Animals Daily News

Western Diamondback
Western Diamondback

The nation’s own insane asylum, California, has something new to add to its lengthy list of problems:  Rattlesnakes.  Excerpt:

Southern California is known for its sun, sand, and of course, it’s snakes.

And thanks to our ongoing drought, rattlesnakes are making their way out of the hills and into our yards in record numbers.

“They’re out in full force right now,” said Bo Slyapich, who is known as the “rattlesnake wrangler.”

He specializes in snake removal, relocation, and prevention.

Slyapich has been working with snakes for more than 50 years and says homeowners are giving the rattlers exactly what they are looking for.

“If you build it. they will come,” he said. “Just because you build them a cave, leave the door open, garage door open, put a cement pond in the backyard, make it green all around, maybe throw some mice and rats around. They love us humans.”

He suggests building a box around your property, installing one-quarter-inch fencing around the entire perimeter, and reducing landscaping.

Pretty good advice, actually, speaking as one who came from the rattlesnake-friendly hills of Allamakee County, Iowa, where the Old Man’s woods and hills were populated by Timber Rattlesnakes  (Crotalus horridus). Smaller (just) than Californey’s Western Diamondbacks, (Crotalus atrox) the big timber snakes were not terribly aggressive, in spite of their Latin name.  You had to work at it to get bitten.

Timber Rattlesnake.
Timber Rattlesnake.

We still killed them whenever we found them around the house.  Up in the hills they were fine; we always allowed them to proceed with their business unmolested.  But not around the house, not when the folks had legions of grandkids playing outside all summer.  The biggest rattler we killed was pushing six feet long, and a serious bite by a snake like that can kill an adult, much less a child.

We never took too many chances with venomous snakes.  Californians hopefully will do likewise.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!
Happy Hump Day!

Have a look at the final report of the House Select Committee on the Benghazi attacks.  A few key excerpts:

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

And:

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.” 

And:

Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

Confused BearWow.  As I said, read the whole thing.  I’m still digesting it myself, but one thing is amply clear already:  unless he just completely wrong-foots his entire campaign from this moment forward, The Donald will be hanging this around Her Imperial Majesty’s neck like a millstone from now until November.

Animal’s Daily News

Girl with AR15Thanks again to The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

Ever thought about building your own AR-15?  I’ve done a couple, mind you on pre-assembled lower receivers.  It’s fun and easily accomplished with only a few basic tools.  Excerpt:

This is a complete list of everything you need to build an AR-15 rifle. Underneath each component are suggestions of products the Cheaper Than Dirt! experts use or has used in the past on various AR-15 builds. Of course, our recommendations are not exhaustive. There are so many different ways to configure an AR-15 from mass-produced cheap polymer lowers to mom and pop shops machining custom competition, match-grade parts. Each AR-15 build is going to vary—depending on your reason for building the rifle. Be it a 9mm carbine, destroyer of pigs, long-range precision or simply just a fun toy, this guide will lead you in the right direction.

You can build a decent AR-pattern rifle in a wide variety of calibers for around $600.  I’ve got about a grand in mine, a bit less in Mrs. Animal’s copy, mostly because I have yet to set some good optics on hers.  Mine has the fixed stock, preferred for a tall, long-armed gorilla like yr. obdt; a 20″ 5.56mm heavy barrel on a DPMS flat-top upper receiver, and a 6.5-24x scope.  Mrs. A’s version has a telescoping stock, usually set in some to accommodate her 4’11” stature, a 16″ 5.56mm barrel on (again) a 5.56mm DPMS flat-top upper.  I have an old reflex sight on it, but am scouting out other, low-magnification reflex or traditional optical options for her carbine.

Girl with AR15 2Whining by clueless media types aside, the AR-15 pattern rifles are user-friendly, fun to shoot, safe, light and easy to handle by almost anyone.  They are also endlessly accessorized and customized.  (There is even a Hello Kitty version.)

I prefer powerful, accurate bolt guns for hunting, but the AR is fun.  I’ll probably always keep one or two in the rack.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!
Goodbye, Blue Monday!

A busy day beckons, so let’s have some quick random notes and thoughts on the news of the day.

George Will has a snit, takes his ball and goes home.  Granted the presumed nomination of The Donald as the GOP standard-bearer was a bit of a surprise to a lot of political junkies, but throwing support to Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I is well to the left of stupid.  The Donald is something of an unknown quantity; we really have no idea what kind of President he’ll make.  But we can know pretty damn well what kind of President the Dowager Empress would make, and she would be an utter disaster.  Will favors destroying the village to save it.  He’s dramatically wrong.

