Right Wing Wacko Pasters Always Entertain (Continued)

Frank Amedia says he miraculously resurrected an ant. You gotta start somewhere.

In this here blog thingy, I always love to quote some of the more, shall we say, colorful, evangelical right wingers who, I must admit are incredibly creative with their stories.

I've got a couple more, and let's start with the best one, which I think tops anything I've seen so far.

DEMONIC INSECTS

According to Right Wing Watch, Frank Amedia, who served as a volunteer "Christian policy liaison" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign, says he resurrected an ant back to life.

OK, OK, bringing an ant back to life isn't exactly the same as the Resurrection of Jesus, but you have to start somewhere.

Amedia begins his story: "This was the most incredible one." When you read on, you'll realize you can't argue with him.

On a recent trip to Israel, he was bitten on the leg by an ant while praying (of course!) and he instinctively swatted it before crushing it into pieces with his thumb.

OK, a little mean, but I would have done the same thing. Here's where it goes off the rails:

"All of a sudden, the Holy Spirit speaks to me so clearly. It was as clear as I have ever heard....It was the voice of the Father. The Father calls me son, an dthe Father said, 'Son, look at the ant......And the Lord said to me, 'Son, I hear the cry of an ant.'"

It's nice to know that the Lord loves all creatures, great and small, including ants, so it's good that the Lord heard the anguish of this poor ant.

Amedia continues: "I began to weep inside of me....And then the Lord said, 'Son, take your finger and touch the ant.'"

Or the little pieces of it, but whatever.

Anyway, Amedia, being obedient, did as the Lord instructed. And lo and behold!!!. Well, let's let Amedia tell us:

"The power of God shot out..and the ant, it came alive and the pieces all were together and it jumped up on my finger, came up slowly my palm, and stopped right there as if it was looking right at me.'"

The video of Amedia's tale, at the bottom of this post, is something to, um, behold, so it's worth the watch.

Amedia does have something of a fascination with insects. Back in November, 2016, Right Wing Watch tells us he warned us about demonic hornets. I hate hornet stings, so I don't blame him for calling them demonic.

But Amedia went pretty far with his story.

He warned us that he saw hornets "dipping these stingers into a cesspool" that contained "a liquor, a potion, and the potion was filled with all the vile characteristics and the power of witchcraft and occult, of abortion and murder and selfishness and deceitfulness.... and they were being sent out to invade humanity, and, if you will, inject these potions."

I guess in other words, the hornets were drinking Bud Light and then stinging us to inject us with that awful piss water. That's my theory, anyway.

Amedia, as always, goes on: "And I saw that they (the hornets) were dipping their tails in that putrid muck that was coing up from Abaddon (whereever that is) and being sent out to sting, sting, with homosexuality........ "

The rest is the whole litany of other "sins" he hates.

Oh, so that's why I'm gay! My mother wasn't liberal enough with the bug spray, and as a child, I must have gotten stung by a demonic hornet and here I am today. Oh well, bummer.

GOD COMMANDS US ALL TO OWN AR-15S

There's a lot of controversy these days about AR-15s, the semi-automatic weapons that are the centerpiece of so many tragic mass shootings in our nation.

Chuck Baldwin says you're not a true Christian unless you own an AR-15

It turns out, AR-15s are pure and godly, and everybody in this Christian nation should own one, or at least something like one of these.  

So says Chuck Baldwin, who, sadly, failed to win the presidency in 2008 as the Christian Reconstructionist Constitution Party's nominee. (Don't worry, I've never heard of this group, either.)

According to Right Wing Watch. (Again! I swear they're not making this stuff up) Baldwin informs us that any Christian that does not own the equivalent of an AR-15 "has denied the Christian faith" and is "worse than a heathen."

His proof is Bible passage 1 Timothy, Baldwin said that every adult has "a duty to provide for your family, but you cannot provide protection for your family without being equipped to do so."

OK.

I'm not a Bible expert, so I looked up 1 Timothy. Maybe I'm not a careful reader, but for the life of me, I could not find any reference to AR-15s in that Bible passage. I couldn't even find much there regarding protection of family. Oh, well.

Congress Wants Crazy People With Guns To Shoot Bears From Airplanes

Wolf pup emerging from a den. Is it really OK to go
into dens and shoot hibernating bears and wolves?

I'm not sure why some Republican lawmakers are stumbling over each other trying to outdo each other for most batshit crazy legislation, but that's where we're going.

First, Congress repealed an Obama-era rule meant to limit the sale of guns to some people with mental disabilities.  

Let's let more unstable people have guns!

People who wanted to do away with the rule said lax or incorrect reporting standards meant that people who had mental issues, but who were still safe with guns, were barred from having firearms.

As a person who is high functioning but has a (mild) mental illness, I can see that concern.

After all, I have ADHD, but because of psychiatric counseling, effort on my part and a fairly low daily dose of Adderall, I function just fine. If I were trained to properly use handguns, I'm sure I'd be safe with them.

