The Right Wing's new response to transgender folk using the bathroom is to enter them with guns at the ready.

I'm taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard. #BoycottTarget @Target

— Liberty Lawyer (@AnitaStaver) April 22, 2016

Courtesy of the Advocate:  

Anti-LGBT activists are taking the newfound role of “potty police” to the next level, pledging to carry weapons into public restrooms to “protect” against trans people using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. 

The threats came after retailer Target announced Wednesday it would allow transgender patrons to use the restroom of their choice. The policy is a slap at North Carolina’s anti-LGBT House Bill 2, which, among other things, bars transgender people from using facilities that correspond with their gender identity, if those are in government buildings; it does let private-sector companies set their own policies. In response to Target's action, at least two right-wing leaders promised to meet trans people in the bathroom — with firearms. 

The preliminary warning shot came from Anita Staver, president of the right-wing, anti-LGBT Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit conservative legal group — best known for representing defiant antigay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis — that recently told CBS News it is proudly pushing transphobic “bathroom bills” nationwide. 

 On Friday, Staver — who is married to Liberty Counsel’s chairman and cofounder, Mat Staver — sent out a tweet blasting Target’s trans-inclusive policy. “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room,” she wrote, before adding what appears to be a dig at the concept that someone could identify as a gender other than that they were assigned at birth.

If you don't think that this will not result in some poor person being shot to death in a public restroom than you certainly have not been paying attention to the news lately.

And what exactly would be the "offense" that earned some poor person the death penalty at the hands of a panicky homophobic gun nut?

Would it be for being too manly in the ladies room? Or too effeminate in the men's room?

Because if that is the case I know several straight non-transgender folks who are going to have to start wearing bullet proof vests before they tinkle in public.

South Carolina man arrested with thousand and thousands of stolen guns in his home.

The face of the American ammosexual.

Courtesy of the Charlotte Observer:  

In his 30 years of law enforcement, about the largest illegal stash of weapons Chesterfield County, S.C., Sheriff Jay Brooks ever investigated was 50 guns. 

“And that was considered an arsenal,” Brooks said. 

Saturday, his deputies arrested 51-year-old Brent Nicholson of Pageland after they found thousands – their best estimate is 7,000 to 10,000 – of handguns and rifles stacked at his house and in a nearby storage building. They found hundreds more at a liquor store Nicholson runs with his father and at his parents’ home, Brooks said. 

“There were so many guns we quit counting after a while,” the sheriff said. 

As it turns out the vast majority of the weapons were stolen. Some Nicholson stole himself, others he bought from burglars and thieves.

“There’s no evidence that he even used them,” Brooks said. “There’s no evidence that he was selling them – he just wanted them. His house looked like that hoarders program on TV.” 

The sheriff said Nicholson may have stolen some of the merchandise, but he likely bought most of it from other thieves. “They steal this stuff from homes, or hunting lodges or cabins, and sell it for $100 a pistol,” he said. 

Hoarding thousands of weapons that you will never have reason to use, if that is not the NRA's version of the American dream I don't know what is. 

This is of course the flaw in the gun nuts argument that "if owning guns were criminalized only criminals would have guns."

What they tend to leave out is that guns stolen by criminals are most often taken from the homes of people who purchased them legally.

Fewer guns means fewer guns to steal, and fewer guns to steal means fewer guns used in robberies, and fewer guns used in ANY way means fewer bullets being fired into the bodies of the American people.

How gun advocates sound to normal people.

Yep, that's how they sound alright.

Arkansas state senator kinda sorta threatens to kill his constituents if they ask him a question in public.

Later out of curiosity Mr. White visited Senator Rapert's Twitter account and found this:

 Soooo, to be clear this legislator is suggesting that talking to him in public, or let's go ahead and say "harassing him," is reason enough for him to shoot you?

With bullets and everything? 

Later the Senator attempted to convince Mr. White that HE was not the one who he was threatening to shoot:

Well good to know that Mr. White wasn't the guy that Senator Rapert considered important enough to almost shoot in the face.