Speaking of the Stupid Party:  There is at present a lawsuit seeking to unbind bound delegates to the GOP convention, aimed at denying The Donald the nomination.  Granted the party can organize the nominating process the way its members agree to do so, and at least the GOP doesn’t bias their process with a huge number of unelected, party elite “superdelegates” to make sure the hoi polloi don’t do something dumb, like vote for the candidate they want.  But the shortsighted #NeverTrump crowd are angling to start a civil war within the party, which would hand the deeply and fundamentally corrupt Dowager Empress of Chappaqua the election.

Is that really the outcome we want?

If this holds, there may actually (finally) be a little bit of good news from Iraq; it seems that Iraqi government troops have driven ISIS forces out of the key city of Fallujah.  Will they keep up the momentum?  We’ll see.

And, finally:  Beer is good for your brain.  Well, that may well explain my own particular brand of genius.  Never cottoned to wine myself.

On that sudsy note, we return you to your Monday, already in progress.

UK to EU: Pip Toodles, Goodbye!

Bye bye!
Bye bye!

Links copied from Drudge:

ELITES GOT IT WRONG: Pollsters, Pundits, Historians, Financiers…
GLOBAL ORDER JOLTED…
TRUMP: TIME TO BELIEVE IN AMERICA…
SKY LIVE… BBC LIVE…
France, Italy, Netherlands Now Want Referendum…
POUND IN HISTORIC COLLAPSE… STOCKS ROCKED… Plunge Protection Teams Mobilize… Global banks seek to reassure… SOROS GOES SHORT…
UK Richest Lose $5.5 Billion! GREENSPAN: ‘Just tip of the iceberg’…
Lawyers Feel The Boon…
CAMERON OUT… BORIS IN?
Merkel warns against kneejerk reaction…
FARAGE IN VICTORY…
‘Europe will fall very soon’…
Final nail in coffin for U.S.-EU trade deal…
Despite ‘Remain’ Scaremongering Germany, USA, Canada Want Trade Partnerships…
Hillary, Obama on WRONG side of history…
PAPER: Her worst nightmare…
Second MAJOR BLOW to Obama in as many days…
Brexit could signal Trump winning White House…
Unlikely Brits Who Caused Revolution…
Leaders failed to sway anger at immigration…

MAG: HOW BRITAIN WAS BROKEN, AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR AMERICA…

It’s going to be an interesting summer, True Believers!

Rule Five Statist Takedown Friday

2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (1)I do try to avoid arguments in comments sections of articles, but I broke my own non-binding rule last week and engaged in a discussion on this PJMedia story.  The conversation was with a Disqus user called “This Guy.”  Just for shits and grins, I reproduce that conversation, unedited but for restricting comments and replies to “This Guy” and myself, here for your enjoyment.  To make it easier to follow, his text is in blue, mine in red.  Watch the amazing moving goalposts, True Believers!

This Guy:  What does it matter if he was gay or not? The new gun control measures that are trying to be passed would have prevented Mateen from getting his weapons by legal means. He was on an FBI watchlist twice and was still allowed to purchase these guns.

Animal:  Which other constitutional rights are you in favor of taking from people without due process?

This Guy: I can’t think of any.

Anyway, I never said to take away someone’s rights, I’m just saying that the amendments are there for a reason.

Animal: Yes, you certainly implied to take away someone’s rights with no due process. You said:

“The new gun control measures that are trying to be passed would have prevented Mateen from getting his weapons by legal means. He was on an FBI watchlist twice and was still allowed to purchase these guns.”

He wasn’t on any watch list when he purchased the guns. In fact, he was a licensed armed security contractor. None of the laws proposed would have prevented his purchase.

Further down the thread, you said:2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (2)

“Despite that, it’s upsetting that someone could be on a watchlist and still acquire guns legally.”

So, you think that someone should be denied a fundamental, Constitutionally defined liberty because some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat placed them on a list – a list that:

1) We have no idea what the criteria are for being placed on the list
2) There is no defined appeal process for being wrongly placed on the list
3) There is no defined due process for being placed on the list.

So, the only way I can read this is that you are in fact in favor of denying people a fundamental, Constitutionally defined liberty, one upheld as such by the Supreme Court, because of their inclusion on an undefined, unaccountable list.

Can you not see the horrible precedent this sets?

This Guy:  Okay. Do you believe he should have had access to those guns?

