Been without internet for about a week

during the shitstorm after a wannabe terrorist loser murdered a bunch of people, I haven’t been able to join the discussion yet and am way behind on reading posts.  @cyrodiil-burns, @therevenantrising, and numerous others, keep up the good work.

The victims in Orlando shouldn’t have been massacred AND  the proposed gun control laws aren’t going to prevent any future attacks.  The nightclub was full of helpless people, and making everyone else as just as helpless won’t stop another massacre from happening.  Instead, expanding gun laws will only enable more spree killers and terrorists to have more opportunities to slaughter.  One mere follower managed to murder and injure so many in one place, and a coordinated group like in Paris(where machine guns were smuggled in despite strict laws), has the potential to be even worse.  What’s really terrifying isn’t so much the type of guns used, it’s  the realization that an attack could happen so suddenly and that no place is completely safe.

What about a proposal that doesn’t restrict rights and punish everyone for the evil act of someone else?  Normally I’d say that more people concealed carrying in general would be part of the solution, but a nightclub makes that tricky.  Armed security(and workers if they’re not drinking) could help, but not all nightclub owners want to go through the hassle of employing them.  A simple and more manageable option would be to have undercover armed security similar to air marshals.  They would mingle among patrons or sit off to the side, always ready and not consuming any booze while working.  The response time would be quicker than the police(3 hours in this case) and more consistent than hoping someone with a CCW randomly passes by the area when the attack occurs.  There is no perfect magic answer, but unlike adding more laws, this option would actually reduce gun violence, and that’s what so many people are clamoring for, isn’t it?  To feel safer?

To anyone who believes that the U.S. is too dangerous and needs to restrict freedom(not just weapons, things like free speech and due process too) like other countries: I guarantee moving to another country would be less expensive and far less trouble than trying to make people give up their rights here.

 

How do you do, fellow gun owners?

While scrolling through the dashboard on tumblr, I found a link to nradoesntspeakforme.  It’s a site full of submissions of gun owners who… don’t get it.  They send pictures holding a sign that says, “I’m a gun owner who supports laws to reduce gun violence.” with their name & location.  What they’re really saying is, “See, I’m a gun owner, just like you!  But I feel that many guns are too big/powerful/scary compared to mine and they should be restricted more.” or alternatively, “Hey there, non-gun owners!  As you can see I own a gun and speak for all gun owners and even I think that we need more laws.  Don’t you agree?”

If someone disagrees with the NRA, that’s fine, it’s not mandatory to support them.  But the calls for more laws “to end gun violence” are just to dupe people into giving up their freedom.  None of the proposed laws will make anyone safer, none of them will impact criminals more than the innocent, and the only major change that will happen is responsible gun owners having more shit to put up with.  Strangely enough(but not surprisingly), some of the idiots in the pictures are from california and new York, both of which almost seem to be competing for most restrictive gun laws in the country(massachusetts, illinois, and new jersey are a few others).  To someone who appreciates guns the laws in these places are frustrating and ridiculous.  To a fudd cuck proud to be on that site, it’s not enough, and they won’t stop pushing for more.  Not only that, but they want other states to follow the terrible examples they’ve set.

The term “Fudd”(as in Elmer Fudd, the cartoon character) is used to describe someone who believes that guns only can be used for hunting and nothing else, and only certain guns can be used for it.  Now this belief might work for them, but imposing it on other gun owners is bogus.  The reason why is that guns have multiple uses, and the fact fudds only use them for hunting is no excuse to ban the rest.  Even if you never plan on target shooting, competition shooting, or having to use one in defense, why limit your possible options?  And why limit others who responsibly use them for different purposes(and might be in a rougher environment)?  Furthermore, the guns that aren’t considered “sporting enough” to hunt with?  Take the standard magazine out, slap a smaller magazine in, and lo and behold, it can hunt durr!

The term “cuck”(as in cuckold, someone who watches their spouse get fucked) gets thrown around a lot on the internet these days, but it applies well to this situation.  Compromising  rights allows politicians to fuck with said rights.  Just like with fudds hunting only mentality, some people are fine with giving up their freedom.  In fact, they get off on it and it’s all they know and want to know.  That doesn’t mean that everyone else should be required to.  It’s also apparent that not all the owners on the site are aware of what they’re doing.  “Oh, you don’t like the NRA?  You want to reduce gun violence, right?  Here hold this sign.”  They are being used as a political tool to push an antigun agenda while claiming gun ownership.  The next step would be getting them to rat out gun owners who don’t want more restrictions.

 

Blast from the past

This book was written before the retarded AWB took place.  All this time I thought anti-funs coined the term assault weapon as a buzzword(and for people to constantly confuse them with assault rifles) but they just hijacked it to push their agenda(no surprise).  Interesting book though, some familiar guns, some obscure ones.  And semiauto AA-12s are due for importation any day now!

The off-brand glockazine is a lucky find from a garage sale and unfortunately doesn’t feed my problem solver.

 

Added a new problem solver to the collection

DIS MY WALTHER BRAND GLOCK 40 BAYONET, YO.

 

Picked it up at a flea market.  A few people armed with these could take over London.

 

The way they’re looking at each other cracks me up

“Would you look at that, your hair is shaped like my helmet.”

 

Supposed to have posted days ago

Got interrupted while typing, then came back to it several times but lost momentum.  Anyway

Recently I was flipping though the channels and saw something on the news about universal background checks.  It was obvious that the segment was going to be heavily biased in favor of more power to the government but I kept watching for a bit out of morbid curiosity.  The thing that struck me the most was all the shots of a gun store counter.  It’s not much of a surprise because stories on gun violence commonly use that tactic whether the perps obtained it legally from a store or not(for the most part they don’t).  But in this case it’s an even worse use of negative portrayal.

