Category Archives: So Much Stupid!

Thinking Outside the Box

A girlfriend of mine thoughtfully sent me an article today. She thought I might find it of passable interest, and so I did. A tip of my Stetson to Christie. The Silverbelly one, not the black one of course!

You have to admire some out of the box solutions to situations. Some others however, not so much. For example some people use landscaping timbers in their yards, they frame flowerbeds and the like. Now landscaping timbers of course, are intended to be used in round corrals to teach horses trail course, or a nice stride length at trot or canter, or perhaps to prepare to jump. But if people want to use them in their yards, good for them I say. For my negative examples I use unemployment statistics. What the MSM (mainstream media) will tout as the unemployment statistics are the U-3 numbers. In December 2015 that was at 5.0%. HOWEVER, what they or the White House will not tell you, is that the U-3 number does not include people that are not looking for work. Nor does it include the under-employed, those that want to work full time and can’t find a job, or people that are laid off and waiting to be called back. There are marginally attached workers, discouraged workers, under-employed, none of which count. The only unemployed people are those that have looked for a job in the last four weeks. If you add all those up, the real unemployment rate, the U-6 number is around 9.9%. So just as many people are out of work, but by changing the rules, labels, pigeon holes and shuffling the shells, you get better numbers. So that’s their out of the box solution to high unemployment numbers.

Well, a clever man has come up with a way to lower crime statistics! Although I’m quite sure that wasn’t his purpose, but suspect the DOJ would be fine with it.

2015 Rape statistics, figures from March 30, 2015

Average number of rape cases reported in the US annually 89,000
Percent of women who experienced an attempted or completed rape 16 %
Percent of men who experienced an attempted or completed rape 3 %
Decline in rape rate since 1993 60 %
Percent of rapes that are never reported to authorities 60 %
Percent of college rapes that are never reported to authorities 95 %
Percent of rapes where both victim and perpetrator had been drinking 47 %

What Daryush Valizadeh “Roosh” has proposed is to change the rules about rape. The name may be ringing a bell with you already. Perhaps you have seen his 2007 book “Bang” on the penny rack at Barnes and Nobel? It’s his helpful guide to seducing and raping women, and includes such helpful guidance as

“No means no..until it means yes,” Roosh instructed in his book. “In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent.”

“I know that when it comes to sex, one ounce of hesitation or morality will get me nowhere.”

Well, alrighty then. A penny is too high a price.

This author started out with a Blog called “Return of Kings” where he could brag about his rape conquests, and then went on to publish his book.

Now we are not talking some yokel from a third world Islamic country where they still think women are property. No, no, we are talking about an American born muslim with a degree in Microbiology from University of Maryland.

Why is that important? Well, perhaps because the huge rise in sexual assault and rape in Europe is being attributed to the new immigrants not realizing it is considered impolite to rape and kill women in Europe. And some in the German media have attempted to tell how much worse it really is and are being silenced. There is an encouraging thing to look forward to, no doubt.

Finland has put out a helpful video for their women showing them how to utilize the powerful word “NO”, if that didn’t work, putting up one hand, palm to the attacker, if one hand didn’t work, use the even more deadly TWO palms towards them. If they can resist that? Hit them with your purse. Seriously. So their arsenal of tactics to deal with assault has now been broadened by FOUR, count ’em folks, FOUR tactics.

Germany has chosen to address their efforts towards the new refugees, by issuing them cartoon books basically saying the same, groping, raping and killing women is considered rude in Germany.

But these actions will not bring down the crime statistics. Valikazoontike’s solution will.

His solution? Make rape legal on private property.

Yes, you read me correctly. Actually ValenKernalKlink believes rape should be legal all over the world. He believes that women are just pieces of meat and he can have any of them within 3 dates anyway.

Any women that attempt to speak against him and his little band of merry men are targeted with instructions to gather data on them, and rape them.

But all this crap is going on in Europe, and he’s bragging about sneaking in Australia and speaking there. What more has this to do with us?

He and his jolly boys were set to have a meeting, Saturday February 6th. In America. In Oklahoma. In Oklahoma City. It was to have been 1 of 165 meetings in 43 countries. Yep, countries, not counties.