Animal:  Answer my question first. Can you see the precedent set by the policy you 2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (3)propose? Do you think people on a terror watch list should be prohibited from speaking in public? From crossing state lines? Do you think they should be subject to warrantless searches?

It’s easy to say *now* that “no, that guy shouldn’t have had access to a gun.” But **at the time he bought them,** the sellers had no indications. He passed the background check. He was a licensed armed security contractor. He was not at that time on any list. So, your question doesn’t address anything.

This Guy:  I can see it; but aren’t other people restricted by their past as well? Criminal records, employment history, medical history.

If you were a gun store owner and knew that some guy was on some sort of watchlist, would you sell to them?

Animal:  Let’s take a look at what you just said:2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (4)

“I can see it; but aren’t other people restricted by their past as well? Criminal records, employment history, medical history.”

As far as Constitutional rights are concerned, people are (or, at least, should be) only restricted by the first – criminal records. Why? Because there is *due process* involved. They had their day in court, they were allowed to confront their accuser (also a Constitutionally defined right) and were convicted. And yes, I am in favor of denying convicted felons of their right to bear arms – at least, until they have served their time and demonstrated to a judge’s satisfaction that they are rehabilitated and deserve to have their rights restored by a court.

“If you were a gun store owner and knew that some guy was on some sort of watchlist, would you sell to them?”

I wouldn’t. And, in fact, back in the day when I was selling guns, before background checks, I did refuse to sell a few people guns because I didn’t care for their demeanor. But that would be my choice. Not enforced by an overbearing government policy. And, you may have noted, one store refused to sell ammo to Mateen, because they found him suspicious.

As a matter of public policy, we should – we must – defer to the principle of liberty. Any other course is unthinkable.

This Guy:  One store refused. But as the saying goes, if you won’t, someone else will. I suppose that’s why it’s making it’s way up to the government level.

Animal:  Yes, infringing on fundamental liberties requires government. Only government can legally compel behavior. That’s why our Constitution, as written, places strict limits on government2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (5) – among them, that they can not deny essential liberties without due process.

People on both sides of the aisle are increasingly in favor of ignoring that.

This Guy:  Look, what’s clear is many gun owners are very responsible and have good reason to protect themselves and this country as necessary. The real problem is that the way all the laws/rules are written allows for people who do not have good intentions to access guns just as easily as those who are just.

Animal: So, you’re in favor of denying people fundamental liberties with no due process, based on their “intentions.” That’s what you’re saying. There’s a word for that type of thinking, you know.

While we’re at it, how do you define “intentions?” How do you qualify and quantify intentions? By what objective standard do you define if one’s intentions are good or bad?

(Note:  Now it begins to cross over into the ridiculous.)

This Guy:  Ok, then guns for no one.2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (6)

Animal: Now you’re just being silly. Never mind that the Supreme Court has already struck that idea down; never mind that the Second Amendment says yes, we have the *right* to keep and bear arms. Setting all that aside for the moment: How do you propose to gather up 300+ million firearms from 200+ million gun owners, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens who never have and never will commit a crime?

This is your opportunity to lay out your plan. Go for it.

This Guy:  Never said I want to take guns away from anyone. Not sure where you got that idea.

On the other hand, it will probably require lots of surveillance before the government acts on taking guns away, or at the very least, register them.

Drones will be the primary methods of surveillance since human soldiers would be opposed to this.

Since the weapons will be tagged, as well as gun owners and non gun owners, they will be aware of any illegal transactions or theft.

Also, there is currently research on-going to find methods to read thoughts and/or emotions. This is what will be used to determine if you are fit to own a weapon, via a psychological profile.

Animal: “Never said I want to take guns away from anyone. Not sure where you got that idea.”

Then what did you mean by “OK, then guns for no one.” There’s really only one way to read that.

“On the other hand, it will probably require lots of surveillance2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (7) before the government acts on taking guns away, or at the very least, register them.”

Yeah. As long as we’re ignoring the Second Amendment, let’s ignore the Fourth Amendment, too, while we’re at it!

“Drones will be the primary methods of surveillance since human soldiers would be opposed to this. Since the weapons will be tagged,”

“Tagged?” How?

“as well as gun owners and non gun owners, they will be aware of any illegal transactions or theft.”

Now you’re proposing “tagging” people? How? Implanted micro-chips, or will you just settle for a number tattooed on the forearm?

“Also, there is currently research on-going to find methods to read thoughts and/or emotions. This is what will be used to determine if you are fit to own a weapon, via a psychological profile.”

