I caught this one over at The Daily Wire.

Because a two-year-old can’t speak in sentences, it is not sentient and therefore it’s morally justifiable to kill it.

What is it with these people?  If they aren’t trying to fuck your kids, they want to kill them.

As the father of a three-year-old and a one-month-old, I can tell you, a two year old can communicate his/her needs.  I know when my baby is hungry.  I know when she needs to be burped, I know when she is unhappy about being wet, and I know that she really enjoys a warm bath.  She, like my son before her didn’t need sentences to communicate all that.

That’s part of being a parent.

The reality is that people like these will use any perversion of logic to justify killing whoever they want.

Once upon a time progressives thought is was reasonable to forcibly sterilize the infirm and disabled.

Aktion T4 was the Nazi justification for the extermination of those who were detrimental to German “racial hygiene.”

Either you believe life has intrinsic value or you don’t.  If you don’t, it doesn’t take much to rationalize ending it.

I don’t know why this piece of shit doesn’t like children, but since he looks like an unfuckable mound of old gum, I doubt he will have to make the choice of whether or not to murder his own offspring any time soon.

The one thing about him that I do know is that I have never wanted to stab a college kid in the throat so badly.

SAN ANTONIO – Cynthia Ruiz, a widow and a single mother, said she collapsed when San Antonio police notified her the next day that her 19-year-old son, Andrew Herrera, had been shot and killed during an attempted robbery.

I am sure she heard for the first time that her little angel, wasn’t.

The botched robbery happened on Dec. 7 at a Popeyes Chicken in the 800 block of Southeast Military Drive.

I reckon Andrew thought that some cash and some Bonafide Chicken to go was just what the doctor ordered.

“Did my son deserve to be punished? Yes, he did,” Ruiz said.

We agree with you ma’am. But I am betting he was not punished at an early age. Doing an armed robbery is not like the flu: you just don’t catch it but grow into it.

Police said Herrera, wearing a hoodie and a mask, entered the South Side restaurant with gun and confronted a man and his family who were eating.

After the man told Herrera he had spent the money he had on their dinner, Herrera turned toward the counter and pointed the gun at one of the workers, who was running away.

Good move.

That’s when the man, who had a concealed handgun license, fired several shots at Herrera.

Damned good move.

Ruiz said she understands the man who shot her son was defending his family, but she asked, “Why shoot him four more times? Why did he shoot him five times?”

Because the gentleman decided five shots was all he needed to stop the threat that Mrs Herrera baby boy represented.

Ruiz said the man had no way of knowing what she later was told by a second suspect, the alleged getaway driver: “The gun wasn’t even loaded.”

Some myths are hard to kill and this one of the “If you use an unloaded gun, t is not armed robbery” is still alive and kicking even though it has proven to be legally hurtful and like in the case of Little Andrew, fatal.

I don’t get why media wants to lionize common criminals and their weeping moms. C’mon, it is not like she did not have her well-funded suspicions about what was he doing!

After that, Ruiz said, she eventually began questioning what he was up to, and why he was bringing home money when he didn’t have a job.
“If you have money from whatever you’re doing, you can take that money and find a place to live,” Ruiz said.

Well, what we get from this event is that somebody played stupid games against a father defending his family and he won a very stupid prize while his mom is no longer getting the income from his bad actions.

I’m going to double down on Miguel’s post Show me in the dolly where being a responsible Gun Owner hurt you.

I am an ardent advocate of concealed carry.  I have made the same argument that many other concealed carry advocates make regarding things like CCW for women.  It goes something like this:

Women should carry because rapists are predators and even though they shouldn’t be attacked, some men will and women should take precautions.  

The feminists say “we should just teach men not to rape.”  Yeah.  I’m pretty sure we do.  Guess what?  It still happens.  Why?  Evil exists in this world.

That’s not victim blaming.  That is a realistic assessment of how the world works.  You have no control over what other people do.  There are bad people out there and they do bad things.

The Chief of Police of Atlanta tells people not to leave their guns in their cars.

OK, gotcha.  Makes sense.  If I have to leave my gun in my car I’m going to lock it in the Job Box bolted into the bed of my truck.

I figure the same principle from above applies.

Gun owners should secure their guns when they are not using them because thieves are predators and even though they shouldn’t be have their stuff stolen, some men will and gun owners should take precautions.

Then I see some people shrieking about that like they are a bunch of social justice feminists yelling about short skirts not being an excuse.

Every gun I have, when it is out of my immediate possession is behind steel.  I have a safe in my house, a handgun vault in my bedroom, and a lock box in my truck.  I paid good money for that gun, I don’t want it to disappear on me.  I also have a very smart three year old and I don’t want him to have an accident.