Women and gays were not to be allowed to attend and VakaSargentSchultz warned that he would “exact furious retribution” on anyone who challenges the groups. He says that their numbers have grown and they wouldn’t have to continue to hide in the shadows.

Oklahoma City, the Cowboy Hall of Fame, and you think it’s a good idea to have a meeting to get more members to vote and lobby to make rape legal. Awesome.

Well, that is one way to lower the rape statistics.

Another is to shoot the bastard. Dead rapists seldom repeat offend. Very seldom. They may vote Democrat, but they won’t rape again.

I talked to Christie about going to the meeting. But I was concerned my dyslexia could create problems reading the signs directing one to the room for the “Return of Kings” and confusing it for the room for “Oklahoma for open carry”, where we of course would have been headed. Sometimes words like that look a lot a like to me. I’m thinking they may meet some of those Oklahoma and Texas women that will make them reconsider the error of their ways.

But at least they are making progress on breaking down the causes of rape.

Causes of Rape
Causes of Rape

Cause or Effect

“Shoulder thing that goes up.”

“Bullet-piercing bullets.”

“TEC-9 rifle.”

“Heat-seeking .50 caliber bullets.”

Semi-automatic assault rifles, high-power .223 Remington, .9 mm and 40 caliber bullets, flash hiders that make guns invisible to the target… And I’m sure you can add plenty more stupidities to the list of things victim disarmers say. It’s hard to find a news report on an anti-RKBA proposal that isn’t stuffed full of such absurdities, and harder to find a reporter who’ll call out the speaker on it. I used to make a hobby of contacting reporters to explain why that “submachinegun” wasn’t a submachinegun. I gave it up because I couldn’t keep up, and because never even once would the media whore make the correction.

I recently challenged a NYC congresscritter to identify a national army — anywhere in the world — that issues semi-auto AK or AR variants instead of the auto-capable assault rifles. Rather than correct his mistake, he settled for silence.

Moms Demand Action, as one of their early Facebook entries, posted a chart supporting the Kellerman “43 times more likely” claim. I commented, noting that that particular study had been thoroughly debunked (even by pro-gun control types). Shannon Watts (or more likely some intern) replied that they weren’t referencing the Kellerman paper, that it came from a different study, to which I pointed to their chart and noted that it was labeled with the Kellerman paper reference.

I became one of the first people banned by MDA, and my comments disappeared. The chart stayed. Since Watts has a habit of shoving both feet into her mouth clear up to the knees, you probably can think of similar examples.

Does stupidity cause gun control, or does gun control cause stupidity?

In all honesty, the most vocal gun grabbers cannot seem to get the most basic facts right. Sometimes it’s intentional, as in Sugarman’s desire to equate cosmetic “assault weapons” with select-fire assault rifles in people’s minds. Sometimes it’s sheer stupidity (-cough- McCarthy).

And it hurts their cause. On more than one occasion, I’ve been able to explain some actual facts to a victim disarmament supporter, and seen that person become outraged at having been lied to. One took up shooting herself. Another simply refused to take the Bradys seriously again, and called me to confirm or deny stuff she saw in the news after that.

So why do the disarmers do it? Are they stupid? Is that why they promote mass violation of human and civil rights, and create safe work places for violent criminals?

Or do they deliberately create outrageous, clearly false statements as a sort of social engineering filter? Like “Nigerian scammers:”

“Finally, this approach suggests an answer to the question in the title. Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor.”

If Nigerian bankers can filter to ensure they’re dealing with the most gullible, why not anti-gun pollsters? That would account for the “90% of Americans want universal background checks” results. That would be 90% of everyone who didn’t say, “Are you [********] me? Take me off your call list,” and hang up.

“Shoulder Thing” McCarthy is clearly stupid, but Schumer is pretty darned smart; evil, but smart. When he calls a pistol a rifle, he knows the difference; he is sifting for gullible folks he can manipulate.

So, despite their words and actions, the victim disarmament leadership are not stupid. Nor do they truly hate firearms (else Schumer and Watts wouldn’t surround themselves with armed guards). They do have an over-arching agenda that causes them to fear guns out of their control.

