3D Printed Metal Gun

Once again zerg539 was kind enough to forward some excellent information to me. Most of are aware of efforts to produce firearms using 3D printers. The biggest limitation so far has been materials. Plastic isn’t the best material to build an entire firearm out of. Nobody has reported printing a firearm with one of those fancy, and every expensive, metal printers until today:

Austin, TX – Solid Concepts, one of the world leaders in 3D Printing services, has manufactured the world’s first 3D Printed Metal Gun using a laser sintering process and powdered metals. The gun, a 1911 classic design, functions beautifully and has already handled 50 rounds of successful firing. It is composed of 33 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel 625 components, and decked with a Selective Laser Sintered (SLS) carbon-fiber filled nylon hand grip. The successful production and functionality of the 1911 3D Printed metal gun proves the viability of 3D Printing for commercial applications.

And it works quite well:

As you can guess, some people are unhappy about this. I think advocates of gun control realize their movement’s days are numbered. 3D printers are only going to become more affordable and widespread. It’s possible, and I would argue likely, that a majority of homes in this country (and others) will eventually have some kind of fabrication unit. These fabrication units will start off as simple 3D printers capable of working with plastics but will eventually become sophisticated units capable of working with various materials, including metals. Once that happens the entire concept of gun control will be dead. Just as the Internet has effectively killed censorship, 3D printers will eventually kill prohibitions of physical objects. Heck, as the prices of 3D printers capable of working with metals come down they will eventually reach a point where a handful of individuals will be able to pool their resources and buy them.

Decentralized systems are notoriously hard to shutdown, which is why I advocate setting up decentralized firearm manufacturing groups. Having the ability to manufacture firearms outside of the state’s control would do a lot to tip the balance of power from the state back to the people.

Call It Cynicism But I’m Calling Bullshit

Several sites are reporting about a tool aimed at performing denial of service attacks against Healthcare.gov:

Researchers have uncovered software available on the Internet designed to overload the struggling Healthcare.gov website with more traffic than it can handle.

“ObamaCare is an affront to the Constitutional rights of the people,” a screenshot from the tool, which was acquired by researchers at Arbor Networks, declares. “We HAVE the right to CIVIL disobedience!”

My gut tells me that this is bullshit. In fact, being the cynical person I am, I wouldn’t be surprised if this tool was written by somebody involved in the development of Healthcare.gov. They’re on the hot seat at the moment and probably trying to find anything to blame besides themselves. Developing and releasing a tool aimed at performing a denial of service attack against Healthcare.gov would give the developers of the website something to blame.

I do have some reason to believe this tool wasn’t developed by opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I have connections to numerous communities including groups that oppose the ACA. If this tool was really written as an act of civil disobedience against the ACA I would thinking the developers would want as many people to download it as possible. That would mean spreading the word to groups that oppose the ACA. I can’t find any mention of this tool in any of those groups.

So, for the time being, I’m calling bullshit on this.

Minneapolis Looking to Rig Future Mayoral Votes

A lot of people have been bitching about the fact that the Minneapolis mayoral race had 35 candidates. Yes, people were whining because there were too many choices on the ballot. The only reason one would complain about such a thing is because they felt the additional choices would take away votes from their preferred candidate, which is bullshit.

But I decided to do a little kitchen match and see exactly how much of the eligible population of Minneapolis appeared on the ballot. To perform this feat I discovered that the United States Census Bureau is good for something. Here are the democraphic numbers I used to come up with my results.

The population of Minneapolis is approximately 392,880. Of that population approximately 313,518 are 18 years or older. Out of a candidate pool of approximately 313,518 we only had 35 filings at the nominal rate of $20.00. That means that only .01116363335 percent of the eligible population filed.

