web analytics
Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Libtards'

| Subcribe via RSS

So, I Was Thinking

January 23rd, 2013 | 8 Comments | Posted in Libtards, Pass the ammo, ramblings

Which can be very dangerous.

I saw on Jennifer’s site that she was dealing with a Twitter Troll so I decided to go a poke it with a stick.  Yeah, I do that when I am feeling ornery.

Anyway, one of the responses that was sent my way was this


Yep.  Guns. Are. Bad. M’kay.

Couple of things get me here.  One, why does El Douche care about what happens in a country that is not his own? I’ll never figure that out I don’t think.

But the second part is this.  I was watching Castle (Beckett is smokin’ – just saying) and I started thinking of all the ways I could remember people being killed on that show.  Here’s the list I came up with:

  • Guns (yep, we know)
  • Samurai Sword
  • Pillows
  • Spiky Sculpture
  • Rope
  • Swimming Pool
  • Chorine
  • Motor Oil
  • Cyanide
  • Balsamic Vinegar
  • Decompression Chamber
  • Frying pans
  • Wooden Stake
  • Fists
  • Steak Knife
  • Pipe Bomb
  • Liquid Nitrogen
  • Ice Pick
  • Stone Gargoyles
  • Picket Fences

These are just the ones I can think of to!  So, I guess if we are going to ban guns ’cause they’re bad, m’kay, then we should ban all these things too because if they have been used to kill someone then they must be bad too, m’kay.

Just a thought.  What do you need a pillow that fluffy for anyway!  Do it for the children.


Mike Kimel – Junior History Idiot

January 15th, 2013 | 1 Comment | Posted in America the beautiful, History, Libtards

I was pointed by Fox News over to this little gem of liberal idiocy called “The Problem with the Second Amendment”

I am no constitutional scholar, or even an attorney, but I did take American History in high school, and it seems to me that the reason so many people argue about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is because nobody, and I do mean nobody, quite likes what it means and how it was intended.

He then goes on to prove that not only is he not a lawyer (neither were most of our Founding Fathers) he also  proves that he knows nothing about history, current events or, apparently, the English language – since he cannot read the Amendment and understand it’s meaning.

He then goes on to try and show that the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was the sole purpose of the Second Amendment.  I say this because it is the ONLY historical fact he references in his piece.  According to Kimel, the Whiskey rebellion allowed Washington to conscript men into a militia and then crush the rebellion.

The next time anyone, on whatever side of the debate, tells you they are firm supporters of the Second Amendment, ask them if they believe it was intended to allow the Federal government to round up citizens against their will, put them in uniforms, and make them march and fire upon other citizens in order to crush revolts and collect taxes.

So, lets take a look at it shall we?

The law that allowed the forming of a militia was the Militia Act of 1792. Under the act, it allowed the raising of a militia from men ranging in age from 18-45

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act

So that meant EVERYONE.  Everyone had a duty to help protect their nation.  Everyone had to pitch in when it was required – yes, even when it was 7,000 farmers revolting against a very new Federal government.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Oh, look!!  Further in section I of the act it states that everyone who is part of the milita has to have a rifle, bayonet, ammo and powder – they have to be equipped with the same stuff their regular army counter parts carried.

So, the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” and then we have the militia act, which Mr. Kimel claims was designed to enslave us into the military machine saying that all militia members – remember, that is EVERY man from ages 18-45 – MUST have a military rifle and ammo that the member will provide themselves.  So the government is forcibly arming people.

Kimel’s next little line is a bit of snark in an attempt at a ‘gotcha’ moment:

If they do not, then politely remind them that is the Founding Fathers chose to interpret the Constitution they themselves hashed out, agreed upon, signed and ratified. And then, for grins and giggles, ask them why they are so unpatriotic as to insist on clinging to an un-American belief that the Founding  Fathers would certainly have deemed un-Constitutional.

So, somehow he thinks that requiring service of the people to a militia – which the Second Amendment mentions – is somehow unconstitutional???   I guess he never heard of the draft, which has been used quite a bit in our history for a couple of world wars, and then again for a little place known as Korea and finally Vietnam.  Also, you are still required to register for the draft if you are a male 18 years of age or older.  Gee, 18 years – where have we seen that age before??