However that means that somewhere in Arkansas is some poor schlub who just barely escaped with his, or her, life and doesn't even know it.

And I guess for future reference if you want to confront Senator Rapert about some legislation he introduced or how he voted, probably best to do so when he is stepping out the shower at the gym.

That way you know he is not armed.

And I imagine nothing else about him will seem terribly intimidating either.

(H/T to the Arkansas Times.)

P.S. And oh yes, Rapert is a Republican. But then you knew that already, didn't you?

Just a little something for our 2nd Amendment fetishists to keep in mind.

Here is the entire quote from Marx's Address to the Central Committee to the Communist League, tell me if any of this sounds familiar:

To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

So while these so-called conservative constitutionalists have been telling themselves they were following the lead of our founding fathers, in fact they were taking their marching orders from the father of communism himself, Karl Marx.

Pinkos!

Exactly!

And the facts are that OUR fears are borne out, while the fears of the gun nuts are not.

Unless of course they equate gun registration with black helicopters that is.

The myth of gun ownership and home defense.

Courtesy of Politico:  

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. 

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.” 

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.

The article points out a number of ways in which the criminologist misrepresented and extrapolated their data in order to reach such ridiculous numbers.

And then goes on to point out the following:

For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible. 

Of course here at IM we have reported on the almost stunning number of times that guns purchased for protection instead killed or badly wounded the owner or a member of their families. 

Some of them are almost humorous, while others are tragically sad.

The facts are that owning a gun does NOT statistically make you safer than a non-gun owner, however it does dramatically increase the possibility that you yourself, or a loved one, will be shot with that firearm.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating, the best deterrent against burglary is a good dog.

And might I add that dogs are MUCH less likely to go off accidentally and take off somebody's finger. I am not saying it doesn't ever happen, just that it is much less likely.

Finally a little justice for a victim of gun violence.

Courtesy of the AP:  

A suburban Detroit man who said he fatally shot an unarmed woman on his porch out of fear prompted by early morning pounding on his doors faces up to life in prison after jurors rejected his claim of self-defense. 

Theodore Wafer was convicted Thursday of second-degree murder after a nine-day trial that centered on whether the 55-year-old had a reasonable and honest belief that his safety was in peril.

If you remember the case it was concerning an intoxicated young  black woman who came to Wafer's door looking for help after wrecking her car. However help is not what she received. 

Wafer opened the front door and shot McBride in the face, firing through a screen door while she stood on the other side. He first suggested to police that it was an accident but later admitted to intentionally pulling the trigger.

Apparently in America's gun culture one fires their weapon first, before one ascertains whether or not a threat even exists.

This is a win for the good guys.

Hopefully it might convince a future gun nut to hold his fire and help a fellow human being rather than to splatter their brains all over his front porch.

Missouri "Doomsday Prepper" arrested after terrorizing neighborhood for weeks.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Police arrested a Missouri “doomsday prepper” who investigators said had been terrorizing his neighborhood for weeks. 

Neighbors began complaining in May about 36-year-old Roy McCool after he allegedly assaulted a woman in Springfield home, reported the Springfield News-Leader. 

Investigators said McCool forced his way into the woman’s home and punched, slapped, and choked her before firing three rounds from a handgun into her living room wall. McCool broke into the woman’s home two days later and stole a bank card and $35 in cash from her children’s piggy banks, police said. Neighbors said McCool’s behavior grew even more threatening about two weeks later, in late May, when he stood in his front yard with a gun and yelled threats toward other residents.

Apparently Mr. McCool, who has one of the most ironic names ever,  has also been getting into numerous confrontations with his neighbors, hit one man in the face with a wooden stake, and has been openly displaying firearms to passersby.

When the police arrested his ass he had 10 guns consisting of one AR-15, three other rifles, four handguns, and a shotgun. Not to mention the thousands of rounds of ammunition he had just in case the "gubmint" came after him.

