This guy is just playing in another dimension and not a good one.  We are talking rats under the influence of bath salts dancing in the attic. For Florida residents, he tops Alan Greyson by at least 2.3 miles.

Here is some of the stuff I got out of his Twitter feed:

Just the hamburger tweet is enough to consider sending him what Robin Williams called “sweater that lets you hug yourself.” I’ll keep bringing the occasional tweet for your entertainment.

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.

That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban – Maura Healey, Attorney general of Massachusetts.

I have the feeling that the geniuses in Massachusetts have no idea that they just banned not only “assault weapons” but pretty much anything gas operated. So say bye-bye to stuff like the Remington Model 1100, Beretta 390 & 391, Mossberg 930 and I have no idea how many others.

It will also ban the sale of the Remington model 11-87 which would be hilarious when you happen to find out who owns one:

I know that the Browning BAR .30-06 would have to be included but, what other gas operated firearms are out there? Add your selection in the comments.

Hello everyone, tonight I have two articles to talk about. Reuters’ article is over police wanting to be able to dictate over open carry laws. Washington Post’s article is over U.S.A. citizens living in Japan, which feels allegedly “like a haven” in comparison over gun crime.

Reuters’ reporter remained neutral and reported over how some police want to have the ability to regulate open carry of firearms, such as the desire of some to restrict it for Cleveland during the Republican National Convention right now. Open-carry advocates were included throughout and how being able to open carry is a right. (I do have things to say about this article, but it wouldn’t be anything all that impressive.)

The Washington Post article is comparing apples and oranges by comparing Japan’s gun homicide number to the United States of America’s number. According to them, the numbers were 1 to 13,000. “Japan has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the developed world, while the United States has the highest.” Now this is gold. Compare a country were owning a gun is a crime with apparently harsh penalties to a country were owning a gun is a right. Of course the U.S.A. has a higher rate, we simply have more guns in the population. The article continues on to use emotions of past events and false impressions.

The reporter decided to relay some people’s personal stories. Now, I do believe personal stories are good to know. It gives the vibe of how some people feel about an event. It does not always consider the whole picture of something. The article is solely focused on American citizens who are not sure about moving back to their home country after fear of mass shootings. The first story is over Sibyl Kane, who was about to fly to Newark. She allegedly has to drive past Sandy Hook Elementary, which is “a reminder that “no place is immune.” She also said, “If Americans are okay with that, that says something about us as a society that is so profoundly disturbing, it’s hard for me to parse out where I fit into it.”

From this logic, I suppose that if something happens, then people are okay with it? Who has ever said that a mass shooting was okay? There is no “If Americans are okay with that”- we aren’t. We can’t all agree on how to deter these acts in the future, but none of us are okay with it.

Emotional one-liners follow. Things like, “I’d rather explain a natural disaster than a shooter lockdown” and “I know shootings are rare, but why play Russian roulette?”

Apparently the Japanese government released a travel warning after the Orlando shooting and shootings in Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, and Dallas.

One man was covered who said he wanted to return home because he felt helpless by being so far away.

So, Abigail Leonard, the Washington Post reporter, went all out on making Japan sound so much better than the U.S.A. based off of gun crime- which is extremely hard to compare when talking about culture, population size, geographic, history, and gun ownership differences. I didn’t see a comparison over suicide rates? Or mention of ethnic or other diversity, poverty, or any other factors of violence.

My final thoughts are: try to see a bigger picture of what you are looking at, and don’t give false impressions about other perspectives.

On that note, I leave you tonight and will be back tomorrow to pick up on it. It is late, and I need some sleep.

Update: I originally forgot sources!

Reuters Article

Washington Post Article

“The shooting no one is talking about”

And why is nobody talking about (Shannon means Big Media)?  Because California just enacted a boatload of anti-gun legislation that the Betters swore would end shit like this! And even scummy “journalists” understand that readers and viewers would question why one month they were supporting all that stupid crap just to bemoan the next month that the NRA is loose in California tossing guns to inner city kids out of the back of a truck and more laws are needed.

I caught this picture over at Wirecutter’s and reminded me of a discussion I had with a dear friend some years ago. Like me, he is also from South of the Caribbean puddle and left the Spring Chicken age long time ago who suddenly developed a craving for a motorcycle to ride. He is a fan for European cars and was thinking about getting into a Ducatti crotch rocket to travel around the State.

I had to laugh. I told him there was a reason why the preferred motorcycle to travel around was a Harley and not a spiffy European model: Wide open straight roads. “Do you actually think you can stand 500 miles from here to the Georgia border crouched and hanging for dear life on an Italian job? Day one you’d be demanding a room with a hot tub, rum and a Thai masseuse!”

The U.S. Road system is unique. Whereas Europe’s system came about roads controlled by kingdoms, ours were developed by individuals leaving for the cities of the East looking for better prospects in life. There was little on space constrains and it was all on what was the easiest way to reach a destination. And when the generation that went west in conestogas had long died, Henry Ford came about with his cheap machine and a new lot of people set out to discover what was beyond the 50 mile perimeter of where they lived. And being Americans, they drove where they wanted and stopped where they wanted to eat, rest or just take on the views. And that is also the reason (in my opinion) that Bullet Trains and other intra and interstate rail “solutions” never take: You are at the mercy of somebody else about when and where to stop and with a bunch of strangers you may or may not like.  If given the choice, which would you rather have? A free ticket to travel in Greyhound anywhere or a cheap rental car to do the same?

As for my friend, he never got around buying the crotch rocket, but he went and put his money on some small Nordic car with turbo. Hey, it is his money and he can waste it on whatever he wants. That’s ‘Murica.

Ann Patchett, over at the NY Times, wrote a banal Op-Ed about why we should ban all guns but can’t.

Yes, we get it Ann, you shot a .22 when you were a kid and some family members of yours owned guns so you don’t really hate guns but you do really hate guns and now that you are part of the New York liberal elite you want to ban all guns blah blah blah oh my god won’t these people shut up about this already.

She ends her drivel with the same empty platitudes I’ve read about guns in every NY Times Op-Ed ever published about guns on any day that ends in ‘Y’.

Don’t ever believe the old saw about guns not killing people. They do and they will, again and again. Guns shoot children, parents, siblings, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, strangers and friends, in error and in fury. This will happen until we decide it should stop, which would mean getting rid of not only the AK-47s but the pretty little silver .22s as well. All of them. No one ever asks for that, maybe because it feels prudent to not enrage the many people who own guns, but the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms.

Yes, guns are for killing.  No, the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms.  There is no right to not get shot.  In fact, some people, through their actions should get shot.  Some people just need killing.  That is a simple fact.  The I’m not condoning murder or vigilantism.  But at that moment, when a person is under attack, their attacker has relinquished their right to life.

Watch this video below, of a woman in New Jersey, getting beaten by a home invader in front of her child.  Tell me, when she is having her head stomped on, when there is a chance that she may have been killed in front of her child, that it would not have been better for mom to get a gun out of a drawer when the man went upstairs and  shot him when he came down.

Tell me that a rapist has the right not to get shot when he is raping a woman.  Tell me a home invader has the right not to get shot when he is attacking a family over their property.  Tell me that any criminal actively harming a person has the right not to get shot.

Your fallacious right not to get shot, only protects those who intend to do harm.

I hope to never have to kill anybody.  But if I do, I hope what can be said about me is what is on the headstone of the gunfighter Robert Clay Allison.