Ask Dick: Has Feminism Affected Anything?
Necroswordsman of decayingsword.mabtw.com has sent me the following question.
Hey Dick, I have a question. In most of my life I have wondered how feminists have affected the media. For example, nowadays, a children’s presenter has to be clearly a young guy or they’re branded a pedophile. You get what I mean.
I’d really like some answers.
And I’d really like those barking-dog shock-collars to become the hottest women’s fashion item for 2007. Imagine what a utopia that would be. Every time a woman went to open her mouth, she’d get an electric Five Across the Eyes.
Women are too terrified during a crisis to say anything anyway. What’s the downside? At least this way they’d have an excuse. A sexy excuse.
Thinking back on children’s presenters, a few legends immediately come to mind: Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Wizard, and Mr. Rogers. Unlike any goddamn woman has ever done, these men brought smiles to the faces of millions of children for decades. That makes them a million times better than your average mother. I have a word for these men: legends. Women have a word for these men as well: pedophiles.
Women are so far up their own ass with how fucking great they are, they can’t give one ounce of credit to anyone who has ever done anything fantastic — or should I say mantastic. Women never get any credit for anything in the first place, so who can blame them. You can’t give someone a backwards purple nurple if you don’t know what it is. And it’s not called credit when you get the blame for fucking up, which women get and do constantly. It’s called blame. That’s why it’s actually called blame and not credit. Blame is all women know and that’s why they shoot it out of their mouths all day like broken sprinklers of shit.
But did feminism cause this?
Absolutely not. I was thinking about this while I was writing the above — that’s just the average day in the life of a man: thinking, writing, watching TV, snacking on some cashews, and not listening to someone on the phone all at the same time. I came to the conclusion that feminism has not affected shit in society.
The reason women call men children’s presenters pedophiles is because they’re immature and they think it’s funny.
Women have the emotional maturity of methadone addicts. They think everything in the world is funny. Shit, I make women laugh all the time and I don’t even try; they’re like retarded. You don’t even have to make a joke and they’ll laugh at it. And that includes laughing at the hard work and child rearing programmes put out by these brave men called children’s presenters.
Feminism didn’t make women behave poorly. They’ve been doing that for eons. Feminism just called attention to it.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 6 5 [4] 3 2 1 » Show All
please fuk off u slut
The Aussie dollar is now about 0.80US, which I find pretty amazing for a country of 20 million versus 300 mil. Hopefully this will hold for my US trip next year. Yes, that’s right sots, I’m coming over.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/dollar-slumps-after-us-unveils/s tory.aspx?guid=%7BFD4977AD-8762-4F0D-8516-22800020CF3B%7D
Hmmm
The tighter their grip closes the faster the power elite hasten their own brutal death, Anon.
The more they weaken and “capitalist proof” Christiandom, castrate men spiritually and stop us from organizing with their “friendly gulags”… the better Islam looks to your every day man. Want a recipe for revolution? How about an information age Westerner with a Koran in his hand and revenge in his blood?
Maybe Dune was right.
@SotS - we are indeed a decadent society.
@Anon: I find your reasoning very interesting. I regret I’ve not time at the moment to discuss it further.
@Sony:
As Dakota said, we can let the free market figure that out. In fact, it already does. Have you never heard of the bond market?
From 30s of googling:
http://www.ge.com/en/gecapital/index.htm
bizjournals dot com/boston/stories/2002/07/29/daily35
(you’d need to prefix the second with www, and postfix it with .html)
@Dakota Lott’s research, while overall reasonably sound (especially compared to disgraced hoplophobe Michael Bellesiles ludicrous work) has been called into some question. Further research seems to suggest that the number of legally owned guns is largely orthogonal to the crime rate.
If this is true, it’s still an overwhelming argument in favor of freedom to carry. When faced with choices offering more freedom or less freedom, only a statist (or, as you put it, a socio-fascist) would opt for less freedom).
As we see in Iraq (and as we saw in Vietnam and Ireland), you don’t need much in the way of high-tech weaponry to deter a well-armed advanced-technology force. Rifles, handguns, shotguns and plenty of ammo would suffice.
I agree with you nearly entirely on the matter of [currently illegal] drugs, though I think people that use them are idiots.
