Don't Start A War if You Can't Take a Joke

Nuclear weapons do not require a "Moral Revolution". The Tokyo firebombing killed more people than Fat Man or Little Boy. It doesn't matter whether it takes 1 plane or 100 to kill a city - the morality lies not in the how, but in the what and why.
It would have, in fact, been immoral to NOT nuke Imperial Japan. All the other options were far worse:

1. Allied land invasion, with Soviet support. Millions of Allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians die, with many more injured. The Soviets (who were pretty evil themselves) probably would have tried to use the opportunity to grab as much land as possible.
2. Allied land invasion, without Soviet support. Same results as above, only instead of taking chunks of Japan, the Soviets would have tried doing it in Manchuria, Mongolia, and Korea, and with a much lighter death toll for the Soviets.
3. Starve them out. Blockade all Japanese ports, bomb food stockpiles and production. Would have resulted in millions of Japanese dead, serious national health issues. and an utterly devastated nation.

Not to mention that if anyone ever deserved to get nuked it was Imperial Japan. The Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, the Bataan Death March, the list goes on and on. We bombed some of the worst mass murderers in history, to save MILLIONS of lives. Moral Revolution my ass.

WTF Marvel?

I mean, really, what the FUCK ARE YOU HIGH ON! My comments are in Italics.

In a shocking twist, Steve Rogers always has been and will continue to be a member of the evil group
Sure, he wears red white and blue on the outside, but on the inside? It turns out Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America, supports the evil, former Nazi organization, Hydra.
Marvel comics introduced the shocking twist Wednesday morning when Captain America: Steve Rogers #1 went on sale — and it turns out there have been hints that this was coming for a long time. TIME spoke with Marvel executive editor Tom Brevoort about the decision, the clues and why Hydra’s rhetoric sounds an awful lot like that of a certain presidential candidate.

This is seriously a stupid idea. What the heck made you think that this was a good idea? Drunken sailors have better decision making skills than you do.

TIME: How did Marvel decide to make Steve Rogers a secret Hydra operative?
Tom Brevoort: Nick Spencer, who is the writer of the series, pitched us the story as part and parcel of restoring Steve to his youth and vigor. In the comics, he’s been old for awhile. The super soldier serum that was keeping him young had been broken down, so for the 75th anniversary, Nick had this notion that we were going to restore him. But then we went into this other story about Hydra, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Wait, that's your reason? You think that this is going to restore Captain America? You obviously don't live in the same world that I do, because this sounds more like destroying Captain America than anything else.

If readers go back and look at older comics, will this hold up?
It will. Issue 2 kind of winds the clock back a little bit and lays out exactly how and why things are the way they are. And it lays out a roadmap for where things are headed in the future. At this point, I don’t want to say too much definitively because I want people to read the comic books. But people will be able to connect the dots and follow the trail of breadcrumbs.

You've apparently been reading comics from another universe. Captain America is Hydra's GREATEST enemy. He has, over the course of his career as Captain America, singlehandedly prevented Hydra from achieving world domination multiple times, under several different leaders. That's some real dedication as a double agent there - keeping cover, even when it would be better for your side if you dropped it. Stop trying to justify yourselves, because there's no way that this will "Hold up", and if you actually believe that it will you're either stupid, on drugs, or delusional.

How long has this been in the works?
Almost since the beginning of when Nick started writing the Captain America titles, which would have been the end of 2014. So right around there the conversations first started about this. It’s been in the works for more than a year.

So that's how long it takes to come up with a plan to destroy a classic character.

What does this mean for the Marvel Universe?
It means on the most fundamental level that the most trusted hero in the Marvel universe is now secretly a deep-cover Hydra operative, a fact that’s really only known to the readers and to him. That makes every interaction he has with anyone take on a second layer, a second meaning.

I'd say it means that the Marvel Universe has officially jumped the shark. It also means that I'm very glad that Marvel Studios and Marvel Comics aren't the same thing anymore, because the Captain deserves better than this.