For someone who doesn’t know much about guns and has never bought one, it’s easily misleading.  Look at all those SCARY GUNS.  Anyone could just walk in and get one, so we need more background checks, otherwise those customers are just ticking time bombs for GUN VIOLENCE.  Since the controversy is regarding private transfers, why not show someone opening a trunk or whatever and someone else safely inspects the piece and hands him or her money?  Maybe show that either party can check each other if they want, but that people who know and trust each other have less to worry about?  Nope, won’t do that, and what about the loopholes?  Well, granted gun shows and private transfers have the potential to be shady, but legally they are limited to selling/buying guns that someone with a clean record would be able to buy normally.

Several decades ago guns could be bought in hardware stores, grocery stores, liquor stores, and through the mail, in addition to what we have today.  Now the only options are gun stores/someone with an FFL, private transfers, gun shows, and the black market(illegal version of the last two).  Going back a few more decades, people could go to stores and buy machine guns, silencers, calibers bigger than .50, guns that have short barrels with a stock, and the AOW category wasn’t even made up yet.  Transferring unregistered NFA items is illegal now and the process for getting them legally is more involved than a standard rifle/carbine, pistol, or shotgun.  Nah, viewers don’t need to know that, plus they might wise up to the agenda that regular weapons will become more regulated to the point of NFA items over time.  It’s a felony to make a straw purchase(buying a gun for someone else who is prohibited), but that fact isn’t mentioned either.

California has laws requiring private transfers to have the same process as a gun store.  If every state had shitty laws like that(or worse), as the universal background checks hype is pushing for, there wouldn’t be a significant reduction in violent crime.  Instead, there would be a reduction in armed bystanders and ability to deter and stop the violence.  Remember the supreme douchebag of Santa Barbara?  Despite having a desire to be a spree killer, he went through all the hoops of restrictive gun laws and got a gun legally.  Then, because he was angsty and couldn’t get laid and had been planning something for a while, he stabbed a few people, shot at some people, and hit a person with his car before killing himself when the cops showed up.  The strict gun laws didn’t do anything to prevent all that, and more of them won’t either.

Also showing pictures of airsoft and bb guns and even squirt guns(!) in articles about gun control is just being lazy.  Actually on second thought, it gives a glimpse of the future goals that antigun advocates are pushing for.  Banning them and butter knives is the next step, and then politicians and criminals(same tbh) will attain maximum power over people that used to be individuals.  Source: the UK.

 

Recently found out CA is considering/going to ban the use of bullet buttons, which I find both hilarious and sad.  Going into detail about that would be an article in itself, but basically since detachable magazines are restricted to 10 rounds there, a bullet button is a device that locks a bigger capacity mag in the gun until it is poked at with a stick(or bullet tip).  The only reason it exists is to conform with the strict laws and now it might not be allowed anymore.  A similar situation happened with thumbhole/butthole stocks back in the 90s I think.  They were allowed at first because they were ugly enough and weren’t “protruding pistol grips” but later were considered the same.  Do you see the pattern that follows putting up with these bullshit compromises?

 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Was flipping through the pictures in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s autobiography at the store and saw this:

The context was getting tough with the laws or some shit, as if she needs any encouragement with that. 

This probably took place around the time of the CA ban on the Barret.  It always seemed strange that Arnold would enact a ban on it; He is huge and so is the rifle, they were practically made for each other.  Why would an action hero-turned governator want a rifle like that banned?  Because the demon Feinstein had him under her power.  Yeah, I know, many celebrities that star in violent movies are hypocritical antigunners, but the Barret is still banned in commiefornia to this day.

The name of the book is Total Recall: My Unbelievably True Life Story.  I still want to read it someday because he’s had an interesting life and all but this puts me off of it for a while.

Also, anyone know who the guy in the background is and what’s up with his face?  Is it always like that, did he have a stroke or something, or was this picture taken right after she suckerpunched him?

 

The more you know

?Did you know?

If every gun owner were required to have a FFL, they would have to interact with the ATF(probably other agencies too, and with police if there’s still not enough people) on a regular basis.  There would inevitably be a dog genocide the likes of which the world has never seen.

“Today’s inspection is complete, herr gun owner.  However I see one of your rifles is not compliant with ze new law.  You may be able to reduce your sentence and reapply for a new license if you answer this: how many hounds are you hiding in ze attic?  Your neighbors own guns as well, how many dogs do zey haf?”

Gun control laws murder puppies.

And for the dog-hating cat owners, it’s not just a hound holocaust, any pet can make an agent/officer fear for their life.  Dogs, cats, birds, fish, lizards, whatever, there is someone who react by tazing, beating, mag dumping, fucking, and lighting them on fire to make an example.  The monster will get paid and the pet owner(or family if he/she was killed in the crossfire) might have some fines to pay.

 

 

Sorry but not sorry

Of course she could obtain an AK and hose peasants with it or have her bodyguards shoot someone.

Passing shitty gun laws makes it easier to carve up victims.  And she’d ban chainsaws and still use one LOL

 

Remember the Alamomurderkube

“Damn it, woman, can’t you see they already took the pistol grip?  My hand is resting on a screw and it’s as uncomfortable as we are badly drawn.”   The nice (or sad) thing about this is that most politicians names can be substituted and it’s still relevant.  Outright confiscation wouldn’t fare well in the U.S. but slowly pushing regulations until there is nothing left is something to watch out for.  The danger is that guns will be restricted piece by piece, with fee by fee, category after category.  This is true throughout the world and can apply to things other than guns too.  It’s just easier to apply to more things once the populace is passive and unarmed with their weapons being turned into art exhibits.