Despite all of that preparation it sounds as if the local police had little difficulty apprehending the suspect, who has been charged with six felonies,  including three counts of burglary, two counts of unlawful use of a weapon and one count of domestic assault.

Well that is one less Sarah Palin supporter walking the streets at least. 

Do you know where it is probably NOT a safe place to provide a gun safety class? In the parking lot of your local Target.

Did this guy actually feel it necessary to point out to a bunch of folks carrying long guns and assault style rifles where the muzzle is located? And then call it "the dangerous end" as if he were talking to preschoolers?

This Open Carry Texas group recorded and posted this video, I'm sure, to help put people's minds at ease about their activities. But it actually had the opposite effect on me.

At one point the guy conducting the instruction says "Keep your hands away from the trigger mechanism. We have no reason to be shooting at anybody today." As if that is something that individuals openly carrying weapons designed for warfare must be reminded of.

If this is the level of confidence these organizers have in the people participating in their silly little protests, that just convinces me even more that somebody, somewhere. is going to get shot by one of these ammosexual idiots.

(H/T to Americans Against the Tea Party.)

New book exploring the 2nd Amendment will NOT make the Ammosexuals very happy.

Click here to purchase.

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust. 

In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.

So what exactly did Mr. Waldman discover about the history of the 2nd Amendment? 

MJ: What preconceived notions about the Second Amendment did the history that you uncovered confirm or debunk? 

MW: There are surprises in this book for people who support gun control, and people who are for gun rights. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was following his doctrine of originalism. But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.

You know I have a friend, some of you may actually know of him, who is always going on about the fact that we really cannot make any truly effective long term gun laws until somebody in the government finds the balls to revisit the 2nd Amendment and rewrite it so that it makes sense in our modern world.

I usually get pissed at him and tell him that suggesting that is a cop out for not wanting to do anything, since there is NO way that in this political climate we could ever attempt to modernize the 2nd Amendment.

However just between you and I, he is not exactly wrong.

As long as the Amendment remains so poorly written, and open to interpretation, it will continue to interfere with our efforts to protect our citizens from senseless gun violence.

But hey, perhaps we will in the near future finally get a Supreme Court that understands the Amendment and reinterprets it to help Congress pass mandatory laws gun registration laws, ban military style weapons, and make mental health background checks a must before giving every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry a weapon for killing other human beings.

Justice Antony Scalia 78 years old.

Justice Anthony Kennedy  77 years old.

Justice Clarence Thomas 65 years old.

Justice Samuel Alito 64 years old

If the Democrats manage to hold on to the White House for two more terms it COULD happen!

CNN buckles under pressure from gun nuts, reduces number of school shootings by 80% in report.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

When students are killed, injured, or put in harm’s way on school grounds, when does it “count” as a school shooting? Not all of the time, according to a number of right-wing commentators — and CNN. 

In a news report published Thursday, CNN amends its prior reporting that there were 74 school shootings since the Newtown Massacre — a number calculated by gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety — and concludes that there have instead been just 15. 

“CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Oregon — a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school,” the article explains. Except for the times when those criteria don’t apply: “Some of the other incidents on Everytown’s list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals,” the article explains, apparently nixing Everytown’s bright line criteria that encompassed all incidents “when a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds, as documented in publicly reported news accounts” in exchange for its own subjective assessment. 

Among those incidents not included was a brawl that escalated outside a college basketball game at Chicago State University, a shooting at a Mississippi town’s football game that left a 15-year-old dead, and a Georgia college that saw two shootings in two days. As Everytown points out in response to CNN, these discounted shootings led to 25 deaths and 45 injuries. They included familiar scenes of students hiding under desks and running for cover. And many of them were characterized by CNN as “school shootings” at the time of the incidents.