There is an Arabic proverb, trust in Allah but tie up your camel.  

If you carry because you know evil exists and bad people will do what they shouldn’t, you should lock up your guns when you are not using them for the very same reason.

It seems the previous post has hurt the delicate mental constitution of some.

I find it highly ironic that a blog named Gun Free Zone would celebrate a Chief’s (that lobbied to keep places GFZs btw) statement

It is never a good thing to start with an outright lie. Celebrating what she said? I guess I missed where I shot the fireworks and had the marching band for the lady. Oh yeah, I didn’t celebrate a thing she said. But still she has a point: guns are being stolen from cars because they are left unsecured. Now, if all gun owners would be SMART and have installed a means to keep the gun locked, she would not have a reason to say shit like that and the Opposition would not have ammunition to use against us.

When the fuck did having a modicum of responsibility became something to be rejected among gun owners? Are you actually gonna sit there and tell me you never heard of guns being robbed from cars?

This one is on us as a group and while a very few (more likely none of the pearl clutchers bitching here) fight to expand where guns are allowed, it behoove us to avoid as much as we can that the unsavory elements of our society see our cars as mobile firearm supply.

Now, if this is too hard to understand, there is nothing else I can say or explain, feel free to thump chest and there is the door. I am sure there are other blogs that will suit your character (or lack of it)

You guys do remember I had said I was not going to be polite anymore, right?

There you go.

WAIT!!! I almost forgot… here is a graphic that surely will give you hives because it is about being responsible with guns.

I finally watched Kong: Skull Island.

I lost the movie at 30 min in.  I get that they have to establish Kong as a beast but taking out an entire Air Cav unit like that was stupid.

Kong is 100 feet tall.  The UH-1 Iroquois has a service ceiling of 12,000 feet with a 1,200 foot/min climb rate.

Why the hell did the Air Cav unit feel the need to fight Kong at eye level?  

Also, military data puts M80 7.62×51 penetration at 60cm or 24 inches of tissue.   In a 100 foot ape, that would barely go through his skin.  It’s obvious that all the M60 fire was jut pissing Kong off. 

Was is anti military sentiment that made that scene so bad?  Couldn’t they strand the Air Cav unit some other way?  I just couldn’t get past how bad that part was. 

Atlanta Chief of Police Erika Shields tell Gun Owners not to bring guns and leave them in the car and people on our side get the vapors.

Ya’ll done fanning yourselves? Let’s talk and she some bullshit out of the way, shall we? First, allow me a small reminder to everybody: Police has no duty to protect. Just in case you forgot.

Next, there is an issue with guns being stolen out of cars, not as huge as some would like to make it, but it is happening and the fault resides in dumb ass gun owners who do not have a mean to secure their sidearms in the car. It is nobody else’s fault. Not the cops and certainly not the critters bashing windows to steal stuff inside vehicles. This is not but a sever case of That is not gonna happen to me.” Oh yes it will you moron.

There is a plethora of devices to secure firearms inside your car.  From the small boxes with steel cables that attach to the base of a car seat to solid steel cabinets that can go in the back of an SUV and carry several rifles, pistols, ammo and range stuff.

Basically there is no excuse to leave your pistol loose in your glove compartment, in the center console or under the seat.

So stop crapping on the woman, she is just doing what she needs to do. You do what you must do which is making sure your sidearm does not end in the wrong hands.

It is your damn responsibility. Take it.

Iceland made it illegal to pay men more than women for the same work.

Forgetting that the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, Bernie Sanders Tweeted this.

Iceland just became the first country in the world to make it illegal to pay men more than women. In the United States in 2016, black women made 62.5 cents on the dollar compared to white men and hispanic women made 54.4 cents. That is a disgrace. pic.twitter.com/y2sxSWYVrm

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 3, 2018

To be fair, Bernie was only 22 at the time, so he might have missed that bit of news.

What he doesn’t say is the Icelandic law requires companies prove that their pay is equal or they are fined.

That’s just what we need in America Federal bureaucrats to audit business of more than 25 people and make them justify the salary or wages of all their employees and account quantitatively for any discrepancy.

It should be easy to come up with a standard so the different levels of education, quality of schooling, skill, etc., can all be accounted for in pay in a way that passes bureaucratic scrutiny.

I can only see this encouraging businesses to hire people and reward things like effort and performance.

I can’t see how that wouldn’t backfire at all. 

We should take all of our cues from a nation with the population about the size of our 57th largest city (Santa Ana, California, pop. 334,000) and that suffered total economic collapse not 10 years ago.

Maybe Sanders could convince Vermont to try it first.