Herschel: Debunking Enemy Propaganda

cluebat-applied

Herschel takes the cluebat to “gun owner” dezinformatsiya.

Current threat level is “frisky”, with trends to “spicy” in the near term.

Tempus fugit.

10 responses to “Herschel: Debunking Enemy Propaganda

  1. Hes the kind of guy that keeps me away from the “gun crowd”. Most are sheepish pussies who would beg for chains to be put on their wrists.

  2. A few phrases I’ve grown to hate the last couple of years:

    “Common Sense” – means you’re too stupid to know what’s good for you. I’m finding sense isn’t so common today. Or it means suicide….common sense gun control, common sense immigration….

    When someone says “I like to keep myself skeptical and informed”, they thinks they’re smarter than everyone else, an elitist so to speak. Again, you’re too stupid to know what’s good for you.

    And that stupid “why not have an F-16” line grows old.

    • I think it would be cool to own an F-16. Trouble is I lack the skills to maintain and operate one. Fell’s got to know his limitations.

      Same goes for a NASCAR racer.

      But heckyeah, both ought to be equally legal.

  3. The author of the “gun nut” essay projects a number of tells that he’s not authentic in any way. Most of us know, or should know, that flame throwers aren’t controlled by the US government at all, and that many other weapons can be owned without the risk of arrest if registered and taxed (I have no interest in debating the legitimacy of that).

    Herschel identifies the initial tell in the opening paragraph of the “gun nut” essay, the establishment of credentials.

    Codrea calls them “Fudds”, those that own the single shot rifle and over and under Italian shotgun, those who are offended by black rifles and such. They deserve our scorn and punishment if possible. See Jim Zumbo’s history for an example of what to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo

    Reward your friends, punish your enemies.

  4. Mark Matis

    One more time:

    How many “Sad Sacks” does it take to make a military unit non-functional? How difficult would it be for a “Sad Sack” to “accidentally” contaminate a field kitchen with norovirus? How combat effective would a unit be after going through such? And such an incident would be totally believable as unintentional if the perpetrator had a pre-existing “Sad Sack” reputation…

    Not to mention MRSA in the latrines.

  5. Beware smiling faces…

  6. Who gives a shit about this guy?

  7. I would urge folks to read the comments at the original site that Herschel links to; fascinating.

    It appears to be an atheist site and the interesting thing about most secular humanists is their god is the state. They tend to be government supremacists of the highest order. I have been member of CICOP and read the Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic for years but the climate debate really revealed the true colors of most of them. Where scientific method and empiricism were dismissed in favor of the greater good which was always increased government power and the savaging of individual liberty to state ends.

    No thanks.

    So Smalley is just following the script: atomized and unregulated human behavior is always wrong in the eyes of these skeptics. I say this to illustrate why he may arrive at the conclusions he does.

    I have no dog in the fight, I belong to the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.

    Bill Buppert

    • Anonymous

      Not every secular humanist atheist is a statist. I view Gaia and Government as just two more religions, based on feelings and magic wishes instead of observations and thinking.

  8. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..