The gun control foot soldiers — MMM attendees, writers of letters to the editor, silly petition signers — often are stupid, or at least gullible. Others are not really either, but haven’t looked into issues closely, for assorted reasons. They aren’t really gullible, but may not realize how blatantly the Schumers, Watts, and Bloombergs of the world are willingly to lie to them. The Große Lüge has a long history of effectiveness.

Aaron Zelman understood this. And he understood that propaganda of this sort is best countered with education. Thus, his informative Grandpa Jack comic series that explained issues in a down-to-earth simplified style, and documentaries on the true origins of gun control. If No Guns for Negroes could run just once on a major mainstream media channel, race-baiting gun banners would lose their poor, urban constituency over night.

Education comes in many forms, and is best tailored to the specific demographic.

Bloombergian Plotters: They aren’t stupid. They don’t expect gun control to solve problems of violence. For them, it is merely a tool of manipulation. They are best countered with ridicule. Every time one appears in public with an armed guard, photographs should suck up Internet bandwidth. Point out their hypocrisy and falsehoods. Laugh at them. Their lesson is that we are onto them, watching.

The Ignorant: These are the ones who bought the Big Lie. They need the Big Truth. If I had the funds, I would buy ad space in major outlets; whole page ads showing the functionally identical, but cosmetically differing, AR-15 and Aries SCR,noting that no national military has ever replaced their assault rifles with either. Below that would be the actual M-16A2 assault rifle. The text for that one would be: “Confused? That’s exactly what [insert name of local/national gun grabber] wanted. Learn more at” Comparison charts of firearms deaths by country would be good, too. Chart 1: the usual showing the US at the top. Chart 2: the real raw numbers that show the middle ranking. Caption: “What else did they lie about? Learn more at…”

The Gullible: To some extent, the Big Truth will work with this group. But… they will often have a vested emotional interest in not admitting that they were used so cynically, that they were wrong. Like a puppy who won’t admit his mess, we have to rub their noses in it. Most often, I have found that works best one on one.

For instance, victim disarmers are real proud of that “if it saves just one life” meme. Recently, someone threw that at me during a discussion of prohibited persons. I responded with this:

“And how about if but one person is _killed_ by baseless restrictions? My brother died because immoral idiots prevented him having a defensive tool when he needed it, based on _one_ incident, not involving weapons, thirty years before.”

Presented with a hypothetical life, I countered with a real, personal to me, death directly blamed on the Lautenberg Amendment. Suddenly the troll shut up.

“No good guy with a gun…” My counter there is three personal incidents in which I did just that against multiple assailants.

“A woman is safer without weapons…” I tell them about my friend who was attacked on a gun-free campus. She stopped the sexual predator in his tracks with the pepper spray we gave her (and trained her on).

The gullible, with guilty consciences, won’t respond well to simple impersonal numbers, or news reports that run counter to their belief. Hit them with personal anecdotes and facts.

Nose, meet mess. Now clean it up.

None of this will be easy. To personally address every gullible fool requires every honest gun owner to step up and talk to them. Paying your annual TZP or GOA membership dues can help with media ads, but you still need to act personally.

Ad placement will be difficult, as the well-financed NRA has learned, with Comcast refusing to run ads that show firearms or a gun show vendor area even in the background. To start, I would probably try local print papers that cannot afford to turn down revenue. And niche magazines (truckers, cars, gardening and such, as opposed to big circulation general interest magazines like Time, People, or Cosmo).

If you have more cash on hand, try short local spots. Some might even run them at low/no cost to meet their public service requirements.

If inherent stupidity causes gun control, there is only so much we can do. But where gun controllers are trying to inflict stupidity, we can fight back.


NYT uses front page to spout inanities

Okay, it’s not exactly news that the New York Times spouts nonsense, especially when it comes to guns and gun rights. But when the senile old hag venerable Gray Lady prints an editorial on its front page for the first time in 95 years — and that editorial (obviously sparked by this week’s jihadi-team murders in California) is 100% dedicated to spewing obvious silliness on guns — it’s worthy of note.


Here are a few selected gems from the editorial:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

Yes, confusing plain old semi-auto with full-auto again just based on the scary appearance of the rifles shown in media photos.