Even with a filing fee as low as $20.00 only one percent of one percent of eligible people are willing to run for mayor in Minneapolis. I think a vast majority of the people living there realize the position or mayor is pointless or, at least, more pointless than their current positions in life. The problem of “joke” candidates doesn’t seem to be too big of an issue. But that doesn’t matter, somebody besides Republican and Democratic candidates are appearing on the ballot and that means the game has to be rigged:

Less than 24 hours after Minneapolis voters finished hacking through a 35-candidate ballot, the Charter Commission voted unanimously to raise the entry fee from $20 to $500, matching St. Paul’s.

The lower fee, in place for at least 40 years — according to commissioner Lyall Schwarzkopf, who remembered it from when he was city clerk in 1972 — had enabled candidates, in the absence of a primary, to make “a mockery” of recent mayoral elections, said Commissioner Devin Rice.

Making a mockery of the mayoral race? I’m glad somebody is giving the position the respect it deserves. More importantly a mere one percent of one percent of eligible individuals were willing to pay the $20.00 fee required to even mock the position in such a public way. But this has nothing to do with people mocking the position of mayor. The power players are merely upset that the serfs are getting on the ballot. Higher ups in both the Democratic and Republican parties want to have a duopoly on ballots. While they want to allow a nominal number of third party candidates on the ballot to cover up the oligarchy they’ve established, they don’t want more than a handful. Politicians are monopolists after all, they don’t want actual competition.

More Cavity Searches in New Mexico

Via Twitter zerg539 let me know that our friend Agent Flemming is still operating in New Mexico:

A man in New Mexico was pulled over by police for a minor traffic violation. When officers said a K-9 unit sniffed drugs on the driver’s seat, the officers forced the man to undergo invasive medical procedures, including an anal exam.

It may sound nearly identical to David Eckert’s nightmarish story as reported by TheBlaze Tuesday, but this is an entirely different incident.

What’s interesting is that these two incidents involve the same drug dog, which apparently isn’t certified:

Leo’s certification to be a drug dog reportedly expired in April 2011. K-9s need yearly re-certification sources, and Leo is more than two years behind. But as Reason.com notes, that may not matter:

According to the Supreme Court, none of this necessarily disqualifies Leo as an informant reliable enough to obtain a warrant authorizing the sort of humiliating searches that Eckert and Young underwent. Last February the justices unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.

I’ve always thought of drug dogs as a scam. While I don’t doubt the ability of the dogs I doubt the way they’re handled. A drug dog signalling is used as evidence to perform a search. The problem is that an alert action is subjectively decided by the human handler. A drug dog’s handler could take his dog’s pacing back and forth as and alert and use it as evidence to perform a search. This really relegates drug dogs to the status of exploitable tool to get around pesky warrant requirements. But seeing that the drug dog hasn’t even been reevaluated in over two years really adds icing to this already rich cake.

The Republican Party’s Image Problem

It’s time for another installment of Uncle Anarchist explains politics. Yesterday I mentioned that the Republican Party is solely responsible for its failures. Today I’m going to delve into more detail. Robb Allen made an excellent observation in a comment on yesterday’s story:

The Democrats make it sound like the GOP is all about forcin’ Jesus into your house and preventing the gays from having fun. They’re the ones who bring it up over and over and over.

So now, the Republican has to waste time fighting false charges or ignore it, which then people claim “Well, he’s not DENYING it so he must support it!”.

This brings me to one of the Republican Party’s biggest problems: image. If you look at the history of Democratic and Republican candidates you will notice that the former are far less prone to saying stupid shit in public. Furthermore they’re far better at countering accusations made by the latter. Both of these combined lead to a far better overall public perception for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

Let’s consider social issues, which are often brought up by both parties. The Democratic Party usually brings up social issues to make its Republican competitors look stupid and Republican candidates are often unable to resist the Democrat’s temptation. A big part of the problem is that most of the Republican candidates either have a poor understanding of their religious beliefs or are poor at orating them. I know many deeply religious people. When somebody challenges their belief they are able to articulate very reasonable and intelligent counterarguments. Why? Because they’ve invested a great deal of time into researching their religion. Most people seem to have a mediocre understanding of their own religious, philosophical, and political beliefs. This is truly saddening because volumes of material are available on all three subjects regardless of your personal religious, philosophical, or political beliefs. Christianity has such a long history that the available material written by brilliant theologians is vast and covers almost every topic under the sun.

