Okay, saw Jay’s and Marko’s and had to chime in with my favorite … the Zorg ZF-1.

Oh hell, no amount of explaining by yours truly could top the clip from one of my absolutely favorite films:

Only drawback? Can’t conceal carry it.

Notable runner-up … the BFG-9000. Look it up if you’re not a gamer geek.

Well, I normally wouldn’t bust out this big of a story without a press release and a great deal of fanfare, but I was recently able to sit down with Paul Helmke and discuss what truly constitutes an “assault weapon.” Following is a nearly complete transcript of our conversation:

HELMKE: *holding a spork against a copy of the Constitution* So, it is down to you. And it is down to me.

LIBERTY: Let me explain-

HELMKE: — there’s nothing to explain. You’re trying to reclaim what I’ve rightfully hijacked.

LIBERTY: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?

HELMKE: There will be no arrangement — *presses the spork against the 2nd Amendment* — and you’re destroying this …

LIBERTY: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.

HELMKE: I’m afraid so — I can’t compete with your assault weapons. And you’re no match for my legislation.

LIBERTY: You’re that thorough?

HELMKE: Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Kennedy, Feinstien, Schumer?

LIBERTY: Yes.

HELMKE: Pussies.

LIBERTY: Really? In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.

HELMKE: For the Constitution?

LIBERTY: *nods*

HELMKE: To the death?

LIBERTY: *nods again*

HELMKE: I accept.

LIBERTY: Good. Pour the Kool-Aid. *holds up a blank picture* View this, but do not touch.

HELMKE: I see nothing.

LIBERTY: What you do not see is called an “assault weapon”. It is imaginary, inanimate, impossible to legislate, and is among the more reviled weapons to your average liberal or GOP candidate.

HELMKE: Hmm.

LIBERTY: *reaches into a bag, places two nearly identical weapons on the table in front of Helmke* All right, where is the assault weapon? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both shoot, and find out who is right, and who is … wrong.

HELMKE: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the assault weapon in front of him, or his enemy?

Now, a clever man would put the weapon in front of him, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I’m not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of me.

LIBERTY: You’ve made your decision then?

HELMKE: Not remotely. Because assault weapons come from gun show loopholes, as everyone knows. And gun shows are entirely frequented with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of you.

LIBERTY: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

HELMKE: Wait till I get going! Where was I?

LIBERTY: Gun shows.

HELMKE: Yes — gun shows, and you must have suspected I would have known the weapon’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the gun in front of me.

LIBERTY: You’re just stalling now.

HELMKE: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you!

You’ve beaten legislation sponsored by the Virginia Tech families, which means you’re exceptionally well funded. So, you could have put the assault weapon in front of yourself, trusting in the evil gun lobby to save you. So I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of you. But, you’ve also sent a 2nd Amendment case to the Supreme Court which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that assault weapons are mind-controlling, so you would have put the weapon as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the gun in front of me.

LIBERTY: You’re trying to trick me into giving away something — it won’t work –

HELMKE: It has worked! You’ve given everything away! I know which one the assault weapon is!

LIBERTY: Then make your choice.

HELMKE: I will. And I choose — *suddenly stops, points* — LOOK! Somebody shooting coconuts with Serbu Super Shorty!

LIBERTY: What? Where!? I don’t see anything.

HELMKE: *switches the guns* Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.

LIBERTY: What’s so funny?

HELMKE: I’ll tell you in a minute. First, let’s shoot — me with my weapon, and you with yours.

*three shot bursts ring out*

LIBERTY: You guessed wrong.

HELMKE: You only think I guessed wrong — that’s what’s so funny! I switched guns when your back was turned. You fool.

HELMKE: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is “Never claim a righteous shooting in Massachussetts.” But only slightly less well known is this: “Never go in against the BRADY CAMPAIGN when a GUN BAN is on the line! HAHAHAHAHA!”

Unfortunately, that’s where I had to cut the interview short as Mr. Helmke accidentally filthed himself (to a toddler this is known as “poopy-pants”, for an anti-gunner I’m more inclined to refer to it as a “negligent discharge“) and ran away crying.

Okay, you’ll excuse me if I felt the need to do something silly and lighthearted here. The constant barrage of liberty-squishing nutiness takes it’s toll. And I’ve been eating antihistamine for breakfast for three straight days. So sue me!

And if you don’t get the reference, allow me to enlighten you with the genius of Wallace Shawn:

… because of child porn?

Man, this is ugly. No sympathy for someone pushing child porn, but what the hell is this:

“I can’t understand how something like this happened if they were just there to search my house,” she said. “No one can tell me what happened in the bedroom for my husband to feel threatened.

“Did anyone say where they were from? Did anyone tell him why they were there? No one can tell me.”

She had answered the door shortly before 7 p.m. Monday. On the step was a uniformed Hilltown Township officer; behind him, two men in plainclothes.

Her young daughters, 5-year-old Shelby and 3-year-old Reagan, ran excitedly in their pajamas to the door. “They thought it was the pizza man,” Hill said.

The officer “told me that they were there to serve a federal search warrant,” she recalled.

He asked how many people were in the house; she told him the three of them and her husband, who had been watching TV news in the living room.

She then heard footsteps on the stairway, “and the officer walked right past me. . . . All of a sudden, there were people coming through my door real fast.”

The Hilltown officer reappeared, clearly anxious. ” ‘Ma’am, you need to grab your kids and get out of here,’ ” she recalled him saying.