No mention of the emerging information that the murdering jihadis in San Bernardino may have broken the law both attempting to modify their weapons and, of course, in going out and slaughtering people. As if they’d ever care what “civilians” are legally allowed or not allowed to do.

So what do you want, NYT? Another ugly-gun ban like the one we already had for 10 years, which didn’t accomplish one thing except to create new criminals out of the formerly law abiding?

Well, yes, that appears to be precisely what the NYT wants, because they then go on to say (emphasis mine):

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

“At least those countries are trying.” So let me get this straight. As long as you make a really sincere try at things that deprive people of freedom while doing absolutely zero, nothing, nada, zip, bupkis to protect lives … it’s okeydokey. It’s good.

Take even more freedom. Leave people vulnerable to even more death. It’s all to the good as long as you do something.

The shrieking old bat Gray Lady continues:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

As usual no plan is outlined for drastically reducing numbers and eliminating large categories.

That this is a) impossible and b) would require stormtroopers bearing large numbers of those very categories of scary weapons (even for a vain attempt) is a fact too untidy for the front page of the New York Times. So no, let us delicately sidestep any actual thinking about any actual plan for “reducing” and “eliminating.” We don’t want to consider what would actually end up being reduced and eliminated, now do we?

But not to worry! Because you see, no untidiness would be required:

It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Yes, despite the fact that the censorious, dried-up old biddy Gray Lady opens and closes her editorial by implying that Americans who support gun rights and own ugly guns are “indecent,” we nasty folk would simply turn over our weapons for the good of humanity.

I can envision us now, patiently lined up outside our local police stations or firearm melting centers by the thousands, little American flags waving from the barrels of our Evil Black Rifles, patriotic gleams in our eyes as we wait to surrender these indecent, macho, insurrectionist arms for destruction.


Yes, there we are, converted into Times believers simply by passage of yet another law. Because of course this law, unlike all other laws the world has ever known, has shown us in a “clear and effective” way the evil that we have been harboring in our gun cabinets and in our hearts. So we have repented and with the fervor of new converts are delighting in “giving up” all that the Times dictates we should give.

And a new day dawns in which nobody — nobody! — ever again commits mass violence because the tools to do so have been made clearly and effectively illegal!

Hooray and hallelujah for our glowing future! The sun will shine upon us forever, its pure radiance never again dimmed by the blood of innocents. Our Glorious Leaders will protect us with their Great Wisdom. And we are proud — proud! — to surrender our evil, knowing we will forever be protected and kindly led by those Above Us.



It must be so, right? Because the NYT thought their words were brilliant enough, original enough, revelatory enough, and necessary enough to write a front-page editorial for the first time since 1920. Surely they wouldn’t have resorted to such drama merely to spout cliched and bloody nonsense.

(H/T Jim Bovard for the inspiration)


No sense of history? Or just no sense?

It’s funny. If he lived in the U.S., Rabbi Menachem Margolin would be considered more or less a wimp on gun rights. In Europe, he’s a most radical voice.

Since the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher massacres at least, he’s been calling for Jews to take up arms. That is, to be “allowed” to take up arms. And only “selected” Jews. Jews chosen, trained, and constantly overseen by the state (the very state that’s content to leave the Jews and everyone else disarmed in the face of both terrorism an regular, independent crime).

You see what I mean about wimpy. Still, in disarmed Europe, he’s the loudest voice calling for Jewish self defense.

Margolin is based in Belgium. So naturally, the country’s chief rabbi Abraham Guigui (I didn’t know countries had chief rabbis, but so this article says) and other prominent Jewish leaders simply must denounce him and his mad, wild, crazy, wild-west plan. According to the Jerusalem Post:

Over the weekend, Guigui issued a statement blasting what he called marginal elements and stating that calls for the arming of Jews were “a real danger and unacceptable.”

Calling for Jewish gun ownership would be tantamount to an admission that the Jews are outside of mainstream European society and that their governments are unable to provide for their security, he explained. [Pardon me for interrupting the article, but no sh*t Sherlock, it’s time to admit that “governments are unable to provide for their security.”]

