Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Some good gun P0rn

I had the day off work today, so I entertained myself with some SHOOTING (both firearm and camera) and developing my home movie editing skills.

1st installment, me shooting my Winchester SXP 12 gauge pump shotgun.  These retail for under $400.00 and are legal just about everywhere (in the US, anyway).

video

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Best use for a dead Pit Bull?

There are 1 million (1,000,000) or so Pit Bulls destroyed in the USA every year. Most are PTS, some are put down by other “means” (evil chuckle).

Now, there has to be SOME good use for all of those carcasses! What do YOU think we should do with them? Burying them in the backyard is just plain wasteful!

Now, on to the 2nd poll – best uses for a dead Pit Bull! Read all the options and choose your answers carefully!

Option 1: Barbeque. Invite all the neighbors and put all that protein to good use! Now, all you need is honey baked beans and cole slaw and you are all set for the Fourth of July!



Option 2: Fish Bait. Get your fishing license and bait your hook with a chunk of “Killer”! Let something bite on THEM for a change! Reel in some tasty Grouper or Mackerel with a hunk of your neighborhood nuisance!




Option 3: Compost. Vegetarian? No worries... no need to miss out on all those good mauler-bred nutrients! Your veggies will grow to competition size with some nicely aged and fermented Pit Bull in your back garden! Note: Recommend feeding the carcass through a wood chipper prior to composting. Remember to turn your compost regularly!



Option 4: Bio-diesel. Rid your neighborhood of maulers AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil in one shot! Now, you can thunder down the avenue in your Mercedes guilt free, and with a dose of smugness! Happy Motoring!



Option 5: Shooting Target. So, your .357 mag hollowpoint DID drop that mauler? Let me ask you something... was that the LAST mauler in existence? Unlikely. THEY are breeding them faster than you can shoot and YOU need to exercise that trigger finger.


Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Only the POOR should pay TAXEZ!

OK, this post is a troll... gotcha!


Hey, you live by the sword you will die by it.


What does that mean?  IT MEANZ you troll and you will get TROLLED.


Lulz.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Massive cranial burst

DO pet owners qualify for public assistance?  Should the rest of us be forced to fund a lifestyle choice that is often toxic to the interests of others?   This raises the blood pressure of most folks thusly:


Some folks brought up the fact that dogs may indeed REDUCE the blood pressure of certain individuals.  I will not argue this, as the blood pressure of some people such as Roy McSweeney and Klonda Richey is now ZERO.  Look, it can't get any lower than THAT.

I will leave you all with this for now: 

One common argument I hear from the owners of biters and yard barkers is this:  "Get your GUBBMINT out of my life you DAMN COMMIE!   Take your LAWS and SHOVE IT!".

I heard this from the puppy miller across the street.  I heard this from toxic hikers in my state trail association.  I see it endlessly in blogs, comments, and from many who are asked to control their DOGS.

I don't know about you, but personally I am glad to get government out of their lives.  Hell, government forces me to pay their benefits, how about that SAME "gubbmit" FORCE them to control their mutts?   I have to control MY behavior (and that includes paying a third of my income in taxes), how about them?  No?   Well, then let them Eat Cake!

In any case, how bad is it to give them what they want?   They don't want to be part of the social contract , they agree to NO limits on their behavior for any reason EVER!  They want "gubbmint" completely out of their lives!  SO, I say let them just exist in their own little islands of anarchy where there are no police, no courts and NO WELFARE. It will be every dog owning man, woman and child for themselves.   They are hard core rugged individualists, they will PROSPER!

Hoist by your own petards, bitcheZ.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Pets on public assistance?

There has been a lot of debate flying around regarding pets and public assistance.  Should people with pets, particularly multiple, large pets be eligible for public assistance?  I.E. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc...

I guess it depends on A) Where you stand politically, and B) Is owning a dog a core necessity?   Pursuant to (B) should dog owners be eligible for public assistance?

Some folks  indicate that the poverty stricken should not have to give up everything.  I agree with this sentiment in a very limited sense.  However, dog ownership is nothing more than a lifestyle choice and a luxury for most people.  The majority of the population does not own a dog and get by just fine.

Let me expand into allegory.  Would/should I be eligible for public assistance if I:
- Own an expensive, fuel inefficient car?
- Own a large home in an expensive neighborhood?
- Continue to pursue expensive hobbies such as scuba diving, flying airplanes, or golfing?
- Make sufficient income to meet my core needs?

I'm sure the vast majority would say NO to public assistance for any of the above.  Should I be collecting welfare/food stamps/section 8/etc... so I can keep my Mercedes/beach house/and country club membership?   You need to keep in mind that everyone paying taxes is not some Scrooge McDuck with a silo full of money.

Again, I personally don't think that anyone should be allowed to starve, die from exposure, or lack basic/emergent health care.  However, if you continue to pursue expensive lifestyle choices, you should not be asking for a handout.  Why should I be forced to give money to someone who has something I don't have?   I should not be on the hook for someone else's frivolities.

Demolish counter-argument #1:  Crony capitalists and other types of government fraud/waste are a red herring and irrelevant to the conversation.  For example, the fact that Haliburton raped the taxpayer during the Iraq war was a travesty that should not have happened and should not happen again BUT completely irrelevant to this discussion.  The point is, whether or not I, or anyone else, should be forced to subsidize (directly or indirectly) pet ownership in others.

Demolish counter-argument #2:  What about kids?  Should I be forced to support someone else's children, especially if I don't have any?  A couple of things... 1)  Dogs are not kids, and 2) again, not really relevant to the discussion.

Demolish counter argument #3:  To dog lovers (and perhaps others) on the left half of the political spectrum, ponder this:  When pet owners receive transfer payments, you need to consider where those tax dollars ultimately wind up - let me give you a hint - that tax money winds up in the pockets of breeders, pet food manufacturers, big retailers, veterinarians, and various other top 1%-ers.  (ok, maybe only top 20% in some cases).

Owning a dog (or 10) means one has voluntarily assumed the following liabilities:
- Food
- Additional housing space
- Veterinary bills
- Licensing fees.
- Misc

Now, if one were to surrender those liabilities (or had not taken them on in the first place) they might not NEED public assistance.  I.E. if they weren't on the hook to feed 10 dogs, they may then have ample funds to cover their own nutritional needs.  That, or their need for public assistance would be lessened.

Demolish counter-argument #4:   To some of those still not getting it (and I have seen this argument bounced around a lot), any household budget is basically a pot.  The funds are fungible.  By subsidizing one thing, you are indirectly subsidizing everything.  So, if you say "but, I pay for my dog's needs with my OWN MONEY, public assistance pays for MY needs!".  OK, now substitute "Dog" with "Swimming Pool" or "RV" and you now finally get the point.  When you pay for someone's food, housing, medical care, etc.... you may be freeing up funds for that individual's frivolous extras.

Personally, I think that disqualifying pet owners from public assistance is a capital idea for a multitude of reasons.  Pets consume a lot of resources and create a lot of pollution.  The government should not be enabling pet ownership of any kind.  Pet ownership is NOT a public good, such as infrastructure or law enforcement.   Owning a pet is a PRIVILEGE not a core civil right or a basic necessity.  Government enablement of pet ownership via transfer payments lowers the quality of life and standard of living of all.

Am I a mean bastard?  Of course I am.  Nice guys finish last, and nice people do not solve problems.  In any case, everyone needs to realize that things suck all over and hearing a sob story from someone with a lot of "wealth" stored in pets does not gain a lot of traction with me, nor should it anyone else.