Being able to exploit the weaknesses of a political opponent is a necessary strategy for winning elections. The Democratic Party knows this and exercises it effectively. Democratic candidates going against social conservatives know what to say to incite an idiotic sounding response from their competitors. Abortion and gay rights issues are the easiest to exploit. Failing to articulate an intelligent response to the question of legalizing abortion and gay marriage makes one sound as though they hate women or gays respectively.

When challenged about abortion one of my deeply religious friends is always able to respond in well thought out and reasonable sounding manner. His intellectual opponents never come away with easily exploitable soundbites or text. Why? Because he has read and internalized the writings of great theologians. He has an intimate understanding of his religious beliefs and can articulate them to others.

Positioning one’s self as an advocate of small government lends itself to an effective response to the issue of gay marriage: get the government out of the marriage business. Religious opposition to gay marriage stems from religious issues. If marriage is moved from a state institution back to a private institution the religious organizations are free to perform marriages in a way they choose. The worry about the state mandating that religious organizations perform gay marriages is eliminated and same sex couples are still free to enter contractual arrangements involving the sharing of property, adopting children, and other common issues involved in the marriage debate. Getting the state out of the marriage business is a response that is compatible with most religious beliefs, a principled position for advocates of small government and personal liberties, and far more difficutl for opponents to exploit.

This advice isn’t applicable only to religious issues. I used religious issues as an example because it is one of the more effectively exploited weaknesses. But Republican candidates tend to suck at explaining their position on economics, personal liberty, small government, and other issues. Much of this ineptitude stems from their lack of understanding and internalizing what they preach. If you want to advocate free markets you should read the works of heavy hitters such as Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard. A proper understanding of free market principles transfers to a proper understanding of personal liberties and reasons to keep government small. Other good sources can be found by looking at the history of the United States. People like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams wrote a lot of material in their journey to advocate for a small government. Making arguments based on Christianity can be far more successful after reading the works of Thomas Aquinas.

My point is that image problems are something the Republican Party is plagued with but can be overcome with work. Doing so will require the party to nominate exceptional candidates, which is something I don’t think it has the resolve to do. But it will remain the Democratic Party’s play toy until its image problems are overcome or it fades into history.

Libertarians Don’t Cost Republicans Races

It’s time, once again, for an anarchist to explain politics. This time around I find myself having to explain the fact that the Republican Party is solely responsible for its own failures. For being a party that claims to advocate personal responsibility, the Republican Party and its supporters spend a lot of time blaming others for their failures. Articles like this have been circulating the web since last night. Through various methods of twisting logic the Republicans are trying to blame the libertarians for the Democrats’ victory in Virgina. The linked article points out that the Libertarian Political Action Committee admitted that it probably wouldn’t have gotten the Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot if it wasn’t for a donation from a large Democratic Party supporter. This excuse misses an important point: the Republican candidate failed to gain enough support from libertarians to convince them to vote for him.

Since the concept seems alien to some let me explain how ballots work. A ballot has a list of names. You make a mark next to the name of the candidate you want to win or the candidate who has the best chance against the one you want to lose. Pretty simple, isn’t it? This brings us to the next point. If you want to win an election you have to convince people to put a mark next to your name. There are many ways to do this. Most candidates promise voters free shit or promise to take previously given free shit away from people. Those aren’t the only methods though. People can be convinced to vote for a charismatic candidate or, in rare cases, a candidate who practices what he preaches.

The point is, Republicans have failed to provide a candidate that can successfully do any of these. It’s as simple as that. For some reason the Republican Party has decided to run candidates that say really stupid shit, attempt to appeal to the middle by holding no principled positions, and attempt to appeal to the religious zealots by beating the social issues drum. I think the continuous defeats of Republican Party candidates speaks for the stupidity of these tactics.

