Tag: Superdickery

Now That’s Just Funny

Two days ago I posted some stuff about a violent anti-gunner. Well I’ve learned some new things courtesy of Gun Nuts Media. First the violent coward was Rob Russell who ran for a seat in the House of Representatives. He lost, for reasons obvious to those who read what he stated.

Well the guys at Gun Nuts Media also found his blog. But it’s gone now; deleted by the author. I’m guessing it was due to people posting on his blog informing him that it’s not a good idea to make threats of violence against individuals, even if it’s on the Internet. I’m glad to see Mr. Russell listened to that advice and shut down his blog before he made any further threats that could land him in legal water.

I also want to mention that anybody who has be threatened by Mr. Russell should contact the authorities. After all you don’t want to wait for him to show up at your home and “punch your fucking face in.”

Update 2010-01-13 16:33: Walls of the City has screen captures and links to Google caches of the offending material. The post also helpfully lists the laws violated by Mr. Russell. The fact that the Internet is forever is proven once again. Reasoned discourse at its finest.

Talk About Low as You Go

Via Gun Nuts Media we get some of the lowest of the low from a “respected news source.” In this case we have an editorial writer comparing those of us with handgun carry permits to sex offenders:

Say, for example, you want to find out whether there are any convicted child molesters living in your neighborhood. You have young children, and like any good parent, you look up the information on available Web sites. Your research uncovers several living in your neighborhood. If you want to know whether they have permits to carry a gun, you can get that information. This bill, however, would prohibit that information from being made known.

Let’s step back a minute. First of all if a person is in a sex offender registry they have most likely committed a felony meaning they won’t be in the carry permit holder database. Second the implications of comparing law abiding citizens with clean records to child molesters is sickening. Just think about that for a minute. They are implying that those of us who hold permits to carry handguns are in the same class as those who have molested a child. A child molester is one of the most hated people in the country, they don’t even have a good life expectancy in prison because the prisoners hate them.

Of course the news paper wasn’t satisfied with just doing that. Let’s throw in the possibility of racism:

It also will be nearly impossible to find out whether police or other members are denying permits to legitimate applicants, maybe because of race or names that might denote a Muslim background, for example.

Oh OK I guess having a database of permit holders is OK because it will help fight racism. That makes so much sense. Except it doesn’t. This pretty much states that if you support keeping the names of those with carry permits secret you’re racist. At the moment that’s the gold card for those who don’t agree with you, accuse them of racism.

Let’s look at what the actual problems with publishing these names are. First and foremost there are people out there who obtain a carry permit for protection against a known potential threat. Often time these permit holders want their address kept secret so the potential threat can’t find them. Likewise many permit holders carry concealed because they don’t want people knowing they have a gun. See it’s a lot easier to survive a self defense situation if you have the element of surprise. It takes time, however brief, to for the human brain to deal with surprising criteria and that time could save your life. On the other hand if a criminal were targeting you or your family they would likely check to see if you had a carry permit and adjust their tactics as necessary. I’ll not even get into the whole shit storm of marketing people using the database as a mailing list.

Finally the author states the following:

As for allowing journalists access to generalized data: That information is useless. About all that could be gleaned is how many permits were issued and in what city or county — maybe.

Obviously the author doesn’t understand the wonderful world of data mining. A surprising amount of information can be derived from a little amount of data. From a person’s address you can theorize, quite accurately, their wealth (If they life in a upper class neighborhood for instance), the potential of having a family (A larger home often implies family versus an apartment), the car they drive (Parked out front often), and the hours they keep (Through observing their house and watching the times they come and go). This is just the icing on the cake obviously.

But the author obviously has a disconnection from reality as he thinks carry permit holders are in the same class of concern as sex offenders.

The bottom line is the anti-gun crowd love this database because it discriminates against gun owners gives reason for people to not obtain a carry permit (Personal information being published). An open database of carry permit holders has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with social control.

Wrath, Rage, and Power Tools

OK there are some creativity points going out to Carolyn Paulsen-Riat. Her husband left her and she decided revenge was in order. But how could she do it? Well by rewiring his power tools to give him an electrical shock! From the article:

In the documents, deputies say the woman told them she had reversed the wires on his power tools because she was angry he was leaving.

I’m sorry but that’s funny and deliciously evil. Of course being this was an attack charges are in order:

Carolyn Paulsen-Riat was booked Friday into the Thurston County Jail for investigation of third-degree assault, domestic violence, and second-degree malicious mischief. A judge released the 33-year-old woman on her own recognizance.