-wolfe
I don’t think that will happen however with constant shifting of men in and out of jails. It will prevent sufficient organisation. That’s exactly how revolution was prevented in Communist Russia, after all, with the gulags. Civilian control works; it’s been proven. You must tighten policing and civil movement, but that does not matter to the distracted anyway. Furthermore, “hate speech” laws will prevent men from criticising feminists and demanding their rights. It will prevent anti-Establishment action.
It took a fundamental economic problem to bring down Communist Russia, and it will be the same with the Matriarchy that is/will be the Capitalist West.
“Nor do I think that having a job is the be all and end all. It does, however, serve the purpose of distracting people from more concentrated activities; its certainly a part of efficiently controlling the populace. And actually, I think male unemployment in the West will rise substantially - the current rate of male unemployment is quoted as about 10% in the US - this will rise, and current levels of men in third-level will be a contributing factor. But rather than being the seeds of civil unrest and politick rebirth among men, these men will be prime for incarceration for the pettiest of crimes. (1% of US men are currently in jail.) This is enabled by the Capitalist system wherein more prisoners means increased profit.”
All it takes is a charismatic to guide these men. Unemployed/lower class men have been easily brainwashed by braindead ideologies such as white nationalism and Christiandom, all it takes is a strong voice to guide them towards the true nature of their enemy. What modern man really needs is a new faith to guide them.
If Christiandom was ever an effective armor for lower class slaves, it’s purpose has been perverted and reversed. Now being a Christian means letting the Israel lobby run the US foreign policy, letting your job get vultured over seas.. and turning the other cheek when your wife betrays you. It’s purpose is to passify and cool rightous anger towards a degenerate and decadent system.
Taproot - She
Son of the sons, I agree entirely with your second paragraph, and therein lies the crux. Society is corrupt and decadent, perhaps on a scale never seen before in human history. Modern Western society is not my idea of a perfect world or Utopia by any means. However, while I agree that it’s corrupt, I don’t see any real means for its demise, and definitely not in the 10 years.
Nor do I think that having a job is the be all and end all. It does, however, serve the purpose of distracting people from more concentrated activities; its certainly a part of efficiently controlling the populace. And actually, I think male unemployment in the West will rise substantially - the current rate of male unemployment is quoted as about 10% in the US - this will rise, and current levels of men in third-level will be a contributing factor. But rather than being the seeds of civil unrest and politick rebirth among men, these men will be prime for incarceration for the pettiest of crimes. (1% of US men are currently in jail.) This is enabled by the Capitalist system wherein more prisoners means increased profit.
I do not believe that Bin Laden is making a joke of the US, because I think America is in Iraq for wider strategic reasons. Linked closely, probably, to ensuring that Middle East oil continues to be traded in Dollars and not Euro. Osama may well be a useful image for the collective public consciousness while America pursues a wider ulterior plan.
The End of History stipulates that future world affairs will be characterised by aggressive American military expansion and that future society will largely be shaped by America’s vision, which is largely representative of the Western vision. I think current major military action by the US is being undertaken to ensure future economic conditions are stable and predictable. Because adverse economics may be a means (the only means?) for a collapse of the West. I think the US certainly has the military means to do with the Middle East as it wishes, and reap the political and economic rewards. Thus ensuring the continuance of Global Capitalism and the culture of materialism and moral decay.
I do
I dont
You’re so right! How can I argue with such flawless logic? Let the infallibility of the market solve the problem of an ubiquitous currency for the market!
Use the the invisible hand, Dakota!
But do consult with Friedman the elder beforehand. I believe you’ll find him still trickling down to West Wing Down Under along with Reagan. That’s a lot of liquified bullshit to go, you know.
Barring that, ask His Royal Highness, The CrackPot, Friedman Jr. I’m sure he’s an even more ardent supporter of your nonsense and must surely know the party line (evasive maneuvre) best with regard to the currency issue, hopefully something more convincing than what you’ve contributed, seeing as how his old man was largely responsible for the poppycock that is Libertarianism and probably his son’s own formative years and education/indoctrination.
As a sidenote, I really don’t think I’ve earned the threats you proffered generally in my direction, be they even mostly tongue in cheek ramblings only. You should’ve saved them for someone special or that you met in person or at least of greater stance within the evil marxofascist plotters’ association.
If it’s any importance, and I doubt it is - but still, you’ve really sunk in my eyes with your latest literary escapades on libertarianism.