Apparently, as Gawker points out, what changed CNN's mind about what constitutes a "school shooting" was the twitter attack by one lone 2nd Amendment supporter, and the Right Wing news outlets that supported him: 

The drumbeat of news about gun violence in the United States is so steady and rhythmic these days that it’s starting to fade into the background. Another week, another school shooting. One of the biggest risks now is of a population-wide numbness, eroding the will to tackle the crisis. So perhaps we should be grimly grateful whenever the gun lobby demonstrates that it retains the power to horrify. 

Case in point: this sequence of tweets by the conservative journalist Charles C Johnson, featured on Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze and on Hot Air, and being forwarded enthusiastically everywhere among pro-gun tweeters and bloggers. (I found it via Quinn Norton.) 

Johnson takes it upon himself to debunk the claim, made by the gun reform group Everytown for Gun Safety, backed by Michael Bloomberg, that there have been 74 school shootings since Adam Lanza killed 20 children, six adults and himself at Sandy Hook elementary School 18 months ago. In fact, Johnson concludes, there have only been seven. How does he manage this feat of mathematical magic? Simple: by narrowing the definition of “school shooting” so far that almost none of them count.

I read through the tweets and the articles that they linked to, and to be fair the guy had a point about a small number of the shootings. And that number was one.

The rest were injuries, murders, and suicides, all the result of a gun fired on school grounds.

In other words due to a school shooting.

Hey I totally get it. If I was trying to defend lax gun laws, and there was this much data to suggest the need for a change, I might be tempted to undermine the findings as well.

Besides as we all know the Right Wing simply does not like facts, because they never seem to benefit their side.

However these are not simply facts, these are preventable deaths. And a news organization fudging the number of gun deaths in order to protect the Right Wing's favorite constitutional amendment and their delicate feelings is unconscionable and demonstrates a lack of journalistic ethics.

I'd be surprised if they were that big.

Source

Oklahoma gun dealer: "Open Carry Tarrant County is like the demonic offspring of Westboro Baptist Church and Boko Haram.”

Courtesy of Americans Against the Tea Party:

“Rich,” an Oklahoma gun dealer who runs a YouTube channel where he discusses a variety of gun-related topics, is a strong advocate of open carry. In fact, he approves of it so much that he recently spoke out about the situation that has recently been developing in Texas–in an unexpected manner! 

Rich enjoys his right to openly carry a handgun but clearly draws a distinction between openly carrying and carrying for attention, saying: 

“So now I have a f*cking AR strapped across my chest, and I’m walking through Walmart with my Tasty Treats, okay? What do I look like now? Well first off, I look like an a*shole, okay? Plain and simple. I look like an a*shole. Second, I look like a f*ckin’ psycho . . . I look like a lunatic right now. Quite honestly, if I walked into Walmart like this, even here in Oklahoma, the first thing that’s gonna happen is people are gonna flip plum the f*ck out. The second thing that’s going to happen is those people who are flipping plum the f*ck out are calling 911, and then the cops are going to show up, and I’m going to be ‘all surprised’ about it. No I’m not. I expect that to happen. Why? Because I’m carrying a f*cking AR in Walmart. Seriously.” 

Rich shared the difference between gun rights advocates like him and ammosexual terrorists like those who belong to Open Carry Tarrant County: 

“. . . The point is, is that people should be able to eat their burritos in peace without a bunch of neck beards carrying ARs and AKs around. And just recently, they invaded a Target store. Now I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this, I get it, but here’s the thing: Open Carry Tarrant County is like the demonic offspring of Westboro Baptist Church and Boko Haram.”

See now we're talking!

You know somehow I don't think that Rich and I would agree on too many things politically, however he is dead right that these Open Carry guys are really not doing 2nd Amendment advocates any favors.

It is one thing to want to protect your right to own, or even conceal carry a firearm, and quite another to walk around looking like some extra in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

I have said it before, I hope these open carry imbeciles keep it up, it is good for our side, but I can certainly understand the frustration of gun dealers and pro-gun advocates who see these guys as a detriment to their cause or their livelihoods.