In the comic the Red Skull of Hydra talks about “criminal trespassers” who “make a mockery” of America’s borders and calls the refugees in Germany an “invading army” bringing “fanatical beliefs and crime” to Europe. Obviously, this hate speech is nothing new for the organization, but it sounds like rhetoric we’ve been hearing this election. Is that purposeful?
We try to write comics in 2016 that are about the world and the zeitgeist of 2016, particularly in Captain America. Nick Spencer, the writer, is very politically active. He’s a Capitol Hill head and following this election very closely. So we can talk about political issues in a metaphoric way. That’s what gives our stories weight and meat to them. Any parallels you have seen to situations real or imagined, living or dead, is probably intentional but metaphorically not literally.

While I'll grant that Donald Trump is an authoritarian asshat, anyone who considers the bullshit that he spouts "hate speech" needs to grow a pair. He's not Hitler 2.0 (despite his populism, nationalist rhetoric, and past support for gun control). He's not the next Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, or Mussolini either. He IS rude, intentionally offensive, crude, authoritarian, eminent domain abusing, and overall something of a fraud. But he's not Hitler, and his rhetoric isn't hate speech. If you really want hate speech, I suggest you read what Al Jazeera has to say about Jews.

What are we supposed to think about the fact that someone literally named Captain America now supports these beliefs?
Again, I don’t want to say anything too definitively because we’re laying out the story. But we want to push that button. There should be a feeling of horror or unsettledness at the idea that somebody like this can secretly be part of this organization. There are perfectly normal people in the world who you would interact with on a professional level or personal level, and they seem like the salt of the earth but then it turns out they have some horrible secret — whether it’s that they don’t like a certain group of people or have bodies buried in their basement.
You should feel uneasy about the fact that everything you know and love about Steve Rogers can be upended.

We'll you've succeeded there. I'm horrified and uneasy that anyone would be willing to butcher a classic, much loved, well defined character like that.

To ask the blunt question, is this a gimmick?
Every single month whether it’s a run of the mill month for Captain America or an extraordinary month, our job is to put him in situations that place that character under some degree of pressure and see how he reacts to that. And hopefully our readers are surprised, shocked, elated, see something of themselves, learn something about themselves. To say it’s a gimmick implies that it’s done heedlessly just to shock. The proof is always going to be in the execution. So you’ll have to read the rest of the story to see.
But I certainly believe it’s not a gimmick. It’s a story that we spent a long time on, that’s compelling and captures the zeitgeist of the world. It will make readers wonder how the heck we’ll get out of this.

Yes. It's a fucking gimmick. 
Everyone involved in this, from the writer on up, needs to commit seppuku. Or at least check themselves into a mental institution so that the rest of us don't have to deal with their stupidity.

California's obsession with Gun Control

There's no doubt about it. California is unhealthily obsessed with gun control.
11 new gun control bills have passed the state Senate. Should all or most of them get passed, it will effectively be impossible to be a gun owner in California.
My comments are in Bold, original article in Italics.

Here's a quick overview of proposed gun control measures approved Thursday by the state Senate.

• Ammunition regulation: SB 1235 by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) requires background checks to buy ammunition. It also creates a license to sell ammunition, and creates a new system for collecting information about those sales.

Are they going to track reloading supplies? Gunpowder ingredients? Fulminate of Mercury and Potassium Chlorate? It's not like ammunition is particularly hard to produce. We are talking about a technology that dates from the mid 1800s, when black powder was in vogue. I'd like to know if California politicians are going to pass a bill banning charcoal and bat shit just to prevent people from making their own gunpowder. Not to mention the criminals will still be able to get ammunition on the black market.

• Ban on large ammunition magazines: SB 1446 by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) bans the ownership of any ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds

First off, a clip is not a magazine. Second, most magazines are literally a box with a spring and a piece of plastic inside. Thirdly, what the hell makes you think that criminals will comply with this?

• Bullet buttons: SB 880 by Sen. Isadore Hall (D-Compton) expands the legal definition of an "assualt weapon" to include a group of rifles with ammunition clips that can be quickly swapped out by using a bullet to push a small release button.