Quoting Mary Rash and her ‘research’ and corroborating pseudoscience is just the cherry that suffocated the cake and far more than my little blackened soul can handles.
Cheap Cheap Cheerios.
- ATB - Long way home
“I’ve said what I said about “empires” above. What you’re saying about Western civilisation falling because of corrupt morals, of “civil war or violent religious rebirth” is all very nice fantasy, but you’re not providing any real political, social or economic basis as to how the collapse will happen. It’s just a kind of “I think society is corrupt and it deserves to collapse, therefore it will collapse.” As a consequence of what? “As a consequence of me saying so.”
Bin Laden and friends are making the US look like a pathetic paper tiger from a cave with low tech weapons and communications.
The new generation of Western males are the most intelligent and most connected in history. What do they have to show for it? Dead families and dead culture. Parasititc women. Unspeakable corruption. Western Civilization in it’s current form is an addictive disease like heroin or wanton sex.
It only takes one loner genius to wipe out a city. Then your utopic comfy materialist world where everyone should be happy as long as they’re employed will go out the fucking window, Anon.
It is the nature of Empires to die, whether you think all the human soul needs is employment and physical pleasures is irrelevant. You will be proven wrong.
I know. I don’t get it at all. It seems to require an extraordinary level of cognitive dissonance, yet it’s so common that one has to consider it a normal response.
It’s like women having neither reason nor accountability: if one of them did it, you’d consider it abnormal, but since all of them do it, the behavior must be normal.
Similar, socio-fascists who insist that we turn over all control of our lives to a mythical omnipotent and benevolent State.
You would think that the total lack of such an entity throughout all of human history would be impossible to ignore, but ignore it they do in extraordinary numbers worldwide.
“The truly amazing thing is that you’re really arguing to become nothing more than a serf yourself. I find the nature of this extremely intruiging.”
Intruiging it is but uncommon it is not. Europe will be an Islamic caliphate by 2050. Look at demographics. The repugnant feminism that has wracked North America combined with socialism is a gallon jug of rat poison.
Genocide refers to eliminating a race. That’s not what I suggest will be necessary.
I believe that socio-fascists like yourself will eventually require the rest of us to kill you in great enough numbers that the remainder will start to behave themselves. I don’t look forward to this, and I hope very much that it never becomes necessary.
However, if you and your intellectual ilk insist on removing my freedoms, then my friends and I will kill you.
That’s not genocide, that’s just self-protection.
If that’s the case, why did the price of alcohol drop to almost free and all criminal activity and violence associated with the alcohol black market disappear the moment alcohol prohibition was lifted?
Prohibition operates very, very simply:
It reduces the supply of a product to well below demand. Whenever demand exceeds supply, prices increase.
Prohibition also removes anyone but criminals from getting into the business. One has to be willing to violate the law to even trade in it.
People who have no compunction about violating one law also have no compunction about violating others.
Finally, by artificially driving prices up, prohibition makes violence a viable business practice. The profit becomes extraordinarily high to a group of people who have no ethics at all. Rather than compete peacefully, as do any other non-prohibited business, vendors on the black market simply kill their competitors.
Again, just look to history. The parallels between alcohol and drug prohibition are obvious. Remove drug prohibition, and the market will do exactly what happened when alcohol prohibition was lifted: lower prices and normal business competition rather than violence.
As I’ve said, drug dealers only kill each other under prohibition. Lift prohibition and put the drugs on the shelf in the drugstore, and you’ll see no killing at all.
The issue of addictive substances is self-correcting. And clearly, government isn’t having any luck at it presently while simultaneously causing a violent black market.
People do stupid things that hurt themselves sometimes. Any time government tries to be mother, it produces only violence. See alcohol and drug prohibition for details.
As you point out, it’s a self-correcting problem. You’ll eventually decide you need to help yourself kick the addiction, or you’ll die.
And don’t argue otherwise to me: I’m a recovering addict, myself. Prescription opiates that I abused for about two years.
Addicts either decide to get treatment or they don’t. No government can force them to do otherwise.
My guess would be something akin to NorFed: i.e. a private, electronic currency physically backed by precious metals.
But then, unlike socio-fascists, I’m not so arrogant as to believe my ideas or the best or that the market would adopt them. But there would obviously be a need for a fairly ubiquitous currency, so the market would react by creating one.
