J. Kb

Better answer for muskets

Twelve year old Aryanna Gourdin is a hunter, who along with her father, went to Africa on safari.  She shot and killed a giraffe.  All of it a legal hunt.  She posted the pictures to her Facebook page, and in doing so, ignited the wrath of the anti-gun and anti-hunting lunatics.

She is doing a good job of culling the threats and abuse from her wall, but over at the IB Times and Independent, the comments are rife with people who want this girl to die, be murdered, or kill herself.  Because that is exactly how reasonable adults should act…

giraffe 3giraffe 2giraffe 1

Aryanna and her father were interviewed by Piers “Muskets” Morgan.  Morgan, never missing the chance to be a real despicable piece of shit, asked:

“How would you feel if I came to your house one day and I hunted down your pet cat and I killed it and I then posted pictures of me celebrating the slaughter of your pet cat?”

You can watch the video to see Aryanna and her father’s response.  Had I been doing the interview, this would have been my reaction:

“If you broke into my house with the intention of doing me or my pets harm, I would shoot and kill you on sight, the way I would any other home invader.”

Stick it right back in his craw.  What I find so mind blowing about all of this is the number of people that openly threaten a family that takes owns guns and uses them together.

Also, the headline of the Daily Mail article about this is: ‘What if I killed your pet cat?’ Piers Morgan infuriates an unapologetic 12-year-old trophy hunter by asking how SHE would feel to lose an animal she loved.

Wow, British journalists.  I’m so glad that you have decided that when worst media personality in the UK (who was so bad he was fired by both the BBC and CNN for being unpopular) bullies a 12 year old girl, you were going to make Piers Morgan the hero and the 12 year old girl the villain.  Way to go assholes.

Dear Young Liberals

Watch this video:

Each and every one of these kids knows nothing about guns.  Nothing.  Nothing. At. All.  It is evident from what they say.

But let me call specific attention to the red headed girl in the aviator glasses.

She claims “I grew up in a household with guns.  I was shooting skeet…”  Whatever.

Psychologists and black people will tell you, if you claim not to be racist because you say you have a black friend, guess what?  You are racist.

The “I grew up shooting skeet/plinking with a .22/hunting with my grandpa but I don’t think people should have handguns/AR-15s/assault rifles/high capacity mags” argument is the gun rights version of “I’m not a racists because I have a black friend.”  Guess what?  You are an anti gun idiot that knows nothing about guns.

I know it.  You know it.  Don’t bullshit me.



P.S.  You are also a racist.  Just so you know.

Revictimization or Know When to Take the Settlement

Last year the Brady Campaign backed one of the families of one of the victims of the Aurora Theater Shooting in a lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the company that sold ammo and other items to James Holmes.

Brady convinced Lonnie and Sandy Philips, the parents of Jessica Ghawi, that it was really Lucky Gunner who was responsible for the Aurora Shooting.  Supposedly, an online ammo vendor should have known that James Holmes was going to commit a massacre because…. reasons.

Of course the lawsuit against Lucky Gunner was in complete violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun and ammo makers and dealers for being sued for crimes committed by their products if they (the makers and dealers) obey the law.  According to Colorado law HB 000-208, when the Philips lost the case (it was dismissed by the Judge) they had to pay court costs to Lucky Gunner to the tune of $203,000.  HB 000-208 is one of a number of laws across many states designed to reduce the number of nuisance and frivolous lawsuits by making the loser pay court fees.

Well, some of the Aurora families tried their luck again and sued the Cinemark Theater where the shooting occurred.  They lost, and now owe the theater $700,000.  They were offered a settlement, and encourage by the judge to take it.  They decided to roll the dice and go for broke (literally) and lost.

During the trial, the judge had urged the survivors to take a settlement deal, which Marcus Weaver, who was shot in the shoulder, called a “slap in the face.”  But the judge also warned that if they rejected the settlement and lost, they’d be hit with the heavy legal costs.  “Either seek justice and go into debt, or take that pitiful offering of money and the improved public safety,” Weaver told the Times.  While the victims originally agreed to take the $150,000 settlement, a plaintiff who lost her child and was left paralyzed from the theater shooting rejected the deal.

A few months ago, a jury decided after three hours of deliberation, that the Cinemark Theater was not legally responsible for the shooting.   The lawsuit was based mostly on the idea that since there was a memo from Homeland Security that theaters may be targeted for terrorist attacks, the theater should have had better security and armed guards.

The jury was not allowed to hear about the memo.  In my non lawyer opinion, so what?  A memo from Homeland Security saying that terrorists might target movie theaters is a far cry from is not a reasonable prediction that an specific theater was going to suffer an attack on a specific day, and not justification for armed guards.  If that were the case, every theater in America, would have to have armed guards all the time.  For that matter, every facility in America that Homeland Security says might be targeted by terrorist (which is just about everywhere) would have to have armed guards.  This would be both very expensive, and a general turnoff to consumers and patrons.  How many people would pay $50 in tickets, popcorn, candy, and drinks to be in a place where you had to have armed guards to keep you safe if six months later you can get the same experience at home for $5.99 on On Demand/PPV?