It's nice to know that you're working hard to ban almost all semi-auto rifles in your state. I expect compliance to be low.

• SB 894 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) requires reporting most lost or stolen guns within five days.

 Do you want people to not report stolen guns? Because this is how you get people to do that.

• "Ghost guns": SB 1407 by De León requires a person to get a serial number from state officials before making or assembling a gun.

I, personally, would like to know just how they intend to enforce this one without violating the fourth amendment. And even then, I don't think they can do it.

• Gun violence research: SB 1006 by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) creates a new University of California center for researching gun-related violence.

You make it sound like they'd do something besides waste the money.

All in all, it's a crock of shit. All that will happen is making legitimate firearms ownership incredibly inconvenient.

National Seppuku

Yesterday our nation committed Seppuku. Rather than picking a candidate with a record of standing up to the establishment and of being at least somewhat pro-liberty - even if he has some serious issues - the Republicans have picked a lifelong crony capitalist, anti-gun, eminent domain abusing felonious democrat to oppose a lifelong corrupt, anti-gun, sexual predator enabling, felonious democrat (because Bernie doesn't stand a chance, and even if he did, he's a lifelong delusional batty socialist, and almost as bad as the other two).

Trumpeters, you are a bunch of freaking idiots. Trump's record is just as liberal as Hillary's, but with fewer dead people and leaked secrets, and more eminent domain abuse and fraud. You've given us an election where the best option is going to be whoever the Libertarians put forth (probably Gary Johnson). And all because you wanted to stick it to the establishment. Too bad that you just cut your nose off to spite your face. At best we're going to get four years of stupid. At worst, Hillary or Trump will start a civil war or revolution and we'll end up killing each other in the streets. Go home and dream of blood and fire. You deserve it.

The Ides of March

Trump vs. Cruz

At this point in the game, there are only three Republican candidates who matter. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio.

Trump is a populist shitbag. Before he got involved with the Republican party, he was anti-gun, pro-abortion, actively engaging in corruption and bribery of politicians and abuse of eminent domain, and has overall proved to be an authoritarian jerkass. If you're planning on voting for Trump, stop trying to justify your protest vote. He's not going to make America Great Again. He's not going to restore our gun rights. He's not going to fix immigration. He is, at best, going to do nothing, because that's all that a president can do so long as Congress is against him - assuming that Congress has some balls anyway. At worst, he'll cause an authoritarian nightmare. You're voting for him because he's rude (not "un-PC", there's a difference) on TV and makes the establishment politicians who've screwed you over for years go pee pee in their panties. You're the spite vote.

Rubio is overall meh. He's got a record of crossing party lines that turns off a lot of the people who fall into the "Spite vote" group, but he's not a horrible candidate. And hopefully he's learned from his amnesty blunder. But he needs to drop out of the race. He controls enough delegates to affect the race, but not enough to win. If he dropped out, he'd be handing the race to Cruz for all intents and purposes.

Cruz isn't perfect, but he's good enough. He might be a bit more evangelical than some more libertarian leaning Republicans would prefer, but he's far preferable to Trump, with a record of 2nd Amendment support that is hard to beat, and a record of fighting the Democrats and the party establishment that repeatedly sells out to the Democrats. And unlike Gary Johnson (who is himself, not a perfect candidate), he actually stands a chance of winning should he become the Republican candidate.

Ex-ATF Agent Doesn't Know Firearms

Color me surprised.

What’s missing from Heller is a comparison of guns at the time the Second Amendment was written and now. Had the Framers time-traveled to a contemporary gun store, they probably would have been astonished at just how lethal firearms would become. They might have even graced the Second Amendment with an additional clause that placed limits on the madness.
But they didn’t. Neither did the Heller justices, who completely ignored the stark contrast between then and now. One wishes that a law clerk looked up Section 921(a)(16) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which exempts weapons with antique ignition systems or that do not use fixed ammunition – in other words, the guns of the Framer’s era – from the definition of “firearm.”