Now the only question remaining is, can the less radical pro-gun advocates convince the Open Carry misfits that they are essentially working for the other side.

Doubtful since even the NRA had to retract their criticism.

I think this pretty much says it all.

The funny thing to me is that these dipshits seem to believe that the message they are sending is "Look how manly I am," when in fact the message we all are receiving is "I am so fucking insecure!"

In Bill Maher's New Rules last night he takes on the Ammosexuals.

Maher went all in with insulting these ignorant morons last night. Which of course they deserve.

On bringing long rifles into Home Depot: "You're there to buy a toilet seat. I doubt you will meet armed resistance."

"You guys are not just firearm enthusiasts, you're Ammosexuals. And before you try and deny that you have some sort of unnatural romantic relationship with your gun, consider this, you're taking it out to dinner."

The last part of Real Timer was not the only notable portion. He went after Sarah Palin pretty hard during his opening monologue.

While referring to the possibility that Sgt. Bergdahl may have been a deserter.

"You can't just pick up and leave in the middle of doing your job. Your part of a military unit, not the Governor of Alaska. Oh Sarah Palin. she was all over this story attacking this Beau Bergdahl guy because you know she found out, through reports we don;t really know this, that he has trouble now speaking English. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Of course he has trouble speaking English, he was five years around nobody else who speaks English. Sarah what's your excuse?"

You can see the entire episode here.

NRA backs off criticism of Open Carry demonstrators. Well of course they did.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

The National Rifle Association is walking back its recent criticism of pro-gun activists in Texas, apologizing to protesters for the "confusion" over the powerful gun lobby's position on open carry of firearms. 

Last week, the NRA released a statement condemning the actions of open carry activists in the Lone Star State after a video emerged of the protesters harassing a veteran on Memorial Day. In the statement, the NRA said recent public demonstrations in restaurants had "crossed the line" and were "downright weird." 

"Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners," the statement read. 

But on Tuesday, NRA official Chris Cox was quick to renounce the statement, describing it as a "mistake." 

"It's a distraction," Cox said during an interview with an NRA radio show. "There was some confusion, we apologize, again, for any confusion that that post caused." 

He continued: "It shouldn't have happened. I've had a discussion with the staffer who wrote that piece, and expressed his personal opinion. Our job is not to criticize the lawful behavior of fellow gun owners."

Well so much for their being even  a barely audible voice of reason coming from the ammosexuals.

Hey you know what? I am in total support of these open carry douchnozzles continuing with their protests against common sense, and have no doubt it will help the cause.

The cause of those seeking more comprehensive gun laws that is.

Texas Open Carry activists throw tantrum and tear up their NRA membership cards after the organization said that they had "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness."

Courtesy of TPM: 

Gun lovers in Texas are furious at the National Rifle Association right now. 

In response to the NRA's statement on Friday criticizing Texas activists' recent tactics, members of the pro-gun group Open Carry Texas have been cutting up their NRA membership cards, and the group has issued a statement demanding a retraction of the NRA's "disgusting and disrespectful comments." Or else. 

"The more the NRA continues to divide its members by attacking some aspects of gun rights instead of supporting all gun rights, the more support it will lose," Open Carry Texas said in a statement published Monday on its Facebook page. 
In its statement last week, the NRA said that activists in Texas had recently "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness" with their attempts to bring semi-automatic rifles into fast food restaurants. Open Carry Texas -- the most prominent group involved in the Texas demonstrations -- responded Monday by saying it was "unfortunate that an organization that claims to be dedicated to the preservation of gun rights would attack another organization fighting so hard for those rights in Texas." 

"Already, OCT members are posting pictures of themselves cutting up their life membership cards," the group said. "If they do not retract their disgusting and disrespectful comments, OCT will have no choice but to withdraw its full support of the NRA and establish relationships with other gun rights organizations that fight for ALL gun rights, instead of just paying them lip service the way the NRA appears to be doing."

