Idiots in the gun control debate

| December 16, 2012

Yeah, I’ve read some real stupid shit in teh interwebz today in regards to gun control, but this one just deserved a public answer. It’s from some shithole called Balloon Juice written by a guy named John Cole who explains that he was supposedly in the 11th ACR stationed at Camp Doha between the wars with Iraq;

So why am I telling you this? Because in the middle of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, even with clear Rules of Engagement, every time I went on gate duty, there was a piece of tape over my ammo clip on my M-16 and M1911 .45. Why? Because the most heavily armed military in the world did not want accidental shootings. If a situation arose, I would have to eject my ammo clip, remove the tape, and reinsert and work the action before I could fire.

This was in a combat zone. Yet I have spent the last two fucking days dealing with armchair commandos telling me they need unlimited firepower to be safe in… Connecticut.

If there are bigger pussies in the world than gun nuts, I don’t know who the fuck they are.

So, because he was such an incompetent boob that he needed to have his ammo taped in his magazine, gun nuts are pussies – yeah, I don’t see the connection either. Besides, he calls them “ammo clips” – who, with more than a day in the Army, calls box magazines “ammo clips”? So, I’m thinking that John Cole was a cook, or anything except someone his unit would allow to guard something. And, I’m pretty sure that between the Iraq Wars, the Army was using 9mm Barettas and not the M1911A1 .45 cal pistol.

And the reason any magazines were taped wasn’t to prevent the ammunition from loading. The Army did that when ammunition was passed between guard shifts for accountability. But, of course, any dingus who thought they’re called “ammo clips” wouldn’t know that.

So why do I call Balloon Juice a shit hole? Because all of their writers are gun grabbing facists, apparently. They write shit like this;

Bernard Finel: If it were in my power, I’d seize every fucking firearm in the country other than revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles and melt them all down.

mistermix: If you must own an AR-15 or Bushmaster or AK-47, it should stay locked in your personal gun cabinet at the range, never to leave. If you change ranges, a bonded courier can take it to the new one. The same is true of the high-capacity clips for your Glock, your 100-round drum magazines, and all the other expensive toys that let you bang off a couple of dozen rounds in a minute. Yeah, that’s expensive and a nuisance. So are the laws surrounding other potentially unsafe pursuits.

Mistermix, my Glock uses high capacity magazines, not clips. The ammunition for my M4 is in clips until I put the bullets in the magazine. If you’re going to talk the language of gun control, learn the language of guns first.

After posting the Wikipedia entry for events leading up to the UK’s gun ban, Imani Gandy (ABL) posts this;

Am I suggesting that we ban handguns? No, not really. I am suggesting we have a sensible discussion about gun-control laws that leads to, as President Obama put it, meaningful action.

If you weren’t suggesting that we ban guns, why did you have to tell us that the UK banned guns because of an incident somewhat similar to Sandy Hook? Every leftist gun grabbing fascist on the internet is talking about “a sensible discussion”, but their discussion of a sensible discussion is senseless.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (934)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » For Your Reading Pleasure | December 16, 2012
  1. Old Trooper says:

    As I have said in a couple of threads; the bedwetters don’t want a discussion on guns, they want a ban on guns, plain and simple. When dumbfucks start babbling about high capacity “clips” and “assault weapons”, I know they don’t have a fucking clue what they are talking about. They think they do, but when they can’t even get the terminology right, it makes it hard to take anything they have to say seriously. They are uninformed, or misinformed, and are too intellectually lazy to get the proper information. If they want an honest discussion about guns, then they should at least be educated enough to have the discussion in the first place.

  2. Old Trooper says:

    @51: We were on our way to participate in a FTX and had to stop in Lawton to pick up some cannon cockers. When we unassed the aircraft and were walking into the airport, the security guard told us we couldn’t bring our weapons into the airport. Our XO looked at him and said “yeah, right” and we kept walking. We were CONUS and still kept our weapons with us.

  3. Hayabusa says:


    Yet on secure military bases, there were “GUN FREE ZONES.” Think on that for a second.

    Oh, you mean like the one where MAJ Hasan (umm, cough, “allegedly”) murdered 13 people, including a pregnant woman, in November 2009?

    Yeah, those gun-free zones; brilliant idea.

  4. Ex-PH2 says:

    This is for John Cole, who apparently doesn’t have a clue about assault weapons and what they consist of.