But wouldn't it be better just to make a case by case judgment on this?

Now that practically everybody can have guns, what are we all gonna sboot?

In Alaska, the answer apparently is, we want to shoot bears and wolves from airplanes, or barge into dens while the animals are hibernating and shoot them there.

Sounds fun! If you're into unsportsmanlike hunting, that is.

Yep, the U.S. House of Representatives, voting along party lines, approved the repeal of laws that prohibited people from shooting bears and wolves from airplanes and entering dens to shoot hibernating animals.

According to Buzzfeed and many other news outlets, this all started last August when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Obama administration, sensibly issued rules banning hunting tactics that then-director Dan Ashe said was "a withering attack on bears and wolves that is wholly at odds with America's long tradition of ethical, sportsmanlike, fair-chase hunting."

More from Buzzfeed:

"The banned activities on Alaska's wildlife refuges including hunting tactics common elsewhere in the US but nevertheless troubling to wildlife advocates: baiting brown bears to draw them to hunters and shooting them; shooting bears ensnared in traps, and shooting bears and wolves in their dens with their cubs or pups."

That last bit is something. Go into a bear den and shoot the mother bear and cubs. Because you can, I guess.

People want to be able to shoot bears and wolves, even if they are in dens, because bear and wolves sometimes eat moose and elk.  

That reduces the number of moose and elk that people can, yes, hunt. So people want to hunt bear and wolves in nonsportsmanlike ways so they can, um, hunt other animals too.

It's true that some Alaskans hunt moose and elk because they rely upon them for food. However, my suspicious mind thinks that Congress approved this change to satisfy their rich contributors who go to Alaska to hunt, but don't rely on wild animals for sustenance.

Basically, what's going on here is, "Let's kill more animals so we can kill more animals."

Wildlife advocates say it's not like they're trying to stop hunting on wildlife refuges. They just want to stop extreme forms of hunting that throw off the ecosystem.

It seems especially galling to go into dens and shoot sleeping bears and cubs. I don't know why anybody would get off on this, but you never know what some people think.

Look, I'm not against hunting. I live in Vermont, where there is a big hunting culture and I have no problem whatsoever with it.  As long as the hunters are responsible and not a bunch of yahoos. Most hunters are great.

But, we're in an anything goes atmosphere now. Time to start shooting everything in sight, I guess.

Petition For Guns At GOP Convention Was Satire, But Lots Of People Thought It Was Good Idea Anyway

This petition on Change.org to allow open carry guns
at this summer's GOP convention in Cleveland
was fake, but it raised some provocative questions.  

A number of Republicans favor open carry laws, in which you can carry your gun around no matter where you are.

So why not allow open carry at the GOP convention this summer in Cleveland.

What could go wrong?

A petition calling for just that garnered more than 51,000 signatures before the Secret Service shut the idea down.  

I guess a convention center that promises to be full on angry, argumentive people fighting over Donald Trump isn't considered a great place to bring guns.

The petition turned out to be fake, anyway. I suspected as much when I read its flowery language.

An excerpt:

"Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life."

Yep. Bring a gun to a political convention and America is saved!!

The petition was the brainchild of some guy named Jim, who goes by the handle Hyperrationalist on Twitter, according to The Hill.

As The Hill reports:

"Jim said he published the petition to call attention to what he sees as a discrepency in Republicans' position on gun rights.

He said if GOP candidates were actually against gun-free zones like they claimed, they would support the allowing of open carry at the convention.

If the rest of us get to have law-abiding citizens protecting us with guns at restaurants and schools, Jim added, then why shouldn't Republicans have it at their convention?"

Of course, with Donald Trump raising the idea of "riots" if he is denied the GOP nomination, guns at the convention could get pretty interesting.

Now that the Secret Service had decreed no guns at the convention, will Republicans rebel against their tyranny?

I doubt it, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Look, I'm not anti-gun. Are you a law-abiding sane person who likes to hunt, target shoot or think a gun offers you protection? Then enjoy your guns! It's your right.

It's also probably unfair to compare open carry at say, some restaurant to open carry at the volatile GOP convention.

But this whole things raises some good questions. When and where is open carry a good idea? A bad idea? Should there be any regulation on it? Or, to you Second Amendment absolutists: Should guns be anywhere and everywhere?

Including at an important  but controversial major political event where passions flare?

You decide.

Maybe We Don't Stop Mass Shootings Because They're Good For Fundraising

Today's scene at the San Bernardino mass shooting

As I write this late Wednesday afternoon, another mass shooting is unfolding, this time in San Bernardino, California.  Last I checked at least 14 people are dead, 14 are injured, and they're still looking for the shooters.

The mass shootings are coming on faster and faster and faster. It's almost like the nation is in a civil war, with lots of tiny mini factions fighting it out through terrorist attacks.

I get it. Preventing mass shootings is tricky business. They tend to involve a convoluted mess of hate, extreme politics, a gun culture, and laziness on the part of leaders.

