Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘guns’ Category

Carl Hiaasen’s younger brother was gunned down in Annapolis, Maryland today along with four others executed for the crime of being a journalist.

Unknown is whether the killer was a MAGAt, spurred into violence by his fascist overlords in the White House and elsewhere. It would not be the first time that fascists attacked newspapers. Their campaign was largely successful in Weimar Germany — of all of Germany’s newspapers, only one single newspaper, the Munich Post, dared to oppose Hitler directly. The rest of Germany’s press, cowed by the brownshirts / MAGAts, tried to be “fair” to the Nazis. For their trouble their reporters and editors ended up in the exact same concentration camps as the reporters and editors of the Munich Post. Appeasement, it turns out, is a rather ineffective tactic for dealing with fascists. As is civility.

Let us hope that our own newspapers have learned that lesson. I’m not holding my breath though.

– Badtux the News Penguin

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I have to laugh at the ammosexual boobs who think the Viet Cong guerrillas won the Vietnam War and thus this proves that unorganized peasants with AK-47’s can defeat the US Army. They didn’t. They were totally destroyed as an effective fighting force in 1968 when the North Vietnamese deliberately sent them all into battle as a distraction against regular U.S. Army units.

All fighting after that was by regular units of the North Vietnamese Army vs regular units of the U.S. Army and Army of the Republic of Vietnam. The NVA were armed with artillery and tanks and surface to air missiles but had trouble moving these into South Vietnam when they infiltrated units into South Vietnam, thus the illusion that the US was fighting a bunch of peasants armed with light weapons. But they weren’t. It was just that U.S. bombing made it hard to move the heavy weaponry into South Vietnam. Once the U.S. left the war and quit bombing, it turned into conventional warfare between conventional army units of the North Vietnamese Army and the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam. It was regular units of the North Vietnamese Army backed by Soviet-provided tanks and Soviet-provided artillery, surface-to-air missiles, and other such heavy weapons who conquered South Vietnam, not some random civilians with AK-47’s.

The myth that the Viet Kong won the Vietnam War is an old one and a deep one, fed by stupid newspapermen and stupid movies and racism on the part of Army grunts over the course of decades. But in the end, it took tanks and artillery and other heavy weaponry to win the war for North Vietnam — not a buncha peasants armed with AK-47’s. All that the peasants ever managed to do was become dead bodies. Which is all that would happen if the ammosexuals decided to take on the U.S. Army, too.

– Badtux the Military Penguin

Read Full Post »

So, ho hum, another school shooting today. Ten people died, mostly kids, as usual. The shooter did the deed with guns his father had just left sitting around the house — a shotgun and a .38 revolver. Which was quite legal for his father to do in the state of Texas, which has no gun storage laws requiring guns to be secured if they’re not on your person or being used.

So, as we hit an average of one school shooting per week (U S A! U S A! MAGA! YAY!), the solution that the NRA-backed politicos are talking about is…. reducing the number of doors at schools?

Uhm, wut?

Well, gosh, they have a point, I guess. If a school has *no* doors, then it’s perfectly safe! Oh, how are the kids going to get into the school? Well, we just set up Star Trek style transporter booths outside the schools and teleport the kids into the school building. But only the organic parts of the kids get transported. No clothing that guns could be hidden in, and, of course, no guns. Once they arrive, naked as the day they were born, they are issued hospital gowns and then crayons, paper, and books (crayons because we can’t issue pens and pencils, why, some kid might put another kid’s eyes out!). At the end of the day they are teleported back to the booth they arrived from, where they are reunited with their clothing and get to go home where they then get to study with their at-home copy of their books.

Or we could enact strict gun controls like every other civilized country, which have had zero school shootings this year. But that’s far less practical than teleporter beams, apparently.

So it goes.

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

Again.

Spree shooter armed with an AR-15 style rifle shoots up a Waffle House.

Most murders are pretty easy to solve because they’re either before a lot of witnesses or they’re between people known to each other. Most murders are an abusive husband killing a wife, a gang banger killing a rival gang member, a drunken man outside a bar lying in wait for another drunken man that he feels wronged him, a neighbor shooting another neighbor who he feels wronged him. Those kinds of murders, which are spur of the moment murders for the most part, are on the decline as the population ages and the new generation of young men isn’t so touchy about their masculinity that they’ll just gun down anybody they think threatens their masculinity. Thus the overall murder rate is going down.