The jury seems to have to the same conclusion that I did:

But the jury in the civil trial ruled unanimously that Cinemark had no reason to expect a mass shooting was imminent. Holmes’ attack was the first mass shooting at a movie theater in the US. “If Cinemark is liable under these circumstances, every single business in the world will be held liable for what happens on their property, regardless of how foreseeable it is,” the Post quotes an attorney for Cinemark as saying.

One of the Aurora plaintiffs had  a moment of clarity and bailed on the case before the poop hit the fan.

Weaver removed himself as a plaintiff immediately. So did 25 others. By the next day, 15 plaintiffs remained when Jackson handed down the order that Cinemark was not liable for the damages.  “A blind guy in a dark alley could have seen [the state verdict] coming,” Harding, Weaver’s attorney, said.

The media doing their damned to spin this as a case of “woe to the victims” by how “unfair” it is that the people who shot got shot in the Cinemark Theater have to pay Cinemark $700,000.  But as we saw with Lucky Gunner, in Colorado, loser pays and unless there is a very specific threat made, the shooting is the responsibility of nobody but the shooter.

I just hope the that suit against Remington regarding the Sandy Hook Shooting is dealt with by the jury in the same way.


I called it (again)

When I last discussed the shooting of Dwyane Wade’s counsin, Nykea Aldridge, I said I was afraid that Wade would become just another anti gun celebrity.  Well… he did.

Dwyane Wade criticizes Chicago’s ‘weak gun laws,’ says Donald Trump’s tweets about his cousin’s murder left him with a ‘bad taste’ in his mouth (VIDEO)

The NBA star said fiercer gun laws will help the police, and continues to have partnerships with law enforcement. Wade will hold an event in Miami later this month to promote cycling safety and unity in the community — and police officers plan to join him on the six-mile bike ride. “They are fighting a war,” Wade said of Chicago police. “And they can do a lot better, but they can get more help as well to do better. There’s other cities that have way tougher gun laws. We have weak gun laws.”

I want to know what weak gun laws in Chicago Wade is talking about?

Illinois requires a permit to own a gun, called a FOID, and the most restrictive shall issue CCW permit in the country

Chicago has an assault weapons ban, high capacity magazine ban, and has so many gun free “safe passage” and 430 ILCS 66/65 (no CCW allowed) zones, that CCW in Chicago is almost impossible (trust me, I lived there).

But this has nothing to do with Chicago gun laws.

The two men that shot his cousin were known gang members and felons, one on parole for gun crimes, who were trying to kill the driver of a car, when Ms. Aldridge got caught in the crossfire.  One of the shooters had a court ordered ankle monitor, but was allowed to take it off to look for work.

The police superintendent said the judicial system needs to demand more accountability for people convicted of gun offenses.  “This tragedy isn’t just noteworthy just because Ms. Aldridge has a famous family member,” Johnson said. “It’s noteworthy because these two offenders are prime examples of the challenge we face in Chicago with repeat gun offenders who don’t care who they shoot, don’t care whose life they take and clearly, clearly don’t fear the consequences of their actions.”

The Chicago Police Superintendent hit the nail on the head.  It’s not the gun laws, it is the culture of crime.  But like I predicted, that is harder to fight do Wade is going to do the useless work of making this a gun control issue.




Allow me to don my tinfoil hat for the moment and engage in just a little bit of conspiracy theory:

Last week we found out that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s body woman and second daughter, used to work for a radical Islamist magazine that blamed the US for 9/11 and said all sorts of other horrible things.

We found out that Huma Abedin was a key power broker at the Clinton Foundation, acting as the go-between for the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton at the State Department, arranging meetings between donors and the Secretary of State.

We know that Huma Abedin mishandled classified information and Judicial Watch has a whole file on her potentially criminal activities  with more documents being poised to be leaked containing God knows what about her.

Lastly, we know that Abedin and Weiner have close ties with the Clintons, Bill Clinton presided over their wedding.

So on Monday, we find out that the disgraced former Congressman, Anthony Weiner, has been sexting again and his wife, Huma Abedin has decided to separate from him.

To me, this just seems too convenient.  A lot of bad Huma press hits the wire and now her husband is caught being a perv in public again and she files for divorce.  It is a total distraction from Huma’s malfeasance, and a distraction that garners her a lot of sympathy.

I wonder if this is a set up.  If the Clintons got Weiner to dive on his sword to take the heat off of Huma.

Or maybe it’s just one big coincidence.

You just can’t trust those lizard people that the Illuminati put in power her on Earth to breed with our human women, to control themselves on the internet.