He led them to a police cruiser parked on Callowhill Street. Rebecca Hill was in bare feet. She said the children, in socks, cried as the gravel driveway hurt their feet. Hill said she heard the officer, whose name she did not know, say “barricade” into his clip-on shoulder mike.

She demanded to know what was happening.

” ‘Ma’am, I don’t know what’s going on,’ ” she said the officer replied. ” ‘We have a situation.’ ” He drove them to the police station.

And this …

About 20 minutes into the interview, she said, she demanded to know where her husband was. “That’s when he said, ‘Ma’am, we regret to inform you that your husband was fatally shot in a confrontation.’ “

“Sorry, we dragged you and the kids out of your house without an explanation and then shot the bastard.”

Nice.

In the Salt Lake City Tribune, a ridiculous opinion piece: Guns in cars: Bill would wrongly limit gun bans in private parking lots:

The Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that private employers can tell workers not to bring guns onto company property, including parking lots, and can fire them if they do. Some of the state’s gun-rights activists have had their tails in a knot ever since, arguing that a person ought to be able to keep a gun in his own car regardless of what his boss says.

This is what we’ve come to. Being accused of having your panties in a bunch, so to speak, because you want to exercise your 2nd amendment right as an individual.

I find this highly unconstitutional. What about individual property rights, says you? Is Utah really siding with property owners and defending their ability to make their own decisions when it comes to banning weapons on private property?

Right.

Here’s what Utah thinks of property owner’s rights.

We believe, however, that in this case, the private property rights of the employer should trump the property rights of the worker. If the company decides to adopt a no-guns policy on its premises, for the safety of its employees and customers, it should be able to do so.

And if an employee who spends 50 hours a week at a shitty job driving through shitty neighborhoods to get there and stopping at shitty little mini-marts to pick up a gallon of milk for his kids on the way home, he shouldn’t have been forced to leave his pistol at HOME instead of in the car because his bosses and/or the Utah legislature is terrified of all those workplace shootouts that are no doubt rampant throughout the state.

What this comes down to is this - if you’re going to legislate whether I’m permitted to have a pistol in my car when I step out my front fucking door and drive for a half hour to get to my workplace, then you immediately assume all responsibility for my safety the moment I step out my front fucking door. I’d love to see some follow-up legislation that makes crystal clear the ability of a worker to sue the crap out of both the state and his employer if he is harmed in a confrontation without any means to protect himself.

Sen. Mark B. Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, believes otherwise. He is running a bill that would prohibit a business or person from enforcing a policy that bans transport or storage of a firearm in a motor vehicle in a parking lot. Sen. Madsen unsuccessfully sponsored the same bill last year.
Madsen’s bill would require that the firearm be locked securely in the car when it is not occupied, and that it not be in plain view. Schools, governments and churches would be exempt. So they could have no-guns policies in their parking lots, but private businesses could not.

I’d just as soon allow it everywhere, but hey, Madsen is at least trying here.

The logic of that escapes us.

That’s because you’re a panty-wetting retard.

If schools can prohibit their employees from bringing firearms into parking lots, why shouldn’t businesses that serve primarily children be able to do the same? What about a pediatric hospital, for example?

What a stinking pile of poo that is. Pediatric hospital? What does the mere presence of a weapon do? Nothing. It will not crawl out of it’s locked box, start the car, and mow down a gaggle of kids running out of the hospital.

These people believe the weapon will jump from it’s locked box and begin gunning down the chiiiiiiiiiiildren. It’s the most irrational argument there is. If you can’t answer the question “Why?” and back it up with at least a few statistics, what the hell are you doing pushing for legislation? For what?

We suspect that the intent of the bill is to make life easier for people with concealed-carry permits, who may be prohibited from packing their guns at work and want to leave them in their cars. But we don’t believe that this inconvenience should outweigh the rights of property owners to control policy on their own parking lots.

Then you must also assume full responsibility for their personal safety from the moment they walk out their front fucking door.

… it just doesn’t matter. A nanny-statist, an egomaniacal open-borders authoritarian, an idiot, and a socialist pig.

Oh, goody.

I’ll be at the range on election day because there is no such thing as a “lesser of two evils” in this popularity contest. Besides, if you’re at all concerned with the 2nd amendment, it’s better you take a nice long rest from politics this Spring and Summer and get ready for at least 4 years of relentless battles with the government in regards to your personal liberty. Call it calm before the storm.

Ran across the video. Got the urge for a fruit salad:

S&W 500. I’m not a revolver guy, but I’ll take that or a DE .50AE any day. Actually, I want either one of those, and a crate of coconuts to play with.

How about coming up with a law that says it’s illegal for me to grind people into thirds with a chainsaw in supermarkets? Or maybe a law clarifying that it’s really REALLY illegal to drop bowling balls onto trucks from a highway overpass?

Ugh. DAMN IT get out of my state. They’re like little cockroaches, scurrying around Concord looking for something - anything - to get their noses in and spread their shit on.

Annapolis mayor wants fired guns to automatically stamp bullets.

Opening a huge can of worms related to this is almost too easy that it’s embarrassing to even write it.

Criminal A goes to a gun range. Picks up some spent casings with someone else’s serial number stamped on them.

Criminal A guns down Thug B in a parking lot somewhere. Picks up his shells, tosses down the ones he grabbed at the range.

Criminal A gets away, Law-Abiding Joe C gets questioned, has his carry permit revoked, gets searched, has to pay for a lawyer, and generally gets his life shat upon because of some dumb-ass law that makes absolutely no sense unless you’re a politician looking to score some points because you’ll be up for re-election soon.