These spree shooting murders, however, are on the rise. The frightening thing about these is that they’re not avoidable. You can avoid being shot by your neighbor if you just ignore your neighbor’s meth lab rather than call the cops on it every other day. You can avoid being shot by your abusive husband by, well, just not going for the “bad boys” like so many women do (even women who should know better seem to go for the “bad boys” when they’re young, and find out that, well, living with those boys is dangerous). You can avoid being shot by a drunken bar-goer by not going to bars where that kind of thing happens. But if someone decides to shoot random strangers at the Waffle House where you’re eating breakfast, there’s no way to avoid that.

That’s why these spree shootings scare the bleep out of people despite the decrease in the murder rate — sure, murders are declining, but this *specific* class of murder, where a stranger just murders strangers for no reason at all, just keep going up and up and up. And scared people demand action. Sooner or later, the NRA’s ability to head off those demands is going to fail, and you’re going to see draconian gun laws that basically outlaw everything but single-shot shotguns and bolt action rifles. You’d think that, given this, the NRA would be floating some realistic proposals to do something about this increase of spree shooters. Instead, they just keep whining about mental health — even though it’d be unconstitutional to force people to accept mental health treatment (the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to be as crazy as they want to be) and so their whining about mental health isn’t a solution to anything at all.

— Badtux the Murder Penguin

Read Full Post »

So that happened 243 years ago. You’ve probably heard all the silliness about Paul Revere and so forth. The most stupid silliness I’ve heard today, however, was that the British went to those two places in order to disarm the colonials.

Uhm, no. The British mission was to confiscate military weapons and munitions *STORED IN THE TOWN MILITIA ARSENALS*. Not to confiscate firearms in the possession of individuals. They were especially concerned with some brass cannon that the colonial militia had assembled. They could have cared less about the rifles and fowling pieces that were owned by individuals, they were after military weapons.

Which is a point I keep making about those who claim that personally owned and possessed firearms were a Big Deal in colonial Massachusetts militias: they weren’t. Massachusetts had always had a collectivist streak when it came to firearms, likely because of their Puritan underpinnings where early Massachusetts communities were run more like cults than like anything we have today. Their militias were heavily armed, but the muskets and cannon were kept in town arsenals along with sufficient gunpowder and shot to make them of use, not in individual homes. Individuals may have owned rifles or fowling pieces (shotguns), but they did not have a musket at home because for personal use, muskets were basically useless. They were too inaccurate and too long and heavy to make good hunting weapons.

I’ve written long discourses on Colonial era military weapons and tactics elsewhere, but suffice it to say that most of what we “know” about the era is wrong when you study the actual military weapons, tactics, and science of the era. For example, there were no battles that were settled by colonials sniping from behind trees. Even Lexington and Concord wasn’t settled by that, the British soldiers achieved their objectives, then headed home. The sniping was misery, but the sniping was because they hadn’t brought their own skirmishers with them to counter-snipe — the British knew very well (having defeated the French and Indians) how to deal with that kind of thing. They just hadn’t realized they were going to war that day, rather than a modest police action to disarm some people who had illegal cannon.

And militia… there was a single (one) battle after that initial clash where militia made an impact. That was it, in the entire war. Everywhere else they were utterly useless, thus why George Washington inserted the militia clauses into the Constitution in some hope of getting militia that was actually useful (which turned out to be wishful thinking — in the War of 1812, the militia once *again* were useless). Yet this mystique about the militia somehow winning the war remains, when the actual cause of the British basically surrendering was that they ran out of money. Seriously. The British Crown was bankrupt by 1784. Couldn’t even meet interest payments on their national debt or pay the soldiers already on American soil, much less replace those surrendered at Yorktown. And the French and Spanish were threatening India, which was far more valuable than sparsely-settled American colonies. The British could have perhaps fought on by raising taxes but to do so threatened the loss of India. They ended the war to protect India, they didn’t get defeated militarily — even the forces at Yorktown were less than 1/10th of the British forces on American soil. Granted, most of those forces were in Canada or New York City, but there they were.

None of which is taught to American students in American K-12 schools, which instead are replete with jingoistic nonsense with no basis in fact. So it goes.