If the Republican Party wants to win elections is needs to do one thing: stop sucking. That’s it. If it fields candidates that people actually like then it won’t matter who the Libertarian Party puts forward. Most people who vote for Libertarian Party candidates know that that candidate isn’t going to win. But those voters hate both the Republican and Democratic candidate so much that they’re willing to cast a vote for a person who they know won’t win. And it’s not a case that a person who votes Libertarian would have otherwise voted Republican. Since the Libertarian Party is, effectively, a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle. That means many people who vote for the Libertarian candidate may have voted for the Democratic candidate if the Libertarian Party didn’t get on the ballot.

For those of you blaming the Libertarian Party for the failures of the Republican Party I have this to say: pull your heads out of your asses and stop trying to lay the blame on somebody else. If the Republican Party didn’t fuck up so much people may actually support it.

The Outcome of Ranked Choice Voting

Remember what I said about ranked choice voting being nothing but a more complicated method of keeping the current establishment in power? I would like to thank both Minneapolis and St. Paul for giving my ego a boost by proving me right.

Here are the results of the Minneapolis mayoral race. You will see that the two candidates with the most first rank votes were Betsy Hodges and Mark Andrew. These were the two Democratic candidates that jockeyed for the state party endorsement. Neither candidate was able to achieve the majority of votes necessary to gain the endorsement so they both effectively ran and the unofficially endorsed candidates.

Now let’s look at the results for the St. Paul mayoral race. Unsurprisingly Chris Coleman, the current mayor of St. Paul, received the most first rank votes.

What is today’s lesson? Ranked choice voting doesn’t change anything. The only thing it does is give third party candidates a false hope that they can win if they work hard enough. In actuality ranked choice voting doesn’t make a difference. I think it’s important to remember that if ranked choice voting could make a difference it wouldn’t be allowed.

When Law Enforcement Turns Parody Into Reality

Do you know what I find frightening? When law enforcement turn parody into reality. Take this story:

The incident began January 2, 2013 after David Eckert finished shopping at the Wal-Mart in Deming. According to a federal lawsuit, Eckert didn’t make a complete stop at a stop sign coming out of the parking lot and was immediately stopped by law enforcement.

Obviously the officers wrote him a ticket and sent him on his way, right? Wrong:

What Happened

While there, Eckert was subjected to repeated and humiliating forced medical procedures. A review of Eckert’s medical records, which he released to KOB, and details in the lawsuit show the following happened:

1. Eckert’s abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

This reminds me of a certain fictional law enforcement agent:

Frightening, isn’t it?

Considerations for Advocates of Gun Control When Making Arguments

If you’re a supporter of gun control then we are ideological opponents but I hold no ill will against you. I enjoy the fact that there are vastly different opinions from my own in this world. However, if you’re going to write articles in favor of gun control I urge you to first learn about your subject matter. It is also helpful to avoid certain debate tactics that do more harm to you cause than good. Advocates of gun control who are ignorant of current laws, treat speculation as fact, rely on argumentum ad hominem, and make hypocrites of themselves help my cause greatly. But I take no pleasure in winning battles of wits against incompetent opponents. In the spirit of ensuring better and more informed debates I’m going to critique this article that argues in favor of universal background checks:

And while we know how many times a red flag in someone’s history has blocked a sale, it’s impossible to know how many lives the critical law enforcement tool has saved. In short, the background check system is quick, effective, and it protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

First things first, speculation does not an argument make. Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun to speculate on matters but speculation should not be mistaken for factual information. The author states that it’s impossible to know how many lives background checks have saved. At the same time I can also point out that it’s impossible to know how many lives have been lost because of the background check system prevented somebody from obtaining an effective self-defense tool. Not everybody on the prohibited persons list deserves to be there. People who are mistakenly added or added for perpetrating a nonviolent crime shouldn’t be barred the ability to effectively exercise self-defense.