    The following items are assault weapons:

    Pike – a spear used in combat by foot soldiers

    Sword – a long-shafted edged weapon with a hilt and pommel used in combat by both horse and foot soldiers

    Horse – an animal used in combat to transport a mounted, armed and armored soldier, frequently wears armor and weighs as much as 4500 pounds (e.g., Shire horse); also used to transport carriage weapons such as carriage cannons

    Arrow – a wooden or metal shafted weapon with a bodkin (sharply pointed) head, used for both hunting by hunterd, and in combat by archers

    Bow – a means of firing said arrows

    Crossbow – a means of firing an arrow or bolt, constructed to create a higher speed by using a trigger to release the bowstring

    Morningstar – a metal or wooden shaft with a spiked ball at the head, used in a fight as a club

    Mace – a metal or wooden shaft with spiked metal balls on chains at the head, used in a fight as a club

    Stiletto/dagger — short-shafted edged weapon used for close combat and for eating

    Slingshot – a weapon consisting of two double thongs or strings with a saddle in the middle, used for launching rocks at a target; effective in combat if user is properly trained

    Rocks – ammunition for a slingshot but may be used without one

    Quarterstaff — a straightened and hardened sapling, preferably oak or hickory, used in hand-to-hand combat in a ring or as a walking staff, about 60+ inches in length

    All of the items mentioned above are weapons that have been used in combat since they were invented, going back to the earliest periods in history when people fought each other in wars. I did not include the chariot, siege tower or ballista, because they are either not in general use, or not easily portable. For a quarterstaff bout, refer to the combat between Gandalf and Saruman in LOTR-Two Towers.

    All of these items can be seen at any Renaissance Faire and some of them, such as the sword, slingshot, quarterstaff, mace and morningstar can be bought from a competent arms smith. They are all legal, they do not require a license, and they all fall into the category of assault weapons. The RenFaires generally require that all weapons are to be peace-tied if you wear them to the Faire property.

    So are they to be included in the idiotic assault weapons ban? Anyone who has been around horses can tell you a horse can kick the crap out of you as well as trample you to death.

    I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: ANYTHING can be turned into an assault weapons, including common kitchen and household items such as a cast iron skillet, so are these moronic panicky dingbats going to ban cast iron skillets, just because I know how to use one on a burglar?

    I’m serious about this. This is ridiculous.

    These repeated panic attacks over something that take these clowns by surprise, scares the bejeesus out of them, sends them running for the hills, clearly indicates that not one of these bozos congress who are howling for an assault weapons ban has the faintest idea what an assault weapon is.

    Should I send a list to them? Okay, here we go — common household objects:

    cooking spray (flammable)
    dental floss (garroting material)
    meat cleaver (ouch!)
    butcher knife (ouch!)
    paring knife (ouchy!)
    hot grits in a saucepan (ooo! ooo! Hot ! Hot!)
    cast iron skillet (OW!!)
    kitchen mallet, with the pointy teeth (nasty!)
    vacuum cleaner (don’t get me started)
    sugar (mixed with alcohol, burns and sticks)
    onions (makes yours eyes water – chemical weapon)
    scissors (ouchy!)
    cans of Fancy Feast (weighs the same as a small rock)
    cat kibble (pellets)
    all-purpose flour (blinding)

    I can go on forever.

    Yeah, I posted this elsewhere, too, and the point is that anything can be used as an assault weapon, including furniture. I still get a huge giggle out of the sword fight in “Prisoner of Zenda” where the bad guy asks the Englishman “Where did you learn to fight with furniture? I could never understand how to do that.”

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    I see I left used cat litter off my list. Durn!

  6. Cajun says:

    @51 Finally someone said it. One caveat, that is FOBs in AFG where our NATO elements had mayor-cell duties, the Gyms were strangely no-weapons areas (circa 09-11)

  7. 68W58 says:

    Ex-PH2 you left off the dangerous and deadly dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff needs to be banned immediately!

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, yes! I completely forgot the kitchen water sprayer! Right in your face! Thank you!!!!!

  9. John Cole says:

    I knew you’d come by sooner or later, John Cole.

    Yeah, it’s a completely shocking development that you write a semi-literate post about me riddled with lies and inaccuracies, and horror of horrors, I showed up to correct the record.

    No mention of all the lies you told, and a continued insistence that “gravity” was the reason for the tape on the rounds, rather than the reason we were told when we were there. You can’t even admit you have no fucking clue what you were talking about regarding my service .45, so I don’t expect much from you and your cohort.

    Keep living inside your bubble, buddy. And I hope your children and loved ones are never victims of the gun violence you continue to enable. Have a good life.

  10. DaveO says:

    “I want the assault rifle ban and a ban on these ridiculously large magazines which turn semi-automatic weapons into weapons of mass destruction.” John Cole in post #35

    Any rifle is an assault rifle when used in an assault. Brown Bess, 58 Springfield, M1 Garand, Remington, Marlin, Henry – from single shot to a few shots, any rifle used in an assault is, by definition, an assault rifle.

    Commmon method of deceit is to use adjectives to elicit horror. In this case “assault.” Doing this is fundamentally dishonest rhetoric – a hallmark of all Prognazis.

