Home

Details

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.

Details

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. 

Details

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.

Details

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. 

  1. What He Said Is What He Meant
  2. Immortalizing An Idiot

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home