If you look at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, an Explosives’ (ATF) list of prohibited persons you’ll notice some interesting gotchas. For example, a person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” is prohibited from owning firearms. I know many people who regularly use cannabis, which is illegal in Minnesota. Those people aren’t in any way violent. In fact they’re some of the most peaceful people I know (probably because cannabis relaxes people). Illegal aliens are also prohibited from owning firearms. Just because an individual decided to cross the imaginary line that separates this country from another doesn’t mean they should be prohibited from defending themselves. How many cannabis users and illegal aliens have been murdered because the background check system barred them from owning firearms?

We can speculate on this for the rest of eternity but it’s impossible to know. Therefore I would urge advocates of gun control to not speculate in articles advocating for specific laws. Stick to the facts.

The problem is that we leave the saturated markets for guns online and at gun shows completely unregulated. That means these same dangerous people that failed a background check at Cabela’s can go on Craigslist or to a gun show and purchase weapons from private sellers without any questions asked. The evidence shows they quite often do.

This is where we get into the article’s ignorance. First, Craigslist prohibits posting weapons:

Partial list of items for sale and services the advertisement of which is not permitted on craigslist:


Weapons and related items, including firearms, ammunition, silencers, pellet/BB guns, tear gas or stun guns.

So you’re not going to hit up Craigslist to buy firearms. Second, many states have last against private transfers between individuals. In fact looking at fellow gun control advocacy websites would have made the author aware of the states that prohibit private transfers, including ones occurring at gun shows. If you’re an advocate of gun control please take note of that site. While I disagree with what is being advocated I give credit to the authors for covering current gun laws in detail and citing them when mentioned.

In fact, in a 2011 study 62 percent of private sellers agreed to sell a gun to a buyer who said he probably could not pass a background check. The fact is, criminals know they can buy guns from unlicensed dealers, and Congress is endangering public safety by keeping these transactions completely legal. That is why our lawmakers in Washington, D.C., need to pass a universal background check bill this year.

If you’re going to cite a study then cite it. Don’t refer to it as “a 2011 study”. There were a lot of studies performed in 2011. Give the name of the study, the authors, and the publication you found it in. I believe this guide will help.

I also want to return to the first point I made in this post. Many nonviolent people who have no history of mental illness are prohibited from owning firearms. Claiming that “62 percent of private sellers agreed to sell a gun to a buy who said he probably could not pass a background check” is pretty meaningless. I know many prohibited people who I would be perfectly comfortable selling a firearm to (please note, saying I’m perfectly comfortable selling a firearm to them and actually selling a firearm to them are two entirely different things).

Now it’s time to cite some actual legalese. According to the ATF’s website it is illegal to sell a firearm to a person when you should reasonably know that person is a prohibited person:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

If a person claims he or she is probably unable to pass a background check that would qualify as “reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.” It’s already illegal to sell a firearm to an individual who you believe to be unable to pass a background check, which means such transfers aren’t completely legal as the article claims.

Rep. John Kline, R-Burnsville, has an opportunity to close these dangerous loopholes by co-sponsoring a bill in the U.S. House that already has the support of more than 180 representatives from both parties.

The bill, introduced by Reps. Peter King, R-New York, and Mike Thompson, D-California, is the House’s counterpart to the Manchin-Toomey amendment that was blocked from reaching a vote by a minority of senators in April. (Both Minnesota senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, had the courage to vote for the life-saving legislation).

Once again, claiming that such a bill is life-saving is pure speculation. I could easily argue that such legislation would costs lives. When writing an opinion piece arguing in favor of passing a law one should stick to the facts.

What would these bills do to protect the rights of gun owners and make communities safer?

It’s simple: they would simply extend the background check system that already works at licensed dealers to cover commercial sales from private sellers. No gun registries, no confiscations, just an extension of a program that works.

What criteria is the author using to determine whether or not the current program works? So far he has offered nothing more than speculation. Again, I could argue that the current background check program has failed miserably.

As with many issues facing Washington, there are cynics standing in the way of some common-sense solutions. They say criminals will still find ways of buying guns. Or that background checks may not have been able to prevent all of our violent tragedies. But to allow that line of thinking to impede our progress on essential gun safety reforms would be a serious mistake. We cannot solve the whole epidemic of gun violence in America with one piece of legislation, but that does not mean that we shouldn’t take meaningful steps to save lives. When nine out of 10 Americans agree on something I think that overwhelming consensus should result in some action.