Or is it laziness? I really hope I'm being way too cynical here. Is our nation's inability to stop mass shootings deep down a function of them being good for business?

Obviously most of us loathe mass shootings. Few people want to see innocent people die.

But I notice after every mass shooting, people from advocacy groups, and politicians try to outdo each other saying outrages things about the latest shooting.

On the surface, these loudmouths don't like the death of innocents, either. But is a little part of them, deep down, actually happy these kinds of things are happening with increasing frequency?

After all, the loudmouths say their outragous things, which riles up their base, who donate money to the cause the loudmouth is supporting, and they make oodles of money.

Here's the type of comment I'm talking about:  As the incident was unfolding, pundit Ben Shapiro snarkily Tweeted: "The answer to the San Bernardino shooting is clearly whatever the left wanted to push before the San Bernardino shooting."

Thank you, Ben. Of course I have no idea what goes on in Shapiro's head, or exactly what motivated him to say this.  Maybe he really just loathes liberals and it's as simple as that, who knows? I certainly can't accuse Shapiro of the money making cynicism I described. Because I just don't know.

But are some people using these shootings as a fundraising scheme? Yes, innocent people are dead, but hey, there's money to be made, right?

Another horrible aspect of this, as if there weren't enough, is to make all of us live in some level of fear. Will you, or I be the next person to be caught up in a thing like this?  Fearful people tend not to make rational decisions like calm people would.

So they might vote for a loudmouth reactionary as a response to their fear. Instead of really taking the time to consider who best would bring our country, our society forward in peace.

Another win for the offensive loudmouths.

I so hope I'm wrong.  I so hope I'm far too cynical and bitter.

Shoot! We're Going To Carve A Pumpkin!

Kirsten Joy Weiss shows off the Jack O'Lantern
she made by repeatedly shooting it. 

I betcha a lot if people have carved or will carve a Jack O' Lantern for their Halloween celebrations this week.  

If you haven't I can show you one pumpkin carving method that I don't recommend. Unless you're a total expert like Kirstin Joy Weiss.

Weiss is a well known sharpshooter, and she shows us how she carves a pumpkin by repeatedly shooting it.

Don't try this at home! The Consumer Products Safety Commission says there are about 4,000 injuries annually from carving pumpkins. Shooting would just make the carnage worse.

Even so, as you'll see in the video below, the the gunshot Jack O'Lantern turns out looking not half bad.

Here's the video:

All You Need To Say About Mass Shootings Is Right Here

Front page of today's New York Daily News.

Click on the image to embiggen it:

Gun Extremists Hurting Second Amendment Cause

One perspective on the often shrill
arguing over gun control laws.  

People outside of liberal Vermont, where I live, don't understand we've got quite a gun culture over here.

Lots of Vermonters hunt, and a fair number of people from around here like to go to gun ranges, target practice and have a grand old time.

Like most gun owners nationwide, gun enthusiasts in Vermont tend to be nice, normal sane people. Which of course is a good thing when you're talking about firearms.

And good for the state, seeing how hunting brings visitors and revenue to Vermont.

These gun owners naturally want to maintain and preserve the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

It's too bad the radical fringe of gun rights activism is screwing that up. The most ardent gun control advocate couldn't do a more effective job of encouraging gun control laws than the idiots on the extreme end of the pro-gun movement who think the mildest restrictions on gun use in sales is tantamount to treason.

Or something like that.

Case in point is this yahoo from Michigan who decided to exercise his right to openly carry a gun by walking around outside a high school with a long gun and holstered pistol, says the Detroit News. 

OK, technically this guy indeed had the right to carry his guns, and when police investigated, they didn't arrest, cite or warn him, because he committed no crime.

But is scaring the bejeesus out of a high school full of teachers and students and forcing a lockdown really the right way to promote the Second Amendment?

People are understandably nervous about school shootings, after all. No offense, but sometimes it's hard to distinguish between a nut who really, really likes the Second Amendment and a nut who wants to shoot up a school.

The Detroit News quoted Officer Carey Spangler saying police got "about a million 911 calls" about this guy.

Yeah, no kidding.

Even the pro-gun, pro-open carry web site bearingarms.com is fed up with the gun idiot at the school.

"Law enforcement officers were diverted, and school was disrupted, because this 'gentleman' insisted on open carrying past a high school, seemingly with the express intent of getting a rise out of authorities and making a public spectacle out of himself.

Most gun owners support the theory of open carry, and most have the basic sense to understand that it should not be used in such a manner that it can be taken as a threat against the public, or against private individuals.

Unfortunately, individuals have abused open carry in various states to the point that restrictions have been placed upon open carry. Sometimes, this sort of trolling has led to open carry being outlawed entirely, with California being the prime example."

That's just it. The seriously overcompensating yahoos out there who get belligerent with their open carry showboating are probably more responsible for gun control laws than any outfit like States United to Prevent Gun Violence. 