Wow, and I thought watching the Republicans and Teabaggers duke it out was entertaining!

And these people are all heavily armed!

I can't believe I am saying this, but the NRA has a point. A recent poll on HuffPo determined that most Americans do NOT want to sit in a restaurant with groups of heavily armed gun fetishists:

According to the poll, 55 percent of Americans prefer that retailers and restauranteurs don't allow guns, while only 32 percent prefer that they do. The poll found a partisan divide, with a no-gun policy preferred by Democrats 72 percent to 19 percent, and by independents 48 percent to 34 percent. 

Republicans said they preferred establishments that allow guns 50 percent to 41 percent. Sixty-four percent of gun owners said they prefer that businesses allow guns, but 63 percent of those who live in a household with someone who owns a gun and 65 percent of those with no guns in their household said they prefer the opposite.

Gee go figure. 

When will these idiots understand that people from all over the world flee to this country to escape armed lunatics roaming the streets of their homelands with automatic weapons?

America is not Beirut.

This is not the Congo.

We don't live in Syria.

This is America. If these disphits want to commune with other gun fetishists, there are plenty of them in war torn countries around the world.

And hey, if they go there they might even get the chance to fire their weapon to defend themselves, instead of walking around the mall acting all tough in order to compensate for other inadequacies.

After all that's what they're looking forward to, right?

Right?

Open Carry Tarrant County ammosexuals are at it again. This time they want to bring their metallic penis extenders to the Texas Republican Party convention.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

 A controversial Texas gun group has called on activists (to) make the Texas Republican Party convention the next front in their battle for the right to openly carry assault-style rifles as many places as possible. 

In a recent Facebook posting, the group attempted to call attention to its cause by organizing Republican delegates to bring long guns and black powder revolvers to the Texas Republican Party convention later this week. 

"All delegates, I urge you to open-carry the whole time,” Open Carry Tarrant County coordinator Kory Watkins wrote. “I will be a delegate with my AK 47. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.” 

City officials, however, pointed out that guns would not be welcome in the Fort Worth Convention Center as long as alcohol was being served. 

“With this type of TABC license, the only type of weapon allowed into an establishment is concealed-carry and those on licensed peace officers,” Fort Worth director of public facilities and events Kirk Slaughter told the Star-Telegram. “The license doesn’t allow bringing in guns other than those that are licensed.”

Well now THIS might prove interesting.

I wonder if the Texas Republicans will risk angering their base by refusing to allow these dipshits to walk around with their rifles dragging on the ground behind them, or if they will simply cave in to another special, special interest group and let them do what they want.

This kind of thing almost makes me wonder if this Tarrant County Open Carry group is not trolling the Republicans, and NRA, in some way.

I mean if they were it is absolutely brilliant.

However I have heard a couple of them speak, and brilliant is certainly not a word that springs to mind.

10 Ways to Determine if Someone is Too Mentally Ill to Own Guns. See if any of these seem familiar.

Courtesy of Forward Progressives: 

1) They believe that guns should be openly displayed in public – everywhere. 

2) They hoard guns in anticipation of a possible overthrow of our federal government. 

3) Even the slightest mention of a new gun regulation sends them into a paranoid rant about gun confiscation, bringing about references to Nazi Germany. 

4) They honestly believe that the federal government can be overthrown. 

5) Their answer to any kind of dispute between the government and a citizen is to show up in armed groups because they don’t like how a court ruled on a particular issue. 

6) They’ve frequently rush out to buy guns an ammo in anticipation of some form of government ban on weapons that never – ever happens. 

7) They honestly believe that easy access to guns has nothing to do with gun violence. 

8) They believe that anytime they feel threatened, shooting anything that they feel threatened by is the first answer. 

9) They own nearly a full wardrobe of shirts or hats depicting gun manufacturers or NRA logos. 

10) They believe that it should be easier to buy a gun than cast a vote. 

You know I am trying to determine exactly which pro-gun nut at least three of these DON'T apply to.