For someone who was supposed to enforce firearms law he doesn't seem to know firearms or their history all that well. After all, the Cookson repeater (a flint-lock lever action), the Belton Flintlock, and Girondoni Air rifle were all in existence at the time.
Also - using the Gun Control Act of 1968 to justify his interpretation of the constitution is pretty stupid, given that the GCA isn't a part of the Constitution and post dates it by over 150 years.

Dec 7, 1941 - A Day that Shall Live in Infamy

The Inanities of Anti-Gunners

I came across an anti-gun blog post the other day. It was really quite inane. Consider this quote:

"Gun ownership isn’t some inalienable right granted by God. Remember, the Constitution was written by men coming out of a long and bloody war near the end of the 18th century. It was written for their time.

It also included the “right” to own a human being."

And she's not the only one who feels this way - some of the comments are just as ignorant and foolish:

"Indeed! And it’s already an amendment. So….it can be amended"

I of course, responded:

It did not actually include the right to own a human being. It did prevent any slave import bans before 1808 (And a ban on importation did take effect then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves). For the purposes of representation, it did count “three fifths of all other persons” (Having previously mentioned “free Persons” and “Indians not taxed”).

There is no mention of a “right” to own slaves, and the only part of the Constitution that might be construed to grant that right is the 9th Amendment,

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And it doesn’t say anything about owning slaves. In fact, the 9th amendment works better as an argument against slavery (even without the 13th amendment) that it does as an argument for slavery.

A word to the wise among anti-gunners: Don't try to use the Constitution to justify your argument unless you've actually read the Constitution and can pull a direct quote to try justifying your argument. Otherwise you just look stupid.

The Rolling Stone - or is that Rolling Dumbass?

Apparently, if the NRA hadn't opposed a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon's ban and "cowed" Congress into following suit this tragedy would have never happened. Of course, since this is coming from one of the great bastions of journalistic integrity and accountability, and definitely not a bunch of pinko commie terrorist sympathizers, we can just take their word on it and disown the NRA now... Or maybe not. The Rolling Stone is in italics, my responses are in bold.

There is much we don't know about the San Bernardino massacre.

An actual true statement. Wow.

But we have learned something about the arsenal deployed to kill at least 14 and injure more than 20 others.

Arsenal? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Were the terrorists walking around carrying enough weapons to arm a platoon?

The San Bernardino authorities have revealed that the alleged assailants — Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27 — were killed in a police shootout in possession of two .223-caliber assault rifles, and nearly 1,400 rounds of ammunition. They also carried semiautomatic handguns.

Oh, two .223 caliber assault rifles, semi-auto pistols, and 1,400 rounds of ammo. That's not an arsenal. That's barely enough weapons to properly arm them, and not even enough ammo to last a month of practice. For reference, I go through at least 150 rounds a practice session - with a bolt action service rifle older than my grandfather, on a bad day. I know people who go through that much on Tuesday. I personally own twice as many firearms as were used in the attack (and I've only been collecting for a few years), including one that becomes an "Assault weapon" the instant I remove the mag-lock (in CA), and multiple "semi-auto handguns"... 

Seriously? The first successful semi-auto handgun is from 1893, and the 1911 has been used, with very little variation for over a century, and remains competitive with newer pistol designs. It's a little late to get excited about semi-auto pistols.
Also, if the weapons actually were assault rifles, those have been heavily regulated sin 1934, and de facto banned since 1986, since assault rifle is a very specific term that refers to select fire (i.e. full auto/burst capable) intermediate caliber rifles. What you probably meant was "assault weapon" which, in general seems to mean "It's black, and scary, and makes us go poo poo in our panties", and is generally defined by cosmetics and ergonomics, rather than actual capabilities. Let's examine three rifles, all currently for sale at Atlantic Firearms (I am not affiliated with Atlantic, but I have bought from them in the past)

This is a fairly standard civilian legal AK. Lots of features listed on both the 94 AWB and the current CA one. Pistol grip, detachable 30 round magazine, bayonet lug, etc. What it isn't though, is select-fire. It's semi-auto only, and (legal) full auto capability can't be bought for less than $10,000, and that's a steal, even if you get something that isn't safe to shoot. It is only legal in California (which has it's own Assault Weapons Ban) if you neuter it and install a magazine lock.