Such a view is considered unacceptable to the vast majority of Belgian Jews, he said, calling on the government to defend every Belgian no matter his religious creed.

“If every one who is in danger requests a gun, today that’s the Jews, tomorrow it’s the imams… it will be a land of anarchy.”

The Coordination Committee of Belgian Jewish Organizations also decried Margolin’s call to arms, issuing a statement calling it ridiculous and asserting that the EJA was “in no way representative of the Belgian Jewish Community.”

“He [Margolin] is not connected at all with the Belgian- Jewish [umbrella] organizations,” said Baron Julien Klener, the president of the Jewish Central Consistory of Belgium, joining his voice to other organizations alarmed at the idea of arming Jews.

Margolin, of course, being a true European, rushed to have an underling explain that he really, really, really didn’t mean what those other guys thought he meant.

All I can say, guys, is it’s your funeral. I hope not literally.


I am WOMAN hear me whine?

I saw a column a few days ago about a University of Miami Law Professor who was opposed to a campus carry bill making it’s way through the Florida senate.

MA Franks, another self-defense expert, urged lawmaker to reject the legislation. Franks is a law professor at the University of Miami who specializes in self-defense law and is also an instructor in Krav Maga, a Israeli form of hand-to-hand self-defense.“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.Franks also rebutted the argument that concealed weapons could prevent rape, noting most assault victims know their attackers. “Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Apparently unmoved by the victims of rape that testified in favor of the bill, Franks believes that a woman would be unable to use a gun to defend herself.

WOW. A Professor of law, but, but the degree came from Harvard so that could be part of the problem.

I had a conversation with my Mom this morning, we were just reminiscing about my Dad, and things I had wanted to be “when I grew up”. At one time I considered lawyer, or perhaps open a auto repair shop staffed by women. A place where women could come and not feel intimidated. Dad didn’t like either of those. At the time those conversations took place women weren’t really in either of those fields. Back then there were still some jobs that were considered “men’s work”.

I remember the women’s liberation movement. Fairly well. Women were fighting to be accepted into fields that typically weren’t open. They wanted equal pay for equal work.

The first female police officer (actually functioning as a regular officer) was 1972. The academies didn’t make it easy for them to get through and often their teammates didn’t want them on the team.

The first female fire fighter to work solely as a paid fire fighter was in 1974. There were women who were volunteer fire fighters in the 1800s. There had also been BLM crews made up of solely women, but the first regular fire fighter if you will, was 1974.

The first integrated unit where men and women served together in the military in a war zone was the 1991 Gulf War. Prior to that women had been in the military, but usually as support staff, medical or clerical jobs. Going back to the War for Independence and the un-Civil War women did serve in combat units, but they disguised themselves as men. It was a process not an event. In 1974 the first six women became Air Force pilots, in 1976 the military academies became co-educational.

Women fought hard to have the opportunity to have these non-traditional jobs. If I had a daughter attending an expensive college and had one of her professors telling her that she was incapable of using an effective tool to defend herself I would be appalled and outraged, and she would be out of there and into a good school in a Miami minute. If I were alumni of the school and had a professor telling women such things I would drop support. I realize colleges are a hotbed of liberalism and progress and so to return to such an outdated and false sterotype is despicable.

So who is this ancient crocodile that is so threatened by a woman being able to defend herself against someone or a group bigger and stronger than herself?

Well, this is where it gets really sad. MA Franks, is Mary Ann Franks. A woman. Sadder still? She is a Krav Maga instructor. She recognizes the importance of self-defense but would deny her sisters the use of one of the most, if not the most effective tool to do so.

She is young now, she can do Krav Maga, but is she foolish enough to think that ALL women can? I realize she earns money teaching a way cool martial arts form, and kudos to her for that. But she lives in la-la land (sorry, forgot about the Harvard thing) if she thinks that there are no older students or students with physical disabilities. The most vulnerable do not need an effective form of self-defense? And they are every bit as deserving to live safely as the people that can afford to take her classes or have her physical abilities.

To have someone who has worked to be in a role that at one time would have been dominated by men telling others that women are incapable of using a gun is allowing her liberal ideology to damage lives. Perhaps she needs to get off the campus and into the real world where she could begin to use her mind and begin to think.