Again, how would such legislation save lives? The author spends a great deal of time claiming universal background checks will save lives but never provides any evidence. How many would-be murderers who couldn’t obtain a firearm simply murdered their victim(s) with a knife or an explosive device? Is there any evidence that shows background checks actually prevent violent crime?

As a hunter and gun owner myself, I am joining with the along with the 91 percent percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members – according to Republican pollster Frank Luntz – that support universal background checks. That’s not a typo. Hunting is a cherished tradition in Minnesota and all across this country, so it should tell you something that gun owners so overwhelmingly believe in these critical safety guards.

I find myself again pointing out the need to cite any mentioned studies. Since I’m nothing if not helpful I will also point out some rather notable issues with that poll (the article, I might add, links to the actual poll):

Nationwide, a Gallup poll taken a week after the Senate vote indicated that only 65 percent of Americans thought the Senate should have passed a bill to “expand background checks for gun purchases,” with 29 percent saying the Senate should not have passed it.

That’s much lower than 90 percent support, obviously.

Also interesting: The new poll showed that general support for an expanded background check law fell from 91 percent in mid-January to 83 percent.


Gallup says that a minor wording change in the question may have played a role in reducing the perceived general support from 91 percent to 83 percent.

In January, Gallup asked the public if they supported a law that would “require criminal background checks for all gun sales.” This month, the wording was “require background checks for all gun purchases.”

Polls are tricky beasts. A simple difference such as wording changes may lead to drastically different results. This is why you need to stay on top of polls. The results may be different if the poll is performed again. If that happens you should either use the lasted results or mention all available results. Keeping yourself ignorant of any changes to polling numbers doesn’t help your credibility. Selecting the results that best make your argument destroy your credibility. By using old results the author has put his credibility into question by making it appear as though he’s not keeping up with the topic of cherry picking results.

Despite such broad support for background checks, the gun lobby is spending millions of dollars to protect the ability for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns without a background check. Let’s not let them distort the debate once again.

Two points need to be made about this paragraph. First, when you’re making an argument you shouldn’t attempt to demonize your opponents. Most of us are guilty of this at one point or another, especially when arguing about emotional topics. But you should really try to understand your ideological opponent and argue against their ideas, not attack their person(s). What the author did in this paragraph is known as argumentum ad hominem. He is attempting to manipulate the emotions of his audience by claiming the gun lobby is spending money to protect the ability of criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns. I have never heard any member of what can be considered the gun lobby claim it wants criminals and the mentally ill to have access to firearms. They have argued that the background check system is ineffective at preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, which makes the system an unneeded inconvenience to lawful gun owners.

Second, when making an argument try to avoid coming off as a hypocrite. Attempting to distort the debate by demonizing political opponents then claiming we should not allow your political opponents to distort the debate is rank hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is one of the most effective methods of destroying your credibility.

As I said at the beginning of this post, please take this post in the spirit it was meant. I’m trying to be helpful and raise the overall quality of the gun control debate. Ignorance, speculation, demonizing, and hypocrisy are poor tools for a debate forum and should be avoided if one wants to be taken seriously. Regardless of the side of the gun control debate you’re on I urge you to maintain some professionalism when debating in a public forum. I’m not saying everybody should stop making fun of one another but such antics should be reserved for outside of public debate forums.

Valuable Information for Voters

If you’re heading to the polls today you should really read this guide. It contains valuable information regarding politicians:

Piecing together the latest groundbreaking research being conducted by commenters at conspiracy websites, we’ve been able to isolate a number of prominent individuals who possess reptilian-compatible bloodlines.

We need to stop the interdimensional lizard people from outer space’s reign of terror on this planet. For too long they’ve… done lizard people things and that’s not good for us. Learn how to identify them so that you can avoid voting for them.