Tag Archives: gun control

Imagine for a moment . . .

. . . that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) published a photo of Donald Trump with a scattering of bullets next to his head.  How about a Black Lives Matter tweet with photos of police and bullets?  Heads would explode.  Pundits would rant.  Investigations would be launched.  Conservatives would be outraged.

But this?  It’s apparently acceptable for a leading conservative cause to use this image:

Image: copy of tweet from NRA with showing photos of a black woman in a red-checked suit jacket and a white woman in a green turtle-neck and black suit jacket with four bullets arrayed next to the photos.  Text reads:  "sounding off on one of the most ridiculous anti-gun schemes introduced in some time.

Why isn’t this terrorism?  If terrorism is “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims,” this certainly qualifies.  Violent intimidation in pursuit of political aims.  The only silver lining is that they are losing and this shows their desperation.

One of these is not like the other.

Apparently it’s OK to shoot your sibling or get plastered and shoot your hunting buddy, but not to have a curious and experimental mind.  (I did enjoy the “category” assigned the first article by the Miami New Times.)


Florida science experiment



Gun tragic accident



turkey camp shooting



my first rifle

my first rifle 2

For the well-dressed mass killer

Am I the last one to notice that Woolrich doesn’t just sell plaid shirts and chinos, but clothing specially designed for concealed carry?*  I get that the world needs hunting clothes:  if you’re going to stalk Bambi through the north woods, you probably ought to layer up.  But concealed carry is about being prepared to take down your fellow human, stealthily.  That is, there is nothing remotely inoffensive about this.   The website is not subtle:

Woolrich concealed carry

Indeed, the “Elite Concealed Carry Chinos” — so not kidding! — have these specifications:

Concealed carry chinos

I’m thinking the “discreet carry options” make the “reinforced crotch” an important feature, lest the amateur concealed carrier shoot his or her balls off.  And when you’re through sowing deadly mayhem, you can just toss them in the washer!

I’m making stupid jokes about this, but it’s really not funny.  We’ve reached the point in our armed society where a major clothing retailer markets “tactical” attire for sneaking firearms into ordinary public settings.  The suburban dad in chinos at the movie theater or shopping mall may be concealing a Glock.  Also, the mass killer in chinos, indistinguishable from the suburban dad.


* A bit of post-blog research reveals that the New York Times wrote about this back in April.  It only came to my attention because we get their catalog** and I was just about to order a couple of pairs of $6 fuzzy socks when I noticed the concealed carry category.

** Yes our taste in clothing is THAT bad.

This is no time to politicize? This is a perfect time to politicize!

Buzz: Sheriff, this is no time to panic! Woody: This is the perfect time to panic!


Every time another gun massacre happens, the commissars of weapon-correctness announce that we should not politicize the tragedy.  They say this loud enough and often enough to shout us past the tragedy and into the next campaign where “taking away gun rights” equates to socialism, communism, and the coming of a one-world government that will force you to teach your disabled kids science,* and every politician of every party runs fast in the opposite direction.

Fuck that.

We need to politicize this most recent gun massacre because, in this country, “politicize” means “figure out wtf to do about.”  The opposite of “politicize” is not “debate respectfully” or “decide unanimously.”  It’s “sit around with our collective thumbs in our collective asses** and do nothing.”  So let’s politicize.  Let’s talk.  Argue even – it’s how things get decided in a democracy.

And when we talk, let’s talk about the fact that – as a friend pointed out on Facebook – you have to provide more information to buy Sudafed than to buy a gun.



* Or something like that.  I get my right wing conspiracies confused sometimes.  For example, do the same paranoid wingers who defeated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the grounds that the one-world government would force them to kill their disabled kids oppose gun control on the theory that the future one-world government might prevent someone from killing their disabled kids?  It’s so confusing!

** Not sure how this works in practice.