The wackos like the guy in Michigan feel powerless because they are. They have nothing going for them.

So, parading around a school with a gun gives them the illusion of power. "See, I can shut down a school and the cops can't arrest me. Aren't I a big man?"

Um, no.

Like it or not, you've got to both employ good PR, and demonstrate at least a little common sense to persuade people to agree with your cause.

I have to say gun control activists are pretty good at this.

To wit:  That group I mentioned,  States United to Prevent Gun Violence, might be outgunned, to use the pun, by the Second Amendment wackos. But States United really know how to make their case Unlike the NRA whose leadership can get pretty extremist, States United is good at getting their message across

Like this PSA,  in which they opened a gun store in New York City.  The guy behind the counter then explains the sordid history behind the type of gun he's showing the would-be buyers.



The National Rifle Association responded, not by countering with information that it wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or the dangerously mentally ill, went off on what a fraud the store was, how it probably violated the law (it didn't) and how the anti-gun New York City and State government probably had a hand in creating the PSA.

 Of course, the Second Amendment and guns has become one of those political dog whistles that make it impossible to have a sane conversation about the subject.

The general public would welcome such a conversation on the right way to manage gun violence without gutting the Second Amendment.

There are certain restrictions on First Amendment rights to free speech, such as the proverbial not yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening to kill public officials.

So, there are probably ways to tamp down gun violence without interfering with all those law abiding hunters and shooting range enthusiasts in Vermont and everywhere else in the nation.

Here in Vermont, it looks like the legislature is headed toward passage of a law that would prohibit people convicted of some violent crimes from possessing a gun.

There's already a federal law to that effect, but the feds don't have the resources to fully enforce it so the logic is let the state help.

Seems reasonable to me, but gun rights advocates were apopletic at this idea. Especially since it also tighten restrictions on gun possession by people who are deemed "in need of treatment," code for dangerously mentally ill.

Gun Owners of Vermont, of course, are among those vehemently opposed to the proposal.

But their organization's motto is telling: "Dedicated to a no-compromise position against gun control."

However, there are compromises in everything out there. If you don't give just a little tiny bit, chances are you won't get anything you want.

You'll end up getting as much respect as that yahoo with the gun outside the Detroit school. People just roll their eyes and move on.

Texas NRA Guy: Spank The Hell Out Of Kids So I Don't Have To Shoot Them Later

A guy in Texas says if you don't do this to kids now,
you might end having to shoot them later.  

I'm sure he didn't mean it this way, but a guy named Charles Cotton in Texas has found another use for guns: Shoot kids.

That's too harsh, but if you go to the logical conclusion of his recent statements, then that's kind of what you get.

Here's the deal: It's still legal for teachers in Texas public schools to spank and paddle kids who they believe are misbehaving.  It's one of 19 states that still allow corporal punishment in schools.

A lot of child behavior experts say corporal punishment doesn't really work to get kids to behave. But tradition being tradition, a lot of people believe differently.

There is a lawmaker in Texas, Democrat Alma Allen, who wants to make corporal punishment in public schools illegal in Texas, and to have teachers and school administrators use less physical, and frankly less weird forms of discipline.

Cotton hates, HATES Allen's idea. As an aside, he's a board member of the National Rifle Association.

Here's what he had to say about Allen and her no spanking bill, says Talking Points Memo. His views appeared on a Texas firearms information and advocacy forum.

"I'm sick of this woman and her 'don't touch my kid regardles of what he/she did or will do again' attitude," he wrote 'Perhaps a good paddling in school may keep me from having to put a bullet in him later."

OK, if I have this correct, if you don't spank a kid, he'll keep misbehaving and then the only way to stop the behavior is to kill the kid, like you would a rabid raccoon raising havoc in your neighborhood?

I guess his point is that kids that don't get spanked grow up to be criminals. But you're supposed to summarily execute, say, a robber on the street? We're no longer supposed to arrest criminals, try them and throw them in jail? Just shoot 'em?

Well, it's clear Cotton likes his guns. Which is cool, as long as he doesn't execute random people on the streets who might have commited crimes. There are plenty of fine shooting ranges in Texas he could enjoy, I'm sure.

Boy, is Cotton a Texan! Just check out this gem from his bio on NRAPublications.org.

"At the age of 4, Cotton took aim with his uncle's Remington .22 LR rifle for the very first time. His target was an old motor oil can on a fence post. When he squeezed the trigger and saw the can split open, his love of shooting was affirmed."

Well, I can understand that. When I was a teenager, I went with a friend to the town dump, when it was closed with no people around, and had some fun shooting discarded televisions.

Yeah, shooting oil cans and TVs is weird, but whatever.

So, we'll let Cotton enjoy his guns. Let's not put him in charge of child discipline, though.

Difficult Decision: Who Is Moron Of The Week: Florida Shooter Or Conrad Hilton III

This really dumb bro in Florida wanted to set up
a shooting range in his yard in the middle of a densely
populated suburb. What could go wrong? Add caption

Joseph Carannante, 21, who lives near St. Petersburg, Florida, likes to target practice with his gun.

Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people do.

Problem is, he wants to do it in a densely populated neighborhood where a lot of kids live. And because of lax NRA-inspired laws, he can.

WFLA-TV says people in the Lakewood Estates neighborhood are outraged at Carannante, and I can't blame them one bit

Caranannte's front yard shooting range is little more than a pile of sand. Like that's going to stop a bullet.

This isn't some remote place with no houses. It's a densely populated suburban neighborhood. Houses and yards are all right next to each other, and Carannante is right in the middle of it.

Talk about carrying Second Amendment rights too far! Yep, Carannante has the right to have a gun and shoot it. But he thinks that his Second Amendment rights trump his neighbors' right to enjoy their own property without fear of getting killed.

Oh, Carannante is so generous! He's offered to let his neighbors know when he's going to shoot, so they can all hide and stay out of the line of fire. So on weekends, when the kids want to play outside, Mom and Dad want to fire up the barbecue, and the new people down the block want to gather on the deck for some afternoon cocktails, they can't.

Because Carannante all but said he expects everybody to hide away while he fires his gun.  Apparently, it's too much work to drive all the way to a shooting range, poor baby.

Like Florida doesn't have a zillion shooting ranges.

"I don't want to have to go to a gun range, when I can just go outside my door," Carannante whined to WFLA.

Hey, it's only a 9 mm gun he's got. What could go wrong?

At the urging of the NRA, Florida has a law barring municipalities from barring gun ranges in people's yards.

Says TampaBay.com:

"Legislators passed a law in 1987 that declared state statutes superseded the laws of local municipalities when it comes to gun regulations.

Upset that some cities were still toying with local ordinanes, the Legislature passsed another law in 2011 that authorized hefty penalties for violations. Local officials could be removed from office and face personal fines of up to $5,000 for passing gun regulations."

But even the local NRA head thinks Carannante is a bonehead, and disputes the idea the law allos Carannante's stupidity. Says BayNews9 in Florida: 

"An NRA lobbyist in Florida also made a statement about the issue Monday. 'Shooting ranges don't belong in dense residential neighborhoods and, in fact, nothing in the law allows them,'" said Marion Hammer.

 There was some possible good late breaking news this morning on this situation.

Via the Daily Kos, a neighbor reports that a local radio station and a Florida shooting range helped out. Said the neighbor:

"This morning, a popular radioshow at 102.5 "The Bone" called young Mr. Carannante and offered a one year free membership to a gun range, donated by Shooter's World in Tampa.....They convinced the kid to commit to tearing down the pile of pallets and sand."

That's good, but it appears the neighborhood, the radio station and the shooting range all had to offer rewards for stupid Carannante to give up his plan. That's why this world can be sad. They only way we can protect ourselves from awful people is to reward them.

Something ain't right.

Speaking of "Ain't Right," we now offer, from the Washington Post, a simultaneously sad, infuriating and funny account of an airline flight on July 31 on which hotel heir Conrad Hilton III was aboard.  

Pretty faced rich boy bro Conrad Hilton III
caused a HUGE ruckus on a overseas flight
last summer. Makes him sound like
the Worlds Most Obnoxious Person.  

As the Post describes him: "Meet Conrad Hilton III,  younger brother to Paris and some kind of royalty in his own mind, it appears."

Anyway, Conrad Hilton III was Not Pleased with his flight experience aboard the British Airways Flight 269 from London to Los Angeles.

Of course, the FBI and other law enforcement are Not Pleased with Conrad's behavior, and he was in court this week facing federal charges of being an asshole on a plane. A really big dick, actually.

The Washington Post quoted from a conversation Conrad had with the FBI, which is contained in a 17-page indictment against Conrad filed this week in U.S. District Court.

"'I told all of them I could get all of their jobs taken away in less than thirty seconds,' Hilton said, according to the complaint, as he recalled interactions with flight attendants.

He credited a man at the back of the plane with stopping him from killing a flight attendant 'If that man wasn't there, that guy (the flight attendant) would have been #%*&# killed on that flight. A hundred percent I would have killed him.'"

On the bright side, Conrad's narrative to the FBI matches that of flight attendants and passengers on the flight, who also had conversations about the experience with the FBI. No need to sort any "he said, she said," is there.

See? Conrad is so helpful.

It all started roughly a half hour into the 10-hour flight, when attendants started the task of serving drinks to passengers, but Conrad kept standing the aisle, blocking the way and refusing to move.

From the Washington Post: 

"One flight attendent described Hilton as flying from 'one tirade after another' throughout the flight. He complained that the flight attendants were ignoring him or 'taking the peasants' side.' 

He whined about being upset because he broke up with his girlfriend, one flight attendant said. He bragged that his dad would bail him out of the situation as he had in the past. After all, he's already banned from several other airlines, he told the flight attendants."