Use someone else’s. Nobody says you have to print your own currency.
As I say, in a free market, there’s obviously a need for ubiquitous currency. The market would work it out, and you’d wind up with whatever the de facto standard happened to be.
No, you’re describing government. In a free market, one can’t simply print money, one has to back it with something of real value and maintain that value.
Who, for example, would use Dakota Dollars if they had nothing backing them? However, if I had a vault with a thousand ounces of uranium, I could print Dakota Uranium Certificates: for every one-ounce certificate you hold, you could show up on my doorstep and demand to be given your uranium in exchange.
It works with anything of intrinsic value: precious metals, fissionables, long-distance minutes, antimatter … all you have to have is something backing your money.
No doubt the market would settle on something pretty ubiquitous, and my immediate bet is on precious metals. But as I say, I’m not so arrogant as to think I know best for everyone. That kind of arrogance is left to socio-fascists like yourself.
Why do you think you’d need to? The problem you’re describing is so obvious that one of the first things to happen would be that the market would react by adjusting to some kind of ubiquitous currency. See above.
What you’re suggesting is so obviously detrimental to the banking business that no one would even try it. You really should read some history, because what you’re describing causes runs on banks.
Who would do business with a bank that is effectively devaluing all of its customers’ money? It would cause a run on the bank: everyone would show up with their Dakota’s Uranium Certificates demanding their uranium. If I don’t have enough to cover the face value of all the certificates in circulation, I’ll be totally out of business in an afternoon.
Again, only government devalue their fiat currency by printing endless amounts of them. In a free market, there has to be something backing the currency, or the bank goes out of business.
No, inflation is caused by government printing fiat currency. It does not occur where there is something actually backing the currency.
The US dollar, for example, was extremely stable when dollars were actually silver and gold certificates, redeemable for real gold or silver. Government couldn’t print more money than it had in its reserves. The value of the dollar didn’t fluctate much because the value of gold only fluctuates are gold deposits are located.
The moment the US went off the gold standard, inflation began. Today, the dollar is worth roughly 1/12 of what it was when we were on the gold standard — with about half of that value being lost in just the last three years as the FedGov monetizes the Iraq War debt by running the printing presses at breakneck speed.
The FedGov, by the way, erronneously believes itself to be on the Oil Standard, today. Note that the country which stopped valuing oil in dollars was in very short order invaded. Note which countries are on the US’ hit list at presently and then check to see which have threatened to value oil in Euros.
People trade, period. Where individuals happen to be located is irrelevant. They’re just lines on a map. The only things on a map that interfere with trade are oceans, great lakes, mountains, rivers, deserts, etc. — and modern technology is capable of overcoming them.
I need no more government assistance to trade with an Englishman than I need its assistance to trade with the guy next door. Government only interferes with trade between people of different nations: see eBay for obvious proof.
I don’t understand. Why possesses you to believe that such a thing be necessary?
A FedGov fiat currency worth 1/12 of what it was a century ago — and half of what it was just three years ago. That kind of inflation is only possible via government.
Yes. The toll in human misery is incalculable.
You misunderstand. What the Iraq War is proving is that an invading force — even one as invincible as the United States military — is incapable of subduing an armed population.
I noticed just fine. See above.
Unfortunately, that’s not the case, else women and children in particular would be safer for carrying them.
I believe the firearms industry in particular is missing a huge opportunity in arming women. Nothing deters a 200-pound rapist better than two pounds of lead. Were I Kimber, I would be designing an effective, reliable handgun specifically tailored to the female frame — particularly recoil. Smith and Wesson did this for a while in the ’70s with the Ladysmith line, but abandoned it for reasons I’ve never understood.
Actually, the main problem is that the firearms industry sells primarily to government. See Iraq for proof.
It’s only “insane” if you’re a socio-fascist who is afraid he’ll get killed the next time he initiates force against someone. If all you’re trying to do is live and let live, guns make wonderful safeguards of your freedom.
Hardly. No doubt there would be a few sociopaths who feel like you, and would go around using guns to steal from people. It’s a self-correcting problem, however, inasmuch as an intended victim would eventually kill them.
The majority of sociopaths, when confronted with the cold hard truth that their next victim could be their last, tend to control their urges.