  11. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “And I hope your children and loved ones are never victims of the gun violence you continue to enable.”

    He needs to be punched in the mouth for that one.

  12. Redacted1775 says:

    Mr. Cole, I don’t know you, and never read your work, not once. But if the article cited in this blog is any indication, I think i’d rather poke my eyeballs out with red hot glowing shishkabob skewers. I bet you’re real popular over at the Derpocratic Underbelly. I’ve posed this question before, and so far I have yet to hear an answer from one of you gun grabbing panty waists. When the ARMED first responders arrived on scene with their BIG, SCARY GUNS, why didn’t they just pick up where the shooter left off? They were all armed, and according to sub human morons like yourself that’s all anyone who owns a gun,or carries a gun wants to do, right? Dumbass.

  13. Mandrax says:

    Do these anti-gun people have any conception of what the world was like BEFORE guns existed? Massive armies of armored men and armored horses who had all been literally trained since birth in the use of armor and weapons, all equipped with swords and spears capable of inflicting the most horrific and brutal dismemberment and death, and all of them at the command of rulers who could use them however they pleased. If you weren’t lucky enough to have been born into this class of warriors, then you were property or close to it and you had no chance in hell of ever defending yourself if the people with the power felt like coming after you. This is how it was for thousands and thousands of years.

  14. 68W58 says:

    Right on cue Cole posts a thread with the “tough guy” slur a prominent aspect-so fucking predictable. Gear up, his minions will be here shortly.

  15. DaveO says:

    Cole is a tough guy. Just ask him, he’ll tell ya.

  16. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @66. Yeah, the two dozen worldwide should be here soon.

  17. Mary says:

    Let me ask you craven, pathetic, cowardly, paranoid idiots a questions: Which is the better scenario? That every single adult in that school had been armed and one of them was perhaps able to kill the shooter after he shot only one or two kids or that (try to wrap your very small minds around this) the shooter DID NOT HAVE A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Thank you, John Cole. Sorry to say, but these despicable, ignorant fools will never get it. Their right to bear arms (a right they don’t even understand) will always trump everybody else’s right to keep their children safe.

  18. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    If we can stop just one liberal from his errant ways, that will be enough. They’ve all ready disarmed themselves. That’s helpful, given their erratic behavior and cockeyed thinking. But if one lucid and level-headed lib visits here, reads closely, and actually thinks, he may be the very one who, some time in the future, is able to stop a rape or a robbery of someone he loves or, even, a stranger. There is always hope. We can’t save them all. They are hellbent on being victims. But if we can save just one…

  19. 68W58 says:

    Hey-right on cue. Mary, I would prefer that people have the capacity to defend themselves/ Big, bad scary guns aren’t going away-ever. Evil people are here to stay as well, it’s better for individuals to have the right to resist them whenever possible.

  20. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Okay, looks like old Mary the Occutard isn’t the one to be saved. Next!

  21. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @72. They don’t use reason, so logic doesn’t work. You need to find an emotional trigger to reach them. Well, maybe trigger isn’t the right word…

  22. Ex-PH2 says:

    Ah, Mary! Just a question. Did you bother to read the part in the news about the fact that Adam Lanza, whom you label ‘the shooter’ so as to distance yourself from it, did not actually have a gun of his own, but instead, stole three of his mother’s guns and shot her in the head four times with one of HER guns, before he went to the school and started shooting children and teachers?

    Did you bother to read THAT part of the news?

    Of course not. That part is the inconvenient truth — that the ‘shooter’ did not actually have a gun, because he was under age.

    He STOLE the guns that he used. He STOLE them from HIS MOTHER, DUMBASS. And he used his MOTHER’S guns to KILL HIS MOTHER.

    You don’t actually have to own a gun in order to use one. Got that part, numbskull?

  23. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Girlfight! Take it Ex-PH2!

  24. Redacted1775 says:

    #69 just went full, pants on head retarded.

  25. Arm The Homeless says:

    “Gear up, his minions will be here shortly.”

    –Speaking only for myself, I just showed up to point and laugh at you reprobates.

  26. BethanyAnne says:

    So, the logic here is that banning guns wouldn’t stop ALL gun violence, so we can’t do it? Regulating guns wouldn’t do it either, so we can’t do that, right? Does that mean to not have laws against murder? A law has to be 100% effective in order to be useful at all?

  27. Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. says:

    Damn, you people suck ass hard.

  28. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Okay, that’s two. Ten to go–if the worldwide John Cole fan club is paying attention. Of course, I have no way of knowing how many will simply change their screen names to puff up their participation numbers.

  29. Wasn’t in the old army but every deployment I have been on thus far, as soon as we got to the unit we were replacing, we were promptly handed cans of ammo, grenades, claymores, C4, and all minds of ahit that wasn’t “on the books”. I can’t imagine getting ran through the wringer for losing a single 5.56 round

  30. All kinds of shit, sorry

  31. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    I’m suspecting same IP addresses now. There is hope for Bethany. She seems to be thinking.