Also, he conveniently ignores that these men also just finished fighting a war where the first battle of that war was when the British came for the their  guns. So these men were very well aware that to resist an oppressive government, one would need weapons and yet, curiously, they pass a law REQUIRING the citizens to be armed.  I would think it would be much easier to force conscription on an unarmed populace than an armed one.

Also, how can a belief be unconstitutional??  I really don’t get that part at all.

But my real question is this – Mr Kimel, by your own argument you show that the United States government wanted, nay REQUIRED it’s people to be armed.  Not just some of the people, but every male was required to have a rifle and ammo.  This is a fact.

The rifles that they had were ‘military grade’ since muskets were the military rifle of the time.  Civilians were as well armed as their uniformed counterparts.  This is also a fact.

Now most of us ‘gun nuts’ have argued that the Second Amendment is pretty clear that”Shall Not Be Infringed” means just that.  But you seem to suggest that it means something else, yet you never say WHAT that something else is – just that everyone has it wrong.

So, tell me.  What does it really mean.  What does a government passing a law to make sure it’s citizens are all armed say about the government?  I would say that it doesn’t show that the government was trying to control it’s people through force.  That would be a fairly hard thing to do once you have made sure they all have gun.

I also don’t think it means they meant the Second Amendment for target practice and hunting, not with the Militia act in place.  Nope, I think it means exactly what it says “Shall not be infringed”.

I hope you are successful as an investor, since as a historian and/or constitutional scholar you’re a bust.

Super Secret Jarhead

January 10th, 2013 | No Comments | Posted in Jackass, Libtards, Pass the ammo

So when Marine John Boston wrote an open letter to Feinstein stating that any bill that would require him to register and/or turn in the guns he owns to the government would be illegal and he would refuse, he got a lot of support and a lot of heads on the left started exploding.

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

Of course, those of us who own guns – and not the Fudds who say “I only have mine for duck hunting” – agreed with Cpl. Boston.  His argument was reasoned, based on fact, and cut to the heart of the matter “I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one”

The left saw that letter as open rebellion against the mandate they have created in their mind that people want more and more government control over their lives.  How DARE those plebeians tell us no, DON’T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE!

Well now CNN has a response letter from a ‘Marine’.  I  put it in quotes because this particular person doesn’t have the conviction to sign their real name to the letter, so like most arguments from the left we are just supposed to take their word for it that what they say is true.  Personally, after reading it I call bullshit on the whole thing.

While I did not experience combat, I served in Afghanistan as a Marine, exiting the service as a Sergeant in 2008 to enter college. My experiences in the Marine Corps of course led me to train with semi and fully automatic weapons, and yet, I have no desire to own these weapons now that I am out of the service. I can’t see why any civilian needs semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, and I support a ban of future sales in addition to a retroactive ban that would force Joshua Boston to relinquish his weapons.

So this ‘Marine’ is quite fine with throwing out the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. I also love how this anonymous vet states that they were a Sergeant.  Interesting that the person, who is anonymous, was a higher rank than Boston.

I also like this part “I can’t see why any civilian needs semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible” – wow, almost like they got that straight from the Brady Bunch, amazing coincidence.

Boston’s attitude towards authority is frankly disgusting and his open letter is wrong in both its assumptions about why the gun-control debate has become heated, and the reasons why we should care about his opinions at all. It implies that because he served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine, that he can choose which laws to obey while at home. This is of course, incorrect, and gives other veterans a bad name. Regardless of his personal beliefs about gun-control, Boston should obey the law, or stop using the title of Marine veteran so proudly.

This person obviously forgot their oath to ” SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Not the parts you like, not the President, the CONSTITUTION.  Which mean that any law passed, or any order given that goes against the Constitution you have an obligation under your oath to NOT OBEY.  The UCMJ clearly spells out in article 90-92 that a military member is required to follow LAWFUL orders.  Any order that goes against the Constitution – such as a gun confiscation – is unlawful and should not be followed.

But I am sure that ‘usmcdiorio’ knows nothing about that, because first he would have had to take the oath and unless he is willing to produce a DD214 and prove his track record I will call this just one more false flag by the left, but I’m used to those.