Again, see the history of victim disarmament in the US for proof. In particular, I would aim you at Prof. John Lott’s seminal work, More Guns, Less Crime. It’s an extremely embarrassing work for victim disarmers, as Dr. Lott takes FBI crime statistics and shows rather clearly that any state that institutes concealed-carry sees a drop in violent crime, which bordering states with victim disarmament see increases.
In short, when the bad guys fear they might be killed in commission of their crime, they go where government has made it illegal for people to protect themselves.
Head, chest, anywhere that will cause the sociopath to quit what he’s doing. Eventually, after enough sociopaths have died at their intended victims’ hands, the rest will get the message and start behaving.
You’re incorrect. See statistics for proof.
Only in the hands of government? With some estimated 250 million firearms in circulation in the US?
In the case of the US, handguns and long guns aren’t the issue. It’s the machine guns, auto- and select-fire rifles, tanks, fighter jets, etc. In order to deter government aggression, there must be in private hands weapons equal to or greater than those in the government’s militaries.
I’m sure you think so. But then, you’re a socio-fascist who wants to eliminate individual freedom in favor of cradle-to-grave government control of every aspect of every individual’s life. Naturally you’d be threatened if individuals had the ability to stop your nefarious schemes.
Yes. Government officials should live in mortal fear that the next law they pass will be their last. That should keep them in check for a while, at least.
Yes. That should keep the power-hungry away from the office, as well as ensure that those who are in office spend most of their time sitting at home playing video games rather than plotting to take away as much individual freedom as they can get away with at any given time.
Only to a socio-fascist who wants to have government control every aspect of every individual’s life.
The truly amazing thing is that you’re really arguing to become nothing more than a serf yourself. I find the nature of this extremely intruiging.
As for the argument on Libertarianism, I’m not the one implying genocide upon dissenters to an eventual enactment of anarchy as form of government.
- DJ Tiesto - A Tear in the Open
Looking for the wolfe, I was.
I find using most readily available proxies unacceptably degrading to unencumbered access and rather unreliable as far as uptime is concerned.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d use exclusively anonymous surveying of enemy positions with no compunction otherwise.
Sad indeed. I’ll say no more if you don’t, however much I want to.
You might still say that. Just scratch numbers as well as quality requirements.
- mylo vs miami sound machine - doctor pressure
@Sony — see there you’re descending into crap. “revisionism” implies he’s some kind of hateful holocaust denier. “fallacies” implies much the same.
You don’t engage his ideas, you just hit him with some smug liberal words.
Sadly, yes. I invite you to read my blog for a counter-view from Z. (Judging by my hit stats from Romania you already do, or else I’ve got quite a fan club there).
Sony, stick to the strictly rational and you’ll have considerable respect. You’ve got it right now from me because I’ve been absent. Don’t blow it.
-wolfe
Dakota, that’s mainly plain old historical revisionism and the inferred causality fallacies that you outlined.
- freaks - where were you when-esc
@Dakota
“Generally”
touche, sir, touche!
I originally had a longer explanation of why I inserted the word “generally”; suffice to say, I’m sure you’d agree with it and I agree with your characterization of me in that fashion.
I think you ignore the entanglements of Europe, and, (as a blatant counter-example) to boot, Gutenberg. I think though, that we are in general agreement. Indeed, your “on the shoulders of Giants” was an analogy I intended to borrow; you arrived there first; I salute you!
I’ve read and digested every line of your post. You’ll forgive me if I respond in brief:
- Yes, taxes and regulatory compliance are much the same in depriving freedom.
- No, I don’t totally buy your arguments in explosions of creativity — precisely because humans tend to be ornery reactive souls. Why Ireland as a centre of literary creativity while being crushed governmentally? Why Taiwan in the 80’s and early 90’s under a dictatorship being an explosion (utterly, of course) un-governmentally directed of creativity in efficiency in matters as dry as PCB design? What… 95%? 98% of the global motherboard market is Taiwanese?
- There’s an argument that I see you making (perhaps incorrectly as to my seeing) that just isn’t so.
I’ve seen you cite this. It needs to be validated, and compared against the genuine consequences. I suspect it’s wrong, personally. I suspect it’s ‘only’ (ha!) about 200-300%.
NB- this is not to say you are wrong; simply to note the obvious. I won’t address the rest of your post — though it richly deserves it — simply because we’ve limited time and space here.