  32. Ex-PH2 says:

    AirCav, you got it! And I bet Mary the Twit doesn’t come back.

  33. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “So, the logic here is that banning guns wouldn’t stop ALL gun violence, so we can’t do it?” I didn’t say she was thinking clearly, only that she seems to be thinking. You have created the classic strawman argument Bethany. Wanna try again?

  34. Mr. The Wolf says:

    When I was at Doha (the Kuwait one) I didn’t have to carry on-post, but second I went off, I was Red. Every vehicle mandated at least 2 shooters. I carried EVERYWHERE there. Even the airport.

    In Iraq, I had 2. M4 plus M9. Slept with them. Only turned in for RnR. I could stack-arm the M4 in the palace while working, but if I went beyond the latrine I had to carry.

    Its a combat zone if your grenades are carried with them not just in a box. Hell I can open carry in Colorado not much different than I did in Kuwait.

  35. Mandrax says:

    Why are these people always so fixated on reducing gun deaths, when there are so many other kinds of deaths that are so much more common? Do you really care about protecting people…or is it that you only care about protecting people from certain things and not other things? Why is that? Why are they so selfish as to fixate on the things THEY find scary (mass shootings) but utterly ignore the countless other mundane and eminently preventable deaths?

  36. 68W58 says:

    BethanyAnne-the logic is that “banning all guns” would only impair the law abiding. You’ve equated murder, the ultimate act of aggression against another (that’s why we punish murderers), with the harmless act of owning an inanimate object. I don’t expect any law to be 100% useful, but gun grabberism wouldn’t be useful to anyone except thugs.

  37. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @88. See Jonn’s comment #50, para #3. He boxed it quite nicely.

  38. BethanyAnne says:

    Well, I just don’t understand the logic of Ex-PH2’s statements. “The shooter broke the law by stealing his guns, so laws restricting gun ownership won’t work at all”. It seems to me that they may work sometimes. I don’t see how a law that prevents, say, 20% of gun violence would be a bad thing.

  39. JP says:

    Haha…these trolls even fail at trolling.

    just like they fail at trying to explain the 2nd Amendment (durrrrrrr, it meant u can haz muskits!) and why we should have gun control.


    John Cole, you are a NO GO at this station. Do some pushups!

  40. 68W58 says:

    Vermont has open carry throughout the state and yet no mass murder incidents-why do you think that is?

  41. Ex-PH2 says:

    I think that the lack of education is more bothersome than anything else. You can give these people all the data and statistics that show how futile gun control laws really are, and they blow it all off because it isn’t what they want to hear or see.

    So it’s easy to ignore Breivik’s murder spree on the Norwegian island in 2011, with a captive audience of victims who were trying to get away from him. Norway has the strictest gun control laws in the world. Go figure.

    Ditto England — highest violent crime rate in Europe and rising.

    To set things straight, murder IS against the law, but that does not stop people from committing murder in various and sundry ways on a regular basis. And they frequently do that without using guns.

    Oh, and while I’m at it, methamphetamines are a controlled, illegal substance, but it doesn’t stop people from making meth and using it, does it?

    No, it doesn’t. If you weren’t so completely brain dead, you’d understand that.

  42. Redacted1775 says:

    Well Bethany most if not all schools are designated as gun free zones, so how did this happen?

  43. clayton says:

    I’ve always felt that every time someone uses a gun in a situation like the one in Newtown it reflects negatively on the pro-gun community. That community consistently claims that its members are responsible and well trained. Well that seemed to apply to the shooter’s mother — and even the shooter — until it didn’t.

    I had a student tell me today that he was thinking of getting a gun. I told him that it would be the death of him. And that’s what makes comments like the one above about “liberals have disarmed themselves” so stupid. There are numerous ways to defend yourself and stay safe, particularly if you are an adult. Having a gun is one of the least effective ways. A gun is not loyal. Anyone can use it to shoot you.

  44. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @91. Okay, Bethany, I’ll buy that. You are TRYING. And which guns are responsible for 20% of the mass murders?

  45. BethanyAnne says:

    So, your contention is that making something, say meth, illegal does *nothing* to restrict it?

  46. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Clayton. When you start a comment with, “I’ve always felt…,” you lose your potential readership here. Try thinking.

  47. Redacted1775 says:

    Did prohibition restrict alcohol? NOPE!

  48. 68W58 says:

    Bullshit Clayton-someone may one day use my gun to kill me, but they’ll have to beat me to death with it, because it will be empty.

  49. Suck Me Chairborne says:

    Wow… Cole wasn’t kidding. That’s quite a circle jerk you boys have going there. Internet tough guys FTW.