Sonomabatch. I wrote this post about an hour ago but I had one last link and when I hit it, I got a pop up that when I closed,  closed every window and tab opened and the autosave draft was useless. That’s too bad, because that was possibly the best blogging I’ve ever done and it’s all gone.Seriously, the bon mots were especially bon.

The theme was “Send guns and money, keep the lawyers”.

I know, I shouldn’t use ExplorerNetscape…Firefox. Can we get to when I’m not supposed to use Google Chrome? That’s the only browser I don’t like.

So here we go round the tubes. Again.

First in send guns edition, we get a police commissioner doing two funny things, telling the truth both about the law and his intentions and talking about wanting to make guns even more illegal to get them off the streets. The law won’t do crap, he wants to ban handguns and making them more illegal will take them off the streets. Oh, and he’s an idiot who doesn’t understand cause and effect.

So let’s hear it from Ray Kelly in the NY Post, explaining why we can’t be trusted but he can.

While assault rifles serve no legitimate hunting purpose, and their ban would be a welcome advance after the Newtown slaughter,…

By contrast, a total of 77 assault weapons were seized in arrests in the city, less than 3 percent of the total.

In only three of nearly 1,400 shooting incidents last year were ballistics associated with assault weapons.

 

So, assault weapons bans are useless even if they’re effective (which they aren’t, aside from only banning scary options, those guns were probably already illegally possessed), but those guns are scary so let’s ban them.

But then we get to the meat(head) part of his ‘argument’. The ellipses above took out talk about how handguns were mostly used in crime. Which handguns were probably nearly exclusively illegally possessed as it’s very hard to get a permit in NYC unless you’re one of the bien pensants (only thinking bien thoughts and, more importantly, supporting bien pols and bien positions while giving lots of bien money).

Back to Ray. He tells us about a specific gun (Ruger) used to kill Teh Children, then explains why making guns even more illegal will be good and then this.

Ninety percent of the guns used in crimes in New York City also originated out of state, with Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida among the most frequent repeat states of origin.

 

 

Love that, most originate out of state. From which states the most? We don’t know, he just says these are some of the places, notice he only talks about free states, but I wonder how many originate (were stolen) from Conn., Mass, NJ and Vermont? Especially since Vermont has some seriously lenient gun laws and shares a long border that’s mostly a lake (Champlain) that leads to 87 which leads directly to NYC. Hmmmmm, now why wouldn’t a leftist, authoritarian not refer to a leftist state with a Socialist senator?I’m stumped.

He disregards that 90% of the guns come from out of state (I would bet that, like 42% of all statistics, that 90% is completely made-up), what the hell does he think is going to happen if we make guns illegal in the US? That’s right you fucking moron, criminals will get guns from out of the US. Mexico has a nice pipeline of illegal people and good flowing in, that should pick up the slack. So I won’t have a gun, but Putin, Chavez’ successor and the gov’t of Mexico will be more than happy to sell AKs(first two) and ARs(ours, sort of a lend-lease from Mexico) to our criminals. Yay! Asshole.

Speaking of which, here is the pdf of the scary options banned.  I look forward to Bushmaster’s new line of AR-15s (or whatever they call them) with a smooth, fixed, pistol-grip-less stock and deluxe, target barrel with no bayonet mount that comes with a 7-round mag. No shoulder thing that goes up, but that goes without saying. (or ever rationally thinking)

Next, we have my favorite type of op-ed, when one of our “Elite” looks at an issue  for the first time, shows he has never, ever read any gun-blogger or 2nd amendment proponent talking about gun laws and is stumped. He looks at the proposed gun laws and finds they won’t really do anything, they’re not ‘rational’.

This heightened “rationality review” could help ensure that the reason being articulated is the real reason for the law.

Bwahahahahahahahahhaha. The reason for the law is never the reason being articulated. Especially when talking about gun laws. The reason behind gun laws is control. When a law claims the death of a child or children as its patron, you have to accept that the people proposing the law are dancing  in the blood of that child or children and look at the law accordingly. It’s not rocket surgery.

Wow, this time is longer, sorry. I was less loquacious earlier. I had only had one cup of coffee at that time.

Next, we have stuff heating up in Lebanon with Israel bombing along the Syrian-Lebanese border.  Eh, you know them Jews, probably a baby-milk truck convoy. Bastards.

In ‘Send Money’ hilarity, we have another ‘Elite” furrowing his brow and not understanding reality.

Headline

US debt headed toward 200 percent of GDP even after ‘fiscal cliff’ deal

How do you respond to that? This fool thinks that raising the borrowing limit was supposed to lower debt.

See, this is my problem. When people who think they’re intelligent actually say stuff that fucking stupid I can’t help but laugh and explain in great detail exactly how fucking stupid they are, or I just keep my mouth shut. I wish I knew some way in between, but when I try my tone of voice screams, “You fucking moron!!!!!!” or is the tone you use when you explain to a 2-year old why they don’t want to put the kitten in the microwave. You use a totally different tone of voice when you’re telling the 2-year old why you should put the kitten in the microwavce.

I lost some links, so even though this time is longer, there are fewer links. So less for more. Another victim of the Obama economy!

I’ll leave you with an absolutely beautiful way to get college girls to sleep with you while not costing all that much money (certainly not considering you’re buying in bulk). Via Wyatt.

The University of Minnesota is spending $3,400 to host a symposium this spring specifically designed to help its female undergraduate students achieve bigger, better and more orgasms.

 

I’m a little depressed I didn’t think of that.I wonder how they’ll do it. I figure, you put all the girls in the gym on the mats, get them naked and tell them to start touching themselves while you and your assistants will wander the roome and help them as you see necessary. Not forgetting, of course, the important role blowjobs play in the female orgasm.

If the nearest bar doesn’t have “Ladies Night” right after the Symposium they’re idiots.

Well, that’s that. I will say that using a laptop outside in AZ is not all that easy. I get to watch myself type in the screen and I can’t see the cursor for crap.

Comments
  1. I’m betting that’s a simple Pass/Fail class at Montana.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s