If you’d like, I’ll give you posting privileges on my blog. You can say what you want without any censoring. (Or we can debate it here, though I’m not sure Dick would like that).
I’ll look forward to your PM.
Best,
-wolfe
I’m deeply doubtful of both your inferences. Human behavioural inertia is not as easy to be rid of as snapping one’s fingers.
Even so, both decidedly desirable desiderates, naturally.
Can’t have drug dealers killing the competition now can we?
Can’t keep impinging on the populace at large’s liberty to freely purchase insanely addictive psychotropic drugs at bargain prices forever now can we?
After all, it’s but the basic human right to snort your mind away no matter the inevitable cost to your loved ones, yourself and society when you’re no longer able to financially feed, clothe and house your family or yourself let alone feed your addiction.
Not that anything comes before an addict’s dose.
That’s exactly what’s it’s bound to eventually come to with narcotics abusers (there barely is such a thing as competent use) whether it’s 5 cents per ounce or 50 dollars.
What are you, then, suggesting that the trading rate be for General Electric to Gillette currencies? What if I don’t want to deal with the hassle of printing my own currency? Or if GE understandably look with skepticism and restraint to accepting Gillete currency when everyone and their Grandma is perfectly free to print !however many own currency notes they wish each day!?
What if I don’t want to deal with the hassle of changing back and forth between N banks and their proprietary currencies with all the additional exchange fees naturally incurred just to purchase my daily groceries/daily basket of goodies?
Or don’t see it fit that bank N-4 (whose currency my last month’s salary hypothetically consists integrally of) should double its currency in circulation this month?
Or is inflation alien to libertarian economical analysis?
Send me to the gallows, will you?
What of international trade, insurers, et al? Do you, perhaps, suggest peer to peer international trade?
What will you do? Band a whole town together and place an order just so you may get to purchase your own ATI Radeon?
Now that’s just utter poppycock. Whose currency are you caching your paycheck in?
That’s some might market destruction going on, no doubt.
Bullshit. Especially ironic is your citing of Iraq in the context of pre and post invasion firearm caused casualties and deaths. The only discrepancies being that much more many people are dying now only not by the hands of police state cliques. But of insurgents and in sectarian violence unleashed in the aftermath of the war, apparently successfully won though no one seems to take notice.
People all over the country were looting or taking apart anything that wasn’t bolted down hours after being liberated.
I myself believe the US Army explicitly encouraged and endorsed the behaviour for the expected CNN effect, but that’s just me.
As of America, there are more than enough firearms for every single man, woman and child. And your industry never slows spouting more and more out. The only problem is that gun don’t exactly wear out all that fast and the market isn’t growing nearly as fast as they’d like.
That’s why the NRA is lobbying hard to export your inane gun cultre to as many places around the world as possible.
If starting tomorrow there’d be no legal consequences whatsoever to using a firearm as you see fit and everybody knew it you’d be eating your words by dawn. If still alive.
I suppose to you, a bullet to the head for being caught stealing furniture or trespassing is legitimate and fair retribution.
American gun death rate is the highest in the world of any nation supposedly at peace with itself.
I suspect Iraq is now quite close behind procentually.
More bullshit.
Only in the hands of government? With some estimated 250 million firearms in circulation in the US?
This might come as a shock to you but truly civilised societies eventually evolved passed the need that everyone be ready to shoot anyone else dead at a moment’s notice.
Just about any nutter should be legally perfectly entitled to shoot any government/state official dead at any time by virtue alone of being dissatisfied with their recordin whilst in office?
Any old nutter of the street?
For no apparent reason at all than some vague grievance regarding their record in office?
Off the president of the USA on a whim?
Oh, wait. That actually sounds like a meritorious idea!
But rather our definition of civilisation diverge. I suspect so.
___
I see my allegory bombed.
So doing business in the big city was not profitable, whatever.
Local government’s fault for stifling with inauspicious tax and legal environment means we should kill Bush, etc…
___
I’m a dirty pink-marxist/socio-fascist/communist that should be offed on the spot if ever again I try to take advantage of someone happening not to wear their tin foil hat like, for instance, by selling some beat up jalopy to some flyover-country-person, etc…
My dirty, fidgety marxist’s clutches are trembling with anticipation to ban any and all firearm possession throughout the continental US of A from my humble flat somewhere in Easter Europe!
What can I say? Slow work day…