'My father will pay this out, he has done it before. Dad paid $300,000 last time,' Hilton allegedly said."

Gawd, I don't care how rich Conrad's dad is, this dude is too expensive. If I were dear old dad, I'd jettison the kid and make him get a job at McDonald's or Walmart. That would teach him.

It went on, says the Washington Post:

"Food and drink service were delayed for more than 40 minutes as flight attendants struggled to deal with Hilton walking up and down the aisles in a rage. Just about every sentence featured the f-word. And Hilton seemed particularly keen on directing his rage against male members of the flight crew.

One flight attendant reported to investigators that Hilton at one point swund at him but missed his face by 'about ten centimeters.' His fist hit the bulkhead instead.

'If you wanna square up to me, bro then bring it on and I will %&*$# fight you,' Hilton allegedly told the flight's co-pilot in another incident."

If I were the co-pilot, I would have let Conrad try to fight. I'm sure everyone who paid good money to be on the flight would have been more than willing to jump in and help.

I think Conrad's pretty boy face could use a good messing up anyway. It would give him character. Lord knows he needs it.

Conrad complained that a male passenger was giving him the "stink eye" which Conrad took to mean either the guy wanted to fight him or have sex with him.

I really, REALLY think the guy wanted to fight you, Conrad. And maybe flush your head down the toilet.

You were already spending too much time in the bathroom anyway, smoking a joint, says the flight crew and FBI. The pot didn't mellow you out much, did it?

Conrad, exhausted from his duties of being an enormous prick, finally fell asleep the crew tied him up with restraints. Conrad later woke up, discovered the restraints and screamed, "I'm goin to $*&@ kill you!"

Yeah, whatever.

If convicted, Conrad faces up to 20 years in prison. But don't worry, he won't spend so much as a minute behind bars. I'm sure daddy will bail him out of this mess, again.

But if I ever find myself on a flight with one Conrad Hilton, III, I won't put up with his bull.

I'm one of those "peasants" who would find something fun and humiliating for him. It would be a blast!

Or better yet, maybe our Florida gun nut can use Conrad Hilton III for target practice instead of the pallets and pile of sand in his yard that he wanted to use.

Gunning For The National Anthem. Literally.

Gunning for a melody: You can play a song by
shooting at these targets.  

Here's a loaded blog post, I guess both literally and figuratively.

The video at the bottom of this post shows a guy playing "The Star Spangled Banner" by shooting at targets that have different musical tones when they are hit by bullets.

I have to admit the guy's a damn good shot to pull this off.

Of course, the loaded part is, first of all the gun is loaded. Second of all, is, boy, are people going to have different reactions to this! The gun enthusiasts will say YEAH! Second Amendment, baby!!

Some of the people less enthusiastic about guns will roll their eyes at the mix of patriotism and guns.

Of course, as BoingBoing notes, you can do other songs as well, with revamped lyrics like this Smokey Robinson parody:

If you feel like lovin' guns
If you're independent
I second that amendment.

For those of you who love both guns and music, you're in luck!  You can buy these musical targets from MusicalTargets.com.

As they business tagline says: Your source for armory harmony!

The targets are labeled with the notes, say "C" or "D" and you can shoot out a song with the targets at your own practice range.

Just be sure to set this up where it's legal to shoot guns, and nobody will get hurt by a bullet in case you miss. Hey, nobody's perfect.

A Major 8 Chime Set costs just $249 and a full Double Major 16 Deluxe Set, pictured in this blog post, goes for the low, low price of $600. Operators are standing by! (Not really, but you can go to their Web site.)

Without further ado, I present you the explosive gun shot National Anthem.

How To Advertise Your Business: Have Person Dress Up As Banana And Carry AK-47

Derek Poe, owner of a business called Golden Triangle Tactical had a problem.

Maybe Golden Triangle Tactical should have
hired a Minion, with their love of bananas
(and sometimes guns) to advertise their store.  

He was moving the location of the business and he need to let his customers know of the change.

Yes, he could have taken out ads in the newspaper, radio, TV and social media and he probably did some of those things.

But what better way to advertise the move than to have a teenager stand outside the store's new location dressed as a banana and carrying an AK-47?

That's precisely what Poe did to advertise his business move, according to television station KBMT in Beaumont, Texas.

Well, I suppose a murderous looking banana is one way to attract attention. To be fair, the AK-47 wasn't loaded and the banana teenager wasn't threatening anyone with it.

I'm not sure what a store selling guns and such has to do with bananas, but what do I know? As long as the people buying the guns are't bananas in the head

The teen was cited for violating a Beaumont city ordinance that bars soliciting business on the side of the road. But with an open carry permit, it looks as if the AK-47 was legal, so the kid's not in that much trouble.

Hey, and the advertising ploy worked. Now, with the publicity, a lot more people, including you, know about Golden Triangle Tactical.