This is another AK variant, a Vepr hunting rifle. While it too takes detachable magazines, it lacks a pistol grip, bayonet lug, and pretty much any other feature that would have prevented if from being sold in the years that the AWB was active. It does have a thumb-hole stock, which means that under California's Assault Weapon Ban (Which is stricter than the Federal one was) it's still illegal in CA without a mag-lock. It functions identically to the AK with the pistol grip and bayonet lug, and may actually be deadlier, since it's chambered in a larger and more powerful cartridge (Intermediate calibers are generally not considered capable of reliably and humanely taking game).

This final AK is a Saiga rifle. It's chambered in the same caliber as the one with the pistol grip above, functions identically, and yet, is completely legal in California, and completely unregulated by the original AWB. Three weapons with the same functionality, but different cosmetics and ergonomics, and thus, three different legal situations. The AWB could not have stopped this shooting, because it was entirely ergonomic and cosmetic based, rather than functionality based. And even if was functionality based, making a rifle is easier than making meth, and our porous southern border, combined with in country stolen weapons, makes for a well stocked black market.

The assault weapons were purchased legally. But these tactical arms are only legal in the United States because of the efforts of the NRA — which cowed congress into watching the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expire under president George W. Bush.

The NRA, their own memories of just what happened in the 94 elections, and the fact that the ban was, at best a null effect.

Military-bred weapons have since become commonplace.

Dumbasses. "Military-bred weapons" have been commonplace since before the American Revolution, when you could see militiamen armed with smooth-bore military muskets, field artillery, and (during the Revolution) even armed warships. This has been a theme throughout American history, as surplus military arms have made their way out to the American people. Almost every bolt action hunting rifle uses a Mauser action - originally developed for the German military. Many semi-auto hunting rifles are based off of the M1 Garand, the AR-10 or the AK. 1911s, an iconic military handgun, have been one of America's most popular handguns for over a century. 

DPMS Panther Arms, which, according to police, manufactured one of the assault weapons found in the assailants' rented SUV, has closed its store temporarily. It had been offering $200 cash back as part of a "Black Friday Bonus Savings" promotion.

Your point is what exactly? Offering discounts on firearms is super evil?

DPMS's parent company is the Freedom Group, which also owns Bushmaster, the brand of assault weapon wielded by Adam Lanza in the Newtown massacre. At the bottom of its online store, DPMS links to the websites of the NRA, the NRA-ILA (the group's lobbying arm) and the Friends of NRA.

The Smith & Wesson rifle police say they recovered in San Berardino is from the company's popular M&P line; M&P is short for "military and police." In 2012, Smith & Wesson was inaugurated into the NRA's Golden Ring of Freedom — "reserved for those who have given gifts of cash or assets to the NRA totaling one million dollars or more."

 Oh my! A firearms based company donates to a firearms based Non-profit! That's almost as shocking as Red Hat or OpenSUSE donating to the Linux foundation!

There is increasing speculation that the San Bernardino assailants could have been linked to international terrorists. But under U.S. gun laws, even ties to jihadists — sufficient to land an American on the FBI's terror watch list — do not prevent the purchase of guns, including military- and police- style assault rifles.

The Government Accountability Office has reported that "membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law." 

From 2004 to 2014, according to the GAO, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorism watch list successfully purchased guns — at a success rate of greater than 90 percent. The NRA has lobbied against legislation that would close this loophole by calling it "sponsored by gun control extremists."

Are we talking about the list which is almost halfway populated by people with no connection to terrorism, and which requires no conviction, has low (or no) minimum standards of evidence, and which the two apparently weren't on, since they had no trouble flying out of, and back into, our country? That terror watch list? Yeah, why don't you go screw yourselves. Forbidding felons and certain misdemeanor offenders from owning weapons is futile, stupid, and arguably unconstitutional enough, but people who haven't even been convicted of anything yet? As Captain America said, "I thought the punishment usually came after the crime."