Even if that technology existed – it doesn’t, and may never – you’re left with the idea that you are intending to deny people a fundamental individual liberty with no due process, based on the idea someone has that they *may* do something *someday.*

Do try to think a little harder about the road you’re headed down.

(Second note:  Now he begins to cross into the surreal.)

This Guy:  I said “guns for no one” because it seems like those are the only choices you’re proposing: guns for everyone or guns for no one.2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (8)

Anyway, as far as amendments go, whether you like it or not, the Constitution can be altered, that’s what amendments are for. It’s not going to be an easy fight; however, this will take time. Hey, there was a time where interracial marriage or slave rights were unfathomable. Things change and, shoot, Bill O’Reilly has even called for changes to gun laws. It’s all happening now, and we may see some changes very soon.

As far as tagging. There’s no need for a physical tag. A drone could identify an item, register it’s location, and track it wherever it goes.

Regarding the technology to read thoughts and/or emotions, it’s certainly being worked on. Ever hear of biotechnology? If, at the minimum, one’s emotions can be detected, the powers that be will likely use that data to determine how stable you are and if you can be trusted with a weapon.

Animal: “I said “guns for no one” because it seems like those are the only choices you’re proposing: guns for everyone or guns for no one.”

So, you missed where I said that I’m in favor of denying gun purchases to convicted felons?

“Anyway, as far as amendments go, whether you like it or not, the Constitution can be altered, that’s what amendments are for. It’s not going to be an easy fight; however, this will take time.”

So propose altering it. I predict you’ll fail. But in the meantime, you *have to abide by it.*2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (9)

“Hey, there was a time where interracial marriage or slave rights were unfathomable. Things change and, shoot, Bill O’Reilly has even called for changes to gun laws. It’s all happening now, and we may see some changes very soon.”

Or we may not. But nothing you say here addresses your idea of denying people fundamental rights with no due process. You’re engaging in all sorts of semantic wiggling to get around your advocacy of denying people their liberty based on suspicions.

“As far as tagging. There’s no need for a physical tag. A drone could identify an item, register it’s location, and track it wherever it goes.”

How many drones would that take? What happens if someone goes into heavy woods, or a subway?

“Regarding the technology to read thoughts and/or emotions, it’s certainly being worked on. Ever hear of biotechnology?”

Amazingly enough, I do a lot of business with biotech companies. I’m quite familiar with the state of the art in that field. The tech you describe doesn’t exist. And even if it did, it wouldn’t address the blatant unconstitutionality of your proposal.2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (10)

“If, at the minimum, one’s emotions can be detected,”

They can’t. And now you’re proposing denying rights based on people’s **emotions?** Really?

You really, really don’t see what’s wrong with that?

“…the powers that be will likely use that data to determine how stable you are and if you can be trusted with a weapon.”

Based on what criteria? Decided by whom? Using what due process?

You’re going from bad to worse here.

2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (11)I let it drop there.

As said, I normally don’t wander into these snake pits.  But “This Guy” seemed at least a little more literate than most commenters, and I was interested in drawing him out; I think I did so, leading him to espouse support for a hyper-vigilant surveillance state, if not out-and-out tyranny.  I’d prefer to think he’s just not thinking things through; but having listened to lots of pols talk on the issues, I’m afraid he may really think the drek he puts out is a good idea.

Sobering, eh?

2016_06_24_Rule Five Friday (12)

Animal’s Daily News

Smiling BearWell, what do you know; apparently our legalization of marijuana here in Colorado has not, in spite of the fears of many, resulted in an increase of use by minors.  Excerpt:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reports that the state’s latest survey of teenagers “shows marijuana use has not increased since legalization.” In 2015 the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS), which is conducted every two years, found that 21 percent of high school students said they had consumed cannabis in the previous month, down slightly from 22 percent in 2011, the year before Colorado voters approved marijuana legalization, and up slightly from 20 percent in 2013, the year before state-licensed marijuana stores began serving recreational customers. The share of high school students who said they had ever used marijuana followed a similar pattern, dropping from 39 percent in 2011 to 37 percent in 2013, then rising to 38 percent last year. Since these differences are not statistically significant, the rate of marijuana use among Colorado teenagers was essentially unchanged during this period. And according to the survey report, “Colorado does not significantly differ from the national average in lifetime or current marijuana use.”

Image from article.
Image from article.

In other words, people on both sides of the political aisle here in Colorado were crapping themselves over this issue, and all their fears seem to have been unfounded.