Could We Stop Shooting Each Other At The Slightest Provocation, Please

Last week I read the disheartening, to say the least, news about some moron in West Virginia who shot two people to death because he believed the two men were trespassing on his property, according to television station WSAZ.

This yahoo's first thought when
he believed to people were trespassing
on his property (they weren't)
was to shoot them, polie said.  

Turns out the two brothers that were killed, Garrick and Carl Hopkins, both in their early 60s, were on their own property that they just purchased and weren't trespassing on the property of the accused, Rodney Black, 62.

But that's totally besides the point.

Even if the Hopkins brothers were tramping through the accused murderer's front lawn, how is that justification for shooting?

Black couldn't try to shoo them away or call the cops or even threaten them a bit if he thought they were trespassing? The first thing he tried was shooting them?

According to WSAZ, Black told police he saw the Hopkins brothers shaking a door on what he said was his own shed (it wasn't), didn't warn them to leave and just blasted away with his gun.

This is sort of like that theater shooting in Florida last month  where two guys got into an argument because the older guy didn't like the younger guy texting during the previews. It got heated enough so that the younger guy threw a bag of popcorn at the other guy, who in what was his mind a measured response anyway, shot the popcorn bag thrower to death.

The older guy's defense was he felt threatened. Then why did he leave the theater to talk to a manager and then come back? Oh well.

What is it about this tiny minority of gun owners who think the solution to every problem is to kill someone?  Cripes, if I say one of them is wearing a sort of ugly shirt, he'd probably open fire with an AK-47. Or bazooka.

The Second Amendment says we have the right to own guns. Fine. Can someone explain to me please, where in the Second Amendment does it say we can shoot somebody at the slightest provocation?

And surely these gun nuts don't want it to work both ways. I believe they think they can shoot anything and anyone they want and they're above the law.

What I mean by "gun nut" by the way, are not the people are merely enthusiastic about the Second Amendment. They're fine.

I'm talking about the paranoid weirdos who shoot and ask questions later, who think the world is being taken over by Marxists bent on making us all subservient sheeple, that they have to stockpile weapons, that the Revolution Is Coming and the Must Overthrow The Obama Dictatorship!!!

Or something like that. These crazies like to hide behind the Second Amendment to support their rootin' shootin' tootin' paranoid fantasies.

Then there's the people who get their hands on all kinds of guns, even when it's not legal. Like the recent case of a meth smoking, white supremacist felon in Washington State who managed to amass something of an arsenal 

I don't have any solutions here. There are some obvious ones, but it seems not enough people want to enforce existing laws, or enact very mild regulations on guns, without taking away the right for most of us to own guns.

Because after all, we can limit free speech under the First Amendment, but don't you dare limit anything under the Second Amendment.

Gun Writer Banished For Mild Comment; Discourse Deteriorates More

This is how bad our national discourse has gotten:

Seems we can't have a rational political discussion
of guns, or anything else for that matter.

A guy named Dick Metcalf was until recently one of the nation's top gun journalists in the nation, has gone missing because he dared suggest, however gently, that there could be some minor restrictions on gun purchases, according to the New York Times. 

Metcalf suggested in a column he wrote for Guns & Ammo that maybe, just maybe, there could be minor restrictions on gun ownerships. Nothing major, mind you. Just a little.

After all, all rights enshrined in the Constitution have some restrictions. Take freedom of speech: "You cannot falsely and deliberately shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater....the question is when, does regulation become infringement?," Metcalf wrote in his column.

He gave a for instance for gun restrictions He argued that 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is not an infringement.

Judging from the reaction from gun enthusiasts, or at least their leaders, you'd think Metcalf has suggested overthrowing the U.S. government and replace it with a Scientology dictatorship or something.

And therein lies the problem. You can't make it in politics or advocacy unless you're a hard core Internet  troll.

It would have been one thing to argue Metcalf was wrong in his suggestion and that there is no need for training before obtaining a conceal carry license. People disagree all the time, who cares?

It was how people reacted to Metcalf's pretty mild suggestion.  Here's how the New York Times described it:

"The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell hi that two major gun manufacturers had said 'in no uncertain terms' that they could no long do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company publishes Guns & Ammon and co-produces his TV show if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately."

So, apparently, the way to handle anyone who doesn't exactly adhere to the exact party line, and an extreme one at that, is to silence them completely.

This one incident involving gun journalist Metcalf seems to define how Washington works. You have to have an extreme position, and anyone who suggests a teeny, tiny bit of compromise, or a little nuance becomes a pariah.

So everyone is afraid to suggest anything constructive, for fear they'd lose their job. So no ideas get generated, nothing gets done and the nation stagnates.

I get it what happened to Metcalf won't end Western Civilization As We Know It. It's bad for him of course.

But if every idea is shot down because it doesn't exactly adhere to some sort of wacko party line, then things are really going to go off the rails.

Actually, they kind of have, really.

In Texas, Apparently You Can Legally Shoot People You Think Steal From You

Wow. Just Wow.