Bad idea but certainly creative. I love it when psychos give me something to smile about in the morning.

Oh My God, Science Fiction is the Devil

Rarely do I see a story that makes me simply throw up my hands and say “What the fuck?” out loud. But Random Nuclear Strikes pointed to just such a story. The story (I refuse to call it an article as that would imply some anchoring in reality) more or less explains how science fiction authors are the anti-Christs:

Science fiction takes the reader into a strange world without God. Oh, there might be “a god,” a “force,” but it is definitely not the God of the Bible, and the prominent names in this field are at

That’s the opening to the article and it only becomes a hit piece from there. For example:

Consider ROBERT HEINLEIN, called “the dean of science fiction writers.” He rejected the Bible and promoted “free sex.” His book “Stranger in a Strange Land” is considered “the unofficial bible of the hippie movement.” Heinlein was a nudist and practiced “polyamory.” He promoted agnosticism in his sci-fi books.

GASP! A science fiction author uses his books to explore new ideas outside of those generally accepted. Oh wait that’s EXACTLY what science fiction is about. The dip shit author of this story seems to lack the concept of fiction. That’s an important word. Fiction implies a story not based on truth. Don’t imply I’m claiming Christianity is truth here, I don’t talk religion on my site for a reason (Theology does not a good argument make). But I mean truth in the sense of the author’s point of view.

I read and watch a ton of science fiction. I love the genre because it can create a credible setting and explore new topics. I’ll use an example everybody pretty much has some knowledge in (Although I’m not really a fan of the series) Star Trek. In this series everybody lives in a utopia where everything is provided to for them. The people only work because they want to and are not required to in order to survive. It’s pretty much the communist ideal. Of course in the series they also have infinite resources but that’s getting off topic. The bottom line is the series came out during the Cold War where such ideas were not well thought of. Thankfully when you package an idea up in the world of science fiction there are enough laser, faster than light travel, and aliens to distract the zealots enough where they don’t see the actual ideas being explored.

The author need to pull his head out of his ass and realize that he can’t bitch because the stories don’t agree with his reality. The stories don’t involve reality at all. They involve ideas about how society would or could be if certain criteria were met.

Of course the author also decides to do a hit against one of my favorite late authors:

Consider ARTHUR CLARKE, author of many sci-fi works, including 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clarke, who was probably a homosexual, promoted evolutionary pantheism. He told a Sri Lankan newspaper, “I don’t believe in God or an afterlife” (“Life Beyond 2001: Exclusive Interview with Arthur C. Clarke,” The Island, Dec. 20, 2000). In the instructions he left for his funeral in March 2008 he said, “Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral.”

Oh my God Arthur C. Clarke was an atheist? Oh wait never mind everybody already knew that. The man was a scientist and is often the case only believed in what he could observe and measure. But there isn’t a single time I can remember where Sir Arthur (He was almost knighted and only failed to be because his health was too poor for the journey to England, the title doesn’t mean shit to me but alas it’ll probably annoy the story’s author so I’m using it) made an active campaign against religion. He didn’t believe in it and was fine with that. The author on the the other hand appears to have so little to do that he actively attacks those who disagree with him.

What Sir Arthur did was advance human society. You know that fancy geosynchronous orbit? It’s also called the Clarke orbit for a reason, Sir Arthur did the calculations and “discovered it.” He was also one of the pioneers of the idea to use orbiting satellites for communication purposes. He also fleshed out the idea and possibility of a space elevator to move objects from a planet’s surface to orbit with much less hassle than rockets. Sure he might not have believe in any form of deity but he did contribute to the advancement of the human race. Has the author done that? Didn’t think so.

And you just have to love the jab that Sir Arthur was “probably a homosexual.” What the Hell does that have to do with anything? Oh yeah, sorry, religious zealots find a person’s sexual preference a measure of that person’s worth. My bad.

Remember my previous mentioning of Star Trek:

Consider GENE RODDENBERRY, creator of Star Trek. He was an agnostic and humanist who envisioned a world in which “everyone is an atheist and better for it” (Brannon Braga, “Every Religion Has a Mythology,” International Atheist Conference, June 24, 2006).

I just wanted to drop that one because I mentioned his series earlier. I’ve already stated why the author is a moron and don’t need to reiterate here.

Anyways these religious zealots are, how to put this nicely, fucking morons. And when I say that I’m also including atheists and agnostics. Zealotry is bad in general but when that zealotry involves attacks against people (Be if physical or verbal) it crosses the line.

