! If you wanna vote for Romney...by all means do so..but don't disrespect MY President!!5 minutes ago via mobile


Scott Hiland I think all presidents get their share of respect and disrespect. It is the nature of the job. I think that in the case of our current president, everyone's sensitivity meter is turned up to 11.






Read more

(2 comments | comment on this)

1:22 am - Trying To Be Logical With People Who Want To Find A Race Issue

(5 comments | comment on this)


> previous 20 entries
> top of page
LiveJournal.com