Fill Yer Hands

you son of a

Federal Judge Agrees – Gun Free Victim Zones Are Setups

In a landmark ruling today in the lawsuit against Cinemark by victims of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that because they are Gun Free Victim Zones,

“the patrons of a movie theater are, perhaps even more than students in a school or shoppers in a mall, ‘sitting ducks.'”

This means that the owners of the Century Aurora 16  Theater should have known its patrons faced a risk, and taken steps to protect them, which they did not.

Undoubtedly this opens the door for more lawsuits by anyone hurt by an attacker in a Gun Free Victim Zone. It certainly reinforces the message of this blog over the last few years.

Of course, the simplest precaution any business owner can take, and which the movie theaters where I live in Kennesaw espouse, is not to prohibit the carrying of guns by its patrons. That’s because shooters are known to pick venues where they know they will not be challenged, and a theater that allows guns represents an unknown. They pass it by in favor of easier pickings.


Sometimes Teh Stoopid, it Hurts

I have to admit, I do not post on this blog as much I used to, and certainly nowhere near as much as I would like. Sometimes I see things, though, and I don’t post them, because . . . well . . .  they seem too stoopid.

Case in point:

Reilly Rubber Bullets tweet

This tweet was from a Huffington Post “reporter,” writing from the recent unpleasantness in Ferguson, MO. As anyone who reads this blog knows, those are tapered foam earplugs, not rubber bullets.

I saw it re-tweeted by someone not an hour after it was sent. Honestly, I thought it was a joke. But the fact that everyone but me has blogged about it since, has shown this was really what he thought.


“Should Be Able” versus “Should Be Required”

I was watching a news show the other day, and there was a story about this video.

Please listen closely to the words that NRA commentator Dom Raso speaks. The first sentence tells it all.

He says

“Every law abiding blind individual should be able to have whatever guns they want.”

Emphasis is mine, because that’s what this post is about. I’m not going to talk about the blind and guns, but rather an observation my wife made during the news report.

She pointed out that the news commentators turned Raso’s observation into an assertion that the NRA was insisting that every blind person should be required to carry a gun. I have to admit, when I heard the commentators make that point, I wanted to agree with them, because forcing blind people to carry doesn’t make sense. But then my wife said “Wait, that’s not what he said,” and she rewound the DVR.

This led to a discussion, and the realization of the anti-gun faction’s penchant for turning the observation that someone should be able to do something into an assertion that everyone should be required to do that thing.

I hear it all the time . . . the anti’s claim the NRA insists

everyone should be required to openly carry machine guns at Target . . .

children should be required to shoot guns as part of school programs . . .

shoppers at gun shows should be required to buy guns . . .

and the list goes on. They make the assertion that the NRA or we Gun Nuts want everyone to be required to carry guns, when in truth we just want to be able to carry guns if we choose.

And I have to admit, they do it so much that I don’t notice it most of the time. I even hang out with some anti-gun friends who do it.

Why do they do this? Because it is in the form in which they think. Since “should not be allowed” is the same as “should be required not to,” in their minds the opposite holds – “should be allowed” is the same as “should be required.” Faulty reasoning begets faulty reasoning, and no one should be surprised.

But I guarantee the next time, I am going to make sure they understand, we just want to exercise our right to be able to, not require anyone to do anything.

Except quote me correctly.



Jesse Ventura, Ol’ Butthurt

Ol Painless Rev

The original Ol’ Painless, carried by Ol’ Butthurt

Jesse Ventura has proved himself a Douche Lord of Epic Proportions, by suing the widow of slain SEAL sniper Chris Kyle for defamation. Kyle wrote in his book “American Sniper”  about an encounter with a scruffy SEAL who made a disparaging comment, and Kyle claimed he punched him out, only to find out later that it was Ventura. After Kyle’s untimely death, Ventura sued for defamation of character, and a jury yesterday awarded him $1.8 million in damages.

I tell you that because last year I had a contest to name the AR that I had built. The winning name was O’l Painless, named after the chain gun that Jesse Ventura’s character carried in the movie Predator. Needless to say, the news of his suit’s victory gives me quite a few second thoughts about that decision.

My first idea was to change the name to Ol’ Butthurt, but I didn’t want to have to explain that name every time I asked someone if they wanted to shoot it.

I also thought about defaulting the name to the second place vote-getter, Freedom.

But, after much thought I have decided that I will keep the name of the gun the same, but I will remove Ventura’s face from its record, lest it defame my wonderful gun’s image.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,040 other followers