Surprisingly – well, if you’re not a small-l-libertarian like yr.obdt. – the same sort of pants-shitting was seen back when our state legislature was debating what became our concealed-carry bill, and indeed every CCW bill ever passed in any state.  “It will be the Wild West!” people cried.  “There will be shootouts over parking spaces!”

Of course none of that happened.

I’m not sure why pols and so many of the people who vote for them are so willing to think the worst of people.  Left alone to make their own decisions, sure, there will be some folks who screw up, the consequences of which should be on them and them alone.   But the vast majority of folks are generally pretty responsible.  It would be nice if the knuckleheads in elected office would learn from their example.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!
Happy Hump Day!

From Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld, who I generally find interesting:  Orlando’s Doom.  The most depressing article you will ever share.  Excerpt:

The immediate consequences from the Orlando terror attack are obvious: dozens dead and maimed – families changed forever.

The next layer of consequences, arriving soon, are not as obvious, but they are coming.  Here they are:

We are getting a divorce. First, a poll shows that Americans are pretty much divided on their opinions about the attack.  Most of the Democrats see it as a gun control issue. Most Republicans see it as a terror attack.  And there seems to be no sign of compromise (why can’t it be mostly “terror” and a little “guns?” asks the therapist, Dr. Gutfeld) 

This poll hints at an ongoing, disturbing change in this country – one that brings forth a series of even more problems – those of which I see as almost unsolvable. We quarrel about the quarrel. We cannot agree on the fight. And therefore we cannot begin to fight. Instead, we are like that proverbial snake that devours its own tail. Except, we think it’s sushi. But it’s blowfish. You get the idea. We’re dead.

I’ve often wondered if the end of the United States will see our Republic balkanized into several smaller states, probably along political (red states v. blue states) lines.  But the problem with that scenario is that the divisions Mr. Gutfeld describes are  not neatly delineated geographically; take increasingly loony Californey, which is mostly a big, sparsely populated red state dominated politically by a few densely populated deep-blue enclaves.  Our own Colorado is increasingly the same.  The mostly-red counties of the Western Slope and the plains are increasingly outnumbered and outvoted by bluer Denver and the People’s Republik of Boulder.

Sad-BearHow does a nation like that balkanize?  The last time it (almost) happened, in 1861, there was a fairly coherent geographic divide.  Today, not so much.

Of course, if a major financial collapse were to occur and the flow of Imperial goodies to our major cities was cut off, the problem might resolve itself, as the big cities would very quickly self-immolate.

Some times it’s hard to remain optimistic.

Animal’s Daily News

Silver BearI normally agree with a lot of the Heritage Foundation’s ideas, but their treatise on how to prevent another terrorist attack leaves out one major item.  Their introduction:

The Orlando attack was the 86th instance of Islamist terror in the U.S. since 9/11. In the aftermath of such a horrific attack, America can learn vital lessons on how to stop the next attack. The U.S. must first commit to proactively combatting terrorism at home and abroad. Of the 22 plots or attacks since the start of 2015, 19 have been committed by individuals inspired by ISIS (Islamic State) or other terrorist groups in Syria, such as the al-Qaeda–linked al-Nusra. Defeating radical Islamism abroad is critical to defeating it at home. Some have rashly promoted gun control as the solution to this kind of terror attack. Rather, counterterrorism policies are what would stop attacks like Orlando from occurring again.

I don’t disagree with any of the ideas they put forth, mind you.  But they leave out a big one:

Stop preventing the law-abiding populace from arming themselves.

No matter how well we train first responders, no matter how good a job we do at counter-intelligence, no matter what  the hell else we do, in a nation of 330 million people, there are going to be a few nutjobs in the population.  Some of those nutjobs, for whatever reason, are going to do evil things, like the Pulse nightclub massacre.  On the point of the stick the nutjob’s motiviations don’t really matter; what matters is stopping the rampage as quickly as possible.

There’s an oft-repeated truism that goes “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”  This little gem is no less accurate because it’s so often repeated; no matter how dedicated, well-trained and well-equipped, first responders can only respond.  But the people at the scene, they should – nay, must – not be denied that most fundamental of all human rights:  Self-defense.

Confused BearArmed citizens prevent many ordinary, run-of-the-mill crimes each year.  It’s common for ill-informed proggies to complain that there is “no evidence of a mass shooting prevented by an armed citizen,” although there is such evidence; and, consider also that if a rampage is halted quickly, it’s not a mass shooting.  That’s kind of the whole point.

But with every repeated instance of nutjob rampages, it seems the Imperial government descends further into the Land of Stupid.

Deep thoughts, news of the day, totty and the Manly Arts.