Christianity has the saying of, “Judge not unless ye be judged.” And of course there is the whole concept of turning a blind eye on those whom attack you. Maybe the author should study his own religion and follow the pacifist nature of his savior. I was raised Catholic and I’m pretty sure the right to judge another was reserved for God alone.

Those Progressives Sure Are a Violent Bunch

For all the claims of loving peace and hating violence those progressives (Not to be confused with liberals.) sure like their violence. Walls of the City shows us what one of these progressives had to say about carry permits:

You, however, have demonstrated considerable irresponsibility in your arguments and in your personal attacks on this blogger, who also happens to be my wife. Send me your home address and I’ll come to your house and punch your fucking face in. Unless you are a pussy who can’t fight without a gun in his hand.

Yes apparently this particular progressive seems to find guns a pussy’s weapon. But if you’re not a pussy he’s willing to come to your home and punch you in the face. My question is why is he only willing to come over to somebody’s home and punch the person in the face if that person doesn’t have a gun? Oh wait I remember now because violent attackers don’t like armed resistance. I want to thank the person who made that comment for reaffirming two things. Progressives are violent and why I own guns.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Apparently that’s also Bloomberg’s motto. His group Mayors Against Illegal Guns has ever so graciously “released” their Blueprint document that anybody following gun blogs has already read through. As Snowflakes in Hell states:

How nice of him. I guess since we already made it public, he can pretend like transparency was his plan all along.

Smooth one there Bloomy, take the problem of somebody obtaining that document and turn it into a an opportunity.

Anti-Defamation League Don’t Like Guns

No surprise here but the Anti-Defamation League has filed a friend of the court briefing in McDonald vs. Chicago. Their, of course, on the side of Chicago. They believe weapons need to be controlled so “anti-government extremists” (As well as racists and terrorists of course) can’t obtain weapons. Obviously these idiots never read a history book. Here is what they say:

“We have placed the problem of armed extremism squarely before the high court,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms and have shown a willingness to engage in acts of shocking and often deadly violence. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that cities and states retain the latitude they need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists, and violent bigots.”

First of all they never really define what an “anti-government extremist” is. By the make up of the word is means anybody who hates an established government. I’m assuming they mean somebody who hates them enough to start an armed rebellion. You know somebody like Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. These people hated the tyrannical British government so much they armed themselves, rebelled, and founded this country.

Seriously morons.

Opps

Snowflakes in Hell points out that the Joyce Foundation, everybody’s favorite foundation, pretty much laid out what they think. They dropped a granted to Johns Hopkins with the following description:

For support of research on policies that can more effectively restrict firearm ownership to law-abiding persons.

As Sebastian points out it’s probably just a poor choice of words. But it most certainly would fit their standard operating procedure.

You Can’t Trust a Spy

This is a lesson the CIA should have learned by now but if you find somebody willing to betray their country for your cause there is a good chance he’ll betray you as well. A CIA double agent apparently working with them to find out information on al Qaeda went and killed several CIA agents in a suicide bombing. You can’t trust a spy, period.

Target Yemen

Well Blow Hard the She Bitch *ahem* I mean Hillary Clinton is rattling some sabers over Yemen:

“It’s time for the international community to make it clear to Yemen that there are expectations and conditions on our continuing support for the government so that they can take actions which will have a better chance to provide that peace and stability to the people of Yemen and the region,” Mrs Clinton said.

And:

Speaking in Washington, Mrs Clinton said: “We see global implications from the war in Yemen and the ongoing efforts by al-Qaeda in Yemen to use it as a base for terrorist attacks far beyond the region.”

Translation: “al-Qaeda is in Yemen soon so shall we.” Now I’m not against taking out al-Qaeda, they attacked first. What I’m against is how the United States has been going after al-Qaeda. We seem to have a habit of arriving under the pretense of being after al-Qaeda and then raging war against the country itself or a neighbor.

Remember when the terrorists were in Iraq? Oh wait never mind we sent after them because they had weapons of mass destruction. Oops I mean we went in to free an downtrodden people. Or was it to take down a ruthless dictator? I forget. And of course we have to be in Afghanistan because of the terrorist threat there. Of course Pakistan is close.

And these wars always seem to start with saber rattling such as Blow Hard the She Bitch is currently doing. I’m betting we’re going to be flooding Yemen with troops, hopefully I’m wrong. I just don’t want to see more of our finest being killed needlessly attacking a country and government instead of those actually responsible for damaging our country.