Tag: Stupid people

Fun With The Bureaucracy

Gummint, Law and Order

Executive Summary:

British mother worries that her incel loser son may be dangerous, and reports him to the rozzers under the Prevent Terrorism thing.
Rozzers, of course, are doubtless too busy chasing down racists and other hurtful people on Twitter, so they sit on it.
Incel Boy gets his shotgun license and shotgun back because rozzers did nothing to stop him getting one.  (Added stupidity:  it had previously been revoked and his shotgun taken away after Incel Boy assaulted a couple in a park the year before.)
Incel Boy takes newly-reissued shotgun, then shoots and kills his mother and three other people, as well as a three-year-old girl.
In the only good news of the day, Incel Boy eats his shotgun muzzle before the rozzers can arrive.

Needless to say, there will be no consequences for this atrocity for the incompetent assholes in the bureaucracy — okay, maybe a note in their HR docket, but not the public stoning that one would expect and enjoy.

Anytime Democrats and other associated filth start blathering about “commonsense” gun laws, remember this tragic incident.

Stupid Times Two

Anti-Gun Nannies

From some newsletter comes this snippet:

Apart from the delicious irony (not to mention the blatant hypocrisy) of a Democrat politician being caught with a gun where he shouldn’t, there’s also the rank stupidity of forgetting that you have a gun in a bag which you know is going to be X-rayed at the airport.

That said, in studying Cooper’s official record, he doesn’t seem to be as bad as the other Californian Democrat snakes as far as guns are concerned.  His only “anti-gun” position seems to be his opposition to home-made guns (the stupidly-named “ghost guns” the Democrats are always moaning about).  Likewise, his district is a mix of Sacramento suburb (Elk Grove) and a ton of farmland stretching all the way south to Lodi and Galt, so it’s fair to assume that he’s not going to be as strident an anti-gun asshole as his Democrat buddies in San Francisco and L.A.

I would be really curious, though, to see his position on concealed carry.  Perhaps my few CA Readers can help me on this point.

Lever Monstrosity

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

Reader John C sends me a pic (with all sorts of apologies) and a plaintive cry of “How can anyone do that to a lever gun?”

Strangely enough, I don’t think it’s completely horrible, especially given the times we live in.  If you take away the lever action and replace it with a bolt action, it becomes a simple “chassis” rifle, e.g.

Is it ugly?  Oh hell yes, and I’ve made my feelings clear about this plastic nonsense on many an occasion.

If we are going to level criticism at the chassis lever rifle (CLR), it would be this:  note that while the CLR has a bipod, it’s fitted with a red-dot sight and not with a scope — and for good reason, because at its heart, the primary terrain of the lever rifle is in the deep woods, where a scope is more often than not counterproductive in that it can limit the shooter’s field of vision.

The second criticism is this:  removing the standard wood stock and adding a bipod and chassis must add weight to the rifle, which therefore takes away the lever rifle’s most important features:  its lightness and handiness.

All that said, I don’t have a problem with adding a bipod to a lever rifle;  there are times when I, for one, would have found it quite useful — i.e. when faced with a 100-plus yard shot across a clearing in the woods.

(As an aside, if you do a search for “lever rifle with bipod”, there are precious few pics thereof, which might mean something.)

Lastly, I would suggest that unless the bipod is extended quite substantially (as in the above pic), the downward drop of the lever will slam on the ground and prevent the action from cycling properly.  Shooting from prone, therefore, would be awkward.

Also, I quite like the idea of adding a red dot sight to a lever rifle, although it compromises the clean, classic shape of the thing.

So yes, the chassis lever rifle is as ugly as Nancy Pelosi with a hangover, and definitely falls foul of the maxim that “even if you can do something, there’s no reason why you should“.  Frankly, though, I think its impracticality is more of a reason why it should be ignored with extreme prejudice.

Over-Polite

Two-Minute Hate

Via Insty, I see the following headline:

Sorry Joe, It’s Not ‘Putin’s Price Hike’ on Gas — It’s Yours

…and immediately a Red Curtain Of Blood rolls down over my eyes.

I know that PJMedia has from the start been a polite alternative news source (one reason why I wasn’t invited to join them, and probably never will be), but I can’t stand it any longer.  Let me parse the headline, by way of explanation.

1) “Joe” is not the correct appellation to use for this brain-dead, dishonest, incompetent liar who faked his way into high office.  “Joe” is a nice name:  “regular Joe”, “Joe The Plumber”, even “cup of joe”.  No, this bastard’s name is “Biden”, and that’s the politest name I can think of calling him.

2) “Sorry, but” is also misplaced.  That’s the term you use to correct a wayward child:  “Sorry Martha, but you can’t go out to play until you’ve finished field-dressing that hippie”, for example.  Biden is not a wayward child, however;  he’s a malevolent anti-American Communist (and did I mention “brain-dead”?).

So the correct headline, in the above instance, should have read:

Biden, You Lying Asshole:  the gas price hike is a direct result of your wrongheaded energy policy, and has nothing to do with Russia

…and even that’s too polite.  (Feel free to imagine how I would really like to say it.)