That seems to be the consensus all over the Internet, except among certain circles in Texas, apparently, over a jury verdict that acquited a guy named Ezekiel Gilbert of a murder charge.

A Texas jury said under the state's laws, it was OK
for this guy to shoot an escort because she
wouldn't have sex with him.  

Our buddy Ezzie found an escort on Craigslist --Oh Boy! -- who was available for the low, low price of $150.

With any bargain, you get what you pay for and Ezzie quickly learned that the $150 he paid the escort didn't include sex.

So Ezzie did what any red blooded American would do when they feel like they were cheated out of their hard earned cash.

Ezzie shot the escort, Lenora Ivy Frago, 23, in the neck, leaving her paralyzed. She died seven months later.

According to San Antonio Express News, Ezzie says he's really, really sorry, because he just meant to injure Lenora, not kill her. He is a law abiding man, he seems to say because his defense was that under Texas law, it is OK "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."

I guess Ezzie was smart enough to hire the escort at night. If he wanted some afternoon delight, he might have run afoul of the law.

This verdict seems to make it open season on people who are perceived to be stealing stuff. At least after dark in Texas.

The prosecutors in the case said the law was intended for law abiding citizens, and it doesn't cover trying to make somebody do something illegal, like prostitution. The implication here is even prosecutors might think it's OK to shoot somebody for stealing something at night, even if it isn't worth much.

Follow this law, and this jury verdict to its logical conclusion, I guess it's OK to shoot someone in Texas after he steals a penny from your coat pocket, as long as the theft occured after the sun went down.

What about other forms of theft?  Can you shoot a banker if she altered your mortgage to make you pay a bit more?  Can you shoot members of a legislature if they raise taxes, and you don't think the tax increase is fair?

What if you think somebody stole from you, and you shoot him, but it turned out you just misplaced what you thought was stolen? Are you still OK legally?

For his part Ezzie had this to say, according to the San Antonio Express News

"I sincerely regret hte loss of life of Ms. Frago...... I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel."

Poor baby. Four years of Ezzie's life stolen because he "innocently" shot someone to death. Maybe he could shoot someone else to make himself feel better. It might even be legal in Texas

Shooting Guns Underwater, Throwing Molotov Cocktails: Cool Slow Mo Vids.

The video in this post has been on YouTube for awhile, but lately has been getting some notice on various blogs.

It's a guy who decided what would happen if you shoot a pistol under water, and film it in slow motion.

The guy gets a little too involved in explaining things and setting it up for you, but you do get a cool payoff when the gun goes off. Really neat how the explosion goes through the water. Who'd have thought gunfire could be beautiful?

Readers: Can you come up with any examples of things that are normally regarded as ugly, but are made beautiful through photography or video?

Yes, this is really a random video, but you've come to expect that here, haven't you?



Meanwhile, another YouTuber decide to make a slow motion video of a Molotov cocktail hitting the brick wall of a house.

Again, the people in the video get a bit too detailed on how they set things up, their motivations, etc. But the payoff is really cool.

And I'm glad the guy who threw the Molotov cocktail hit the brick wall of the house instead of missing and tossing it through the window just to the left. Had he done that, we would have had a really interesting video of a different sort.

Readers: Can you come up with any examples of things that are normally regarded as ugly, but are made beautiful through photography or video?

Anyway, here's the Molotov covcktail vid for your enjoyment:

Darwin Award Nominee Target Practices, But Lives

Here's something you kiddies shouldn't try at home:

What if you found a discarded propane tank floating in a random pond somewhere?

The answer that doesn't come to mind immediately is shoot it. But, as this video shows, such an answer occurs to some people. I think you can get clues to the intelligence of these people by the title on the video you'll see below. Apparently, the tank contained "popane."

Well, it's a spectcular video in the end, but people, just to be safe: Hide your propane tanks from some of the dumber gun totin' folk out there:

Is That a Squirrel in Your Pant Or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

Big hat tip to my boss at the Burlington Free Press who last week took note of this Oregon, um tragedy.

Seems somebody did a poor job of animal control.

A menace to pant legs everywhere

According to the Salem, Oregon Statesman Journal, a local man learned that gunfire isn't always the best way to deal with the dilemna of having a squirrel run up your pant leg.

No, I have no idea why the squirrel ran up the guy's pant leg,

To give the guy some credit, I realize that a squirrel in your pant leg is not a common problem, and there's not many how-to advice books on ways to deal with the situation. Still, the man's response will not him any pest control industry awards.

He apparently thought the best way to rid himself of the squirrel menace was to shoot it with a .22 rifle. The good news is the squirrel survived to torment another Oregon resident another day. The bad news is the man shot himself in the foot, so he required hospital treatrment.

Now that we know squirrels up the pant leg are a serious threat, we need to think about ways to combat the problem in ways that leave the squirrel victims more or less intact. Maybe if the pepper spray cop from UC Davis loses his job, we can hire him to pepper spray squirrels.