What a shame. What a selfish, silly, ungrateful child.


LA City Council Requires Tougher Storage Laws

So the Lost Angeles (spelling intentional) City Council has decided to mandate tougher storage laws to ensure that no children accidentally shoot themselves in their fair city.

“I am tired and I know you all are too of reading of grieving parents who have lost their children through unintentional and totally preventable shootings,” said Laurie Saffian with Women Against Gun Violence.

Yes, do it for the children! Because we haven’t heard that well-worn trope before!

A violation will be a misdemeanor. Officials say there won’t be patrols checking homes to make sure the law is being obeyed, and they admit it will be difficult to know until after an incident occurs.

“Sadly, it will also come into play after tragedies occur or after near tragedies occur,” Krekorian said.

So the idiots can’t enforce it without massive violations of the Fourth Amendment, and they’ve essentially passed a new law that has no hope of reducing accidents – all to remedy a problem that pretty small, according to that bastion of conservative reporting, the Washington Post.

We know how many gun deaths were declared accidental (591 in 2011, the CDC says). And we know that 102 people killed in these accidental gun deaths in 2011 were younger than 18, according to Vernick, with half of these children younger than age 13.

In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, 59 children under the age of 13 died due to accidental gunfire. Compare this to the 577 in that same age bracket who drowned, and 51 and 55 who died of poisoning and falls respectively. Why is it that gun grabbers aren’t lobbying for swimming pool control?

This new law can’t be enforced, and it will more likely than not be completely useless at deterring accidental deaths.

But you know what it will do?

It will ensure that any armed thug who breaks into your home will have complete access to your body, your loved ones, and your property with impunity.

Unless, of course, you think your encounter with an armed intruder will go something like this:


You: Oh, my goodness! You have a gun! How did you possibly get one with all the strict gun laws we have in Lost Angeles?

Intruder: Shut up and lie down.

You: Oh, NOES! What are you planning to do to me?

Intruder: Well, first I’m going to tie you up and rape you. And then I thought I’d walk around and help myself to your stuff. That OK with you?

You: No! As a matter of fact, I bought a gun to protect myself against just such an eventuality!

Intruder: Well, where is this mythical gun?

You: It’s locked up right now. City Council says I must.

Would you mind waiting right there while I run and fetch it?

Intruder: Oh, sure! I’ll wait here. After all, I’d like to afford you a level playing field before I rape and rob you! Go for it. I’ve got all the time in the world!

There's no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!
There’s no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!

In what lunatic world do these imbeciles live?

What good is a tool of self defense if you cannot immediately use it in times of need?

And what good is a right, if you are forced to submit to idiot regulations that have no hope of preventing violence and serve to put you at a disadvantage in the face of an armed enemy?

Good luck, LA. You’ll need it.


He’s anything but a “well-regulated” writer

It seems that one Adam Gopnik, a distinctly artsy-craftsy type, has himself a long-time sinecure at the New Yorker.

It also seems he now considers himself qualified to sling bombast to the effect that “the second amendment is a gun control amendment.”

Further, it seems is absolutely obvious that he feels free to pontificate without any knowledge of what the words “well-regulated” meant to the 18th century writers of the Bill of Rights. AND he pompously blats his fetid opinions without even having a sufficient grasp of grammar to realize that the words “well-regulated” in the amendment don’t refer to firearms, but to the militia.

Must be nice to get and hold such a plumb job with such a high-status publication without actually having to know anything about your topic, or even about how to read a simple English phrase.


Target the terrible, whomp the wacky

Those long-awaited TZP targets have arrived!


Two ways to get ’em:

Download the FREE pdf and print your own targets at home or work. Here’s the place for that.

Or Buy a packet of 10 for just $5.00 postpaid from the TZP store.

And the winners are …

The targets feature quotes submitted by our faithful readers. We promised that if your submitted quote was used, you’d get a free packet of targets. So free targets will be on their way to:

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
J. Eric Andreasen

We’ll be checking with you to see what address we should send to. And if I missed anybody, please let us know (we now have a Contact Us link; just use the About Us drop-down menu).

Thanks to all!