Had to add this choice comment from TAH



Redacted1775 Says:
January 10th, 2013 at 10:33 am

Fortunately Mr. Anonymous Marine’s paranoid ranting does not represent the views of Marines nor the Marine Corps in it’s entirety. If anything it represents the views of a certain group of people that just don’t seem to get it, and probably never will. That being said, anonymous “Marine”, get bent you fucking douche rocket.

Oh, and one part that I missed


bluliner10 Says:
January 10th, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Another attempt at moral equivalence that fails under the first light. The title is Marine, not former Marine or ex-Marine. Marines would say, I did a combat deployment in Afghanistan, but did not see actual combat. Marines will say the unit to which attached, it is bona fides. Lastly, Marine veteran? That is also not a title, Marine is the only title earned. ‘Marine veteran is a bumper sticker’. And amazingly, the king of all missed terms, not one Semper Fidelis. Especially when trying to convince Cpl Boston (no reference to rank, either) that he would be a criminal. No remember the words Semper Fidelis is “Always Faithful”. Just a form letter with insert branch of service here. I really like the term tone-deaf, hmmm who else is tone deaf? Everybody who believes in the second amendment and the NRA earned that particular moniker. Nice FAIL anonymous.

Oh You Poor Little Baby

December 11th, 2012 | No Comments | Posted in Jackass, Libtards

James Taylor suffered so much under Bush

“It made me deeply ambivalent about my country that we would choose that, even if we may not have chosen it,” Taylor said.  “But that, that was our, that’s what represented us in the world.  I felt as though after September 11, the diversion, the distraction of the nation’s concern and energy into Iraq was unpardonable.”

“I felt that it was inept, corrupt and opaque,” he said.  “Those were tough years for me.”

You mean as opaque as Fast and Furious, or opaque as the Obamacare bill that “We have to pass to see what’s in it?”

That kind of opaque?

Or do you mean opaque like Obama’s fundraising where they disabled all of the security checks to make sure the donations weren’t coming in from foreign sources??

James, you are an intellectual midget who, once again, thinks that because people listen to your hippy-dippy music that somehow you must be brilliant.

“It was the largest grassroots event that we’ve ever seen in this country and the people involved were such, just fundamentally such good people I felt that it really meant a lot to me to be involved in it,” he said.  “They were smart, too, the people who handled his campaign.”

Right, because voting to give yourself the hard earned cash from someone else is such a good thing. “Obama’s gonna pay my mortgage!”  Remember that, James?

Just shut up and dance, monkey.

Actually, It Has a LOT to do With the Election

October 27th, 2012 | 3 Comments | Posted in B Hussein, Libtards, We're from the government...

“The election has nothing to do with the four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened,” the president said first in a TV interview with an NBC affiliate in Colorado.

When asked again, Obama said, “The minute I found out what was going on, I gave three very clear directives — Number 1, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to,” the president said in a TV interviews with an NBC affiliate in Colorado.

Really?? Keeping our Ambassadors, the direct voice of our government overseas, safe isn’t part of the election?  Why not?  Because it makes you look like a bumbling ass who is in over his head?

And when EXACTLY did you find out “what was going on”?  Before you jetted off to another fund raiser?

The CIA is stating that they never told their people to stand down.  Now, if they didn’t give the order, then who did?  Who is in charge of the CIA and the military?  Hint – it’s not the State Department.

“The agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” said CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need. Claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” he said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

Seems from the reports you people DID know what was going on since you were in radio contact with the boots on the ground there – and someone denied them support.

So, someone left four men to die when they could have possibly been saved.  Guess pResident “Gutsy Call” showed how gutless he truly is.

Oh, and there’s also this and this too


He claimed that at one point, Biden came over to him and said, “in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, ‘did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’”

Woods said in the Beck interview: “I will ask you the question, is that the voice of someone who is truly sorry?”

In a separate interview with radio host Lars Larson, Woods said shaking Obama’s hand was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

Woods said: “He kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere.”

Yeah, just what I would expect from the Narcissist in Chief


Funny, But Sad

October 25th, 2012 | 1 Comment | Posted in B Hussein, Libtards