– Badtux the History Penguin

Read Full Post »

At least, that’s what an NRA dick sucker told me today.

So I was reading another one of those stories where a toddler “finds” mommy or daddy’s gun and shoots someone with it. It’s a common story. More Americans have been killed by toddlers “finding” guns this year than have been killed by terrorists. That has been true of most years all the way back to 2002. (2001 breaks that string for obvious reasons). And sometimes it isn’t even a family member who gets shot and killed, it’s someone else entirely, like the time that a neighbor’s kid got killed by a toddler who “found” a gun.

Furthermore, nearly half of guns confiscated by police when they arrest criminals are stolen. The “black market” for illegal guns used by criminals is apparently fueled by stolen guns or perhaps by legal guns purchased by “straw buyers” who then later claim the gun was stolen. Clearly there is a problem where guns are not being responsibly stored. My response: We should have a law requiring responsible gun storage. If the gun is not on your person under your direct control, it should be responsibly stored in a gun safe or other locked storage.

Response of NRA and their dick suckers: Gun storage laws make criminals out of normal Americans! And wouldn’t stop these shootings because criminals don’t obey laws! And you’re a tyrant and want to take all our guns by wanting these laws forcing us to store our guns safely when they’re not on our person!

WTF? By that logic, we should have no laws about murder, because laws about murder make criminals out of normal Americans and wouldn’t stop murder anyhow because criminals don’t obey laws. For realz? These people are basically claiming that laws against murder are useless? I mean, look. Sometimes people piss me off. Piss me off to the point where I wish I could kill them. But it *stays* at a wish, not an action, because I value my bunghole. I want it to stay its normal size, which ain’t happening in prison.

To say that laws are useless because they’re not universally obeyed is ridiculous. Most people do obey laws, because they don’t want the consequences. Sure, there’s some small percentage that doesn’t. But should we repeal the law against murder because 1% of the people who wish they could murder someone actually do so? Or should we keep it because of the 99% of other people with such a desire who actually do obey the law and don’t murder because they fear the consequences?

I’m old enough to remember when the NRA was an organization based on hunter education and gun education. But that was then, and this is now. Today a significant percentage of their membership is not there to support hunter education and gun education. They’re there to support being irresponsible. I mean, proper gun storage is part of their basic gun education package. Why in the world would they want to prevent legislation to enforce a practice that they themselves say is proper gun handling? But I guess that’s what happens when you have an organization whose main purpose for existence today is to support the right to be irresponsible.

I mean, c’mon. Mandating safe gun storage is tyranny? Me not wanting to be shot by a toddler who “found” Daddy’s gun is tyranny? For realz? Yeesh. These NRA dick suckers have sucked too many gunpowder fumes, methinks….

— Badtux the Sane Gun Owning Penguin

Read Full Post »

Her name was Nasim Najafi Aghdam. She claimed to be a vegan body builder, though with her tall thin physique you couldn’t really tell it unless she was actually flexing, like in this photo from her now-disappeared web site:

And on Tuesday she snapped and took a California-legal handgun (i.e. 10 round limit) onto the YouTube campus, managed to injure four people (consider what she would have done with an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine! But those are illegal in California), and then committed suicide.

All of her social media accounts have been disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole. All of her writings on the Internet have been disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole. Only fragments can be found in various caches and archives on the Internet.

What is interesting is that, in the few writings that I can find, she claims that there is no freedom on the Internet and that the big Internet media companies dictate what you will see or not see. It is interesting that then the big Internet media companies immediately validate her thesis by disappearing her social media presence Orwellian fashion after she snaps. It’s almost as if they don’t want you to see what she was saying. Interesting how they prove her thesis. Too bad about Nasim though, she committed suicide for no real reason, since virtually nobody actually decided to go look for what she was actually saying as versus what the big media companies claim she said. Not that it’s easy to do so — I expect even those various caches and archives to be cleaned out shortly to finish “disappearing” her down the Orwellian memory hole, leaving us only with the prefabricated image of her generated by the big media companies rather than her own words.

2018. It’s 1984+34. War is peace. Tyranny is freedom. Censorship is patriotic. I love Big Brother, he wants only the best for me. Don’t you love Big Brother too?

– Badtux the “Hmmmm…..” Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »