Dec 16 2012

On Guns, government funded universal healthcare, and “caring for the children”

Category: freedom,guns,healthcare,libertyharmonicminer @ 8:37 pm

In April of 2009, before the Obama/Reid/Pelosi jamdown on taking over the US healthcare system, I posted this article on the real causes of death (and the the most expensive demands for healthcare) in children, teens and young adults.  When you read it, it will be obvious to you that I didn’t know that Obamacare was going to become law.  But the same issues were under discussion then as now:  what constitutes really “caring for the children”?  And what will make the most difference in improving the health outcomes for children/teens/young adults, especially in reducing unnecessary death and traumatic injury?

I see nothing in the original post that requires editing, and I present it again for your attention.

Aug 19 2012

Ruby Ridge, for those of you too young to remember it

Category: constitution,corruption,crime,guns,justice,mediaharmonicminer @ 6:38 pm

20 years after Ruby Ridge

Randy Weaver moved his family to northern Idaho in the 1980s to escape what he saw as a corrupt world. Over time, federal agents began investigating the Army veteran for possible ties to white supremacist and anti-government groups. Weaver was eventually suspected of selling a government informant two illegal sawed-off shotguns. To avoid arrest, Weaver holed up on his land. On Aug. 21, 1992, a team of U.S. marshals scouting the forest to find suitable places to ambush and arrest Weaver came across his friend, Kevin Harris, and Weaver’s 14-year-old son Samuel in the woods. A gunfight broke out. Samuel Weaver and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan were killed. The next day, an FBI sniper shot and wounded Randy Weaver. As Weaver, Harris and Sara ran back toward the house, the sniper fired a second bullet, which passed through Vicki Weaver’s head and wounded Harris in the chest. During the siege, Sara Weaver crawled around her mother’s blanket-covered body to get food and water for the survivors, including the infant, until the family surrendered on Aug. 31, 1992. Harris and Randy Weaver were arrested, and Weaver’s daughters went to live with their mother’s family in Iowa. Randy Weaver was acquitted of the most serious charges and Harris was acquitted of all charges. The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death lawsuit. The federal government awarded Randy Weaver a $100,000 settlement and his three daughters $1 million each in 1995.

The main thrust of the story is that one of the daughters of the slain woman has “forgiven” the government killers of her mother.  I’m all for forgiveness, of course.

One wonders, though:  

Did those killers ever ASK for forgiveness?

Did they keep their jobs?

Did they ever serve time for pre-meditated murder under the color of authority?

Here’s a very basic fact:  if Randy Weaver was the person they thought he was when they shot him and killed his wife, the “authorities” who murdered his wife would not now be alive, would they?  After all, Mr. Weaver has had all the time he needed to plot any revenge, and carry it out, that he could possibly have needed.

This is one of the darkest of several very dark spots in the Clinton administration, with Janet Reno at the helm of Justice at the time, and Clinton, of course, claiming he didn’t know anything about it.

Just to be clear:  today (and for that matter, all through the Clinton administration), the inner cities of America are/were rife with constant sales/possession of illegally sold and owned firearms.  These aren’t firearms in the possession of people who are situated remotely and simply wish to be left alone.  They are firearms in the hands of criminals, drug dealers and their employees, gansters of several stripes, illegals of all kinds, you name it.  These firearms are constantly used to commit crimes, including murder, which is why Chicago and Detroit are more dangerous places to live than Baghdad or Kabul.

What would be the reaction, do you suppose, if the FBI planted snipers on the rooftops of tenements in Chicago, and waited for known criminals to appear, and simply shot them…  and then their wives (if they had any…)?

Let’s put it another way:  if something like this was done in inner-city Chicago 20 years ago, there would be a national commemoration of it, national introspection about how out of control our government and authorities were, etc.  

But unless you were an adult in 1992, who read newspapers, there’s an excellent chance that you have never heard of the FBI murdering civilians at Ruby Ridge.  Why do you think that is?



Jun 23 2012

Follow the Ideology to discover the real racists

Feb 14 2012

Rep. Darrell Issa’s letter to Eric Holder

This post is a summary of the Fast and Furious scandal.  We now have this letter from Rep. Darrell Issa to Attorney General Eric Holder.  

It’s very hard for me to see how the media can let this slide.  Holder should resign.  But the media is mostly looking the other way.  Imagine if a parallel scandal in a Republican administration happened.  The media feeding frenzy would be incredible.

The movie Media Malpractice told the story of how the media essentially acted as an arm of the Obama campaign in the 2008 election.  It’s gearing up to do the same in 2012, it seems.  Actually, I’m not sure it ever stopped.  

In any case, pretending that Eric Holder is an honest man who deserves to stay in office is just par for the course.

Read the letter to Holder from Rep. Issa and draw your own conclusions.  Holder is clearly stonewalling, hiding, and using every device of his consider power to keep the truth from coming to light.  Will the media finally start giving this the coverage it deserves?  Only if it’s embarrassed into it….  which has happened before, for example in the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the case of Dan Rather and cronies reporting fake news about George Bush.



Feb 11 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder’s stonewalling on “Fast and Furious”

I posted this earlier, but it accidentally went to a PAGE instead of a POST. I’m fixing that now.

KUHNER: Obama’s Watergate – Washington Times

A year ago this week, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. He died protecting his country from brutal Mexican gangsters. Two AK-47 assault rifles were found at his death site. We now know the horrifying truth: Agent Terry was killed by weapons that were part of an illegal Obama administration operation to smuggle arms to the dangerous drug cartels. He was a victim of his own government. This is not only a major scandal; it is a high crime that potentially reaches all the way to the White House, implicating senior officials. It is President Obama’s Watergate.

Operation Fast and Furious was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and overseen by the Justice Department. It started under the leadership of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Fast and Furious enabled straw gun purchases from licensed dealers in Arizona, in which more than 2,000 weapons were smuggled to Mexican drug kingpins. ATF claims it was seeking to track the weapons as part of a larger crackdown on the growing violence in the Southwest. Instead, ATF effectively has armed murderous gangs. About 300 Mexicans have been killed by Fast and Furious weapons. More than 1,400 guns remain lost. Agent Terry likely will not be the last U.S. casualty.

Mr. Holder insists he was unaware of what took place until after media reports of the scandal appeared in early 2011. This is false. Such a vast operation only could have occurred with the full knowledge and consent of senior administration officials. Massive gun-running and smuggling is not carried out by low-level ATF bureaucrats unless there is authorization from the top. There is a systematic cover-up.

Congressional Republicans, however, are beginning to shed light on the scandal. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a congressional probe is exposing the Justice Department‘s rampant criminality and deliberate stonewalling. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, who heads the department‘s criminal division, helped craft a February letter to Congress that denied ATF had ever walked guns into Mexico. Yet, under pressure from congressional investigators, the department later admitted that Mr. Breuer knew about ATF gun-smuggling as far back as April 2010. In other words, Mr. Breuer has been misleading Congress. He should resign – or be fired.

Instead, Mr. Holder tenaciously insists that Mr. Breuer will keep his job. He needs to keep his friends close and potential witnesses even closer. Another example is former acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson. Internal documents show Mr. Melson directly oversaw Fast and Furious, including monitoring numerous straw purchases of AK-47s. He has admitted to congressional investigators that he, along with high-ranking ATF leaders, reassigned every “manager involved in Fast and Furious” after the scandal surfaced on Capitol Hill and in the press. Mr. Melson said he was ordered by senior Justice officials to be silent regarding the reassignments. Hence, ATF managers who possess intimate and damaging information – especially on the role of the Justice Department – essentially have been promoted to cushy bureaucratic jobs. Their silence has been bought, their complicity swept under the rug. Mr. Melson has been transferred to Justice’s main office, where he serves as a “senior adviser” on forensic science in the department‘s Office of Legal Policy. Rather than being punished, Mr. Melson has been rewarded for his incompetence and criminal negligence.

Mr. Holder and his aides have given misleading, false and contradictory testimony on Capitol Hill. Perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power – these are high crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. Holder should be impeached. Like most liberals, he is playing the victim card, claiming Mr. Issa is a modern-day Joseph McCarthy conducting a judicial witch hunt. Regardless of this petty smear, Mr. Holder must be held responsible and accountable – not only for the botched operation, but for his flagrant attempts to deflect blame from the administration.

Mr. Holder is a shameless careerist and a ruthless Beltway operative. For years, his out-of-control Justice Department has violated the fundamental principle of our democracy, the rule of law. He has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for blatant voter intimidation that took place in the 2008 election. Career Justice lawyers have confessed publicly that Mr. Holder will not pursue cases in which the perpetrators are black and the victims white. States such as Arizona and Alabama are being sued for simply attempting to enforce federal immigration laws. Mr. Holder also opposes voter identification cards, thereby enabling fraud and vote-stealing at the ballot box. What else can we expect from one who, during the Clinton administration, helped pardon notorious tax cheat Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists?

Mr. Holder clearly knew about Fast and Furious and did nothing to stop it. This is because the administration wanted to use the excuse of increased violence on the border and weapons-smuggling into Mexico to justify tighter gun-control legislation. Mr. Holder is fighting ferociously to prevent important internal Justice documents from falling into the hands of congressional investigators. If the full nature of his involvement is discovered, the Obama presidency will be in peril.

Fast and Furious is even worse than Watergate for one simple reason: No one died because of President Nixon’s political dirty tricks and abuse of government power. But Brian Terry is dead; and there are still 1,500 missing guns threatening still more lives.

What did Mr. Obama know? Massive gun-smuggling by the U.S. government into a foreign country does not happen without the explicit knowledge and approval of leading administration officials. It’s too big, too risky and too costly. Mr. Holder may not be protecting just himself and his cronies. Is he protecting the president?

Oct 24 2011

Hollywood’s ambivalent relationship with guns and gun owners

Category: guns,mediaharmonicminer @ 7:27 pm

I just watched an episode of “The Mentalist” which featured yet another deranged gun owner willing to commit mass murder to satisfy his dark inner demons that led him to obtain guns in the first place.

It featured all the usual cliches.  There was the scene at the firing range out in the boonies somewhere, where lots of crazy people were all lined up shooting TVs, bottles, old computers, various other defunct appliances, watermelons, and so on, using shotguns, rifles and handguns, and even one belt fed machine gun (which led all the other folks at the informal range to cheer and applaud).

Here’s the thing:  I’ve been at many different firing ranges, both regulated (with a range master) and unregulated (with no range master, and everyone simply applying common sense).  I have pretty much never seen a bunch of people all side by side firing such a mixed array of firearms at such a mixed array of targets.  Nearly everyone shoots rifles and handguns at paper targets in firing ranges, even unregulated ones.  That’s because they want to know how accurately they are shooting, and you really can’t tell any other way.  Generally, there is a section for handguns, a section for rifles, and a section for shotguns.  This is because handgunners are shooting at different ranges than rifle shooters, and because shotgunners are often shooting at clay targets.  People practicing with self-defense shotguns are usually using paper targets as well, typically at handgun ranges.

I have never seen a machine gun at an unregulated range.  I have seen them ONLY at special shows where people line up to pay for a short period of shooting time under highly supervised conditions.  If someone opened up with a machine gun in any other situation, especially without warning, the rest of the shooters would not applaud.  Some might call the cops.  Nearly all would be likely to back off, pack up, and leave.  No one wants to be associated with a nut-case, or be around one…  and only a nut case would do that, even if he owned one legally.  (For the record, machine guns are so highly regulated that legal owners of them are just about the most trustworthy people you’ll ever meet, and the LEAST likely to do such a thing.)  So that means someone who did such a thing would be highly suspect in the eyes of the shooting community.

Finally, the bad guy in this story had a concealed carry weapons permit in California, apparently in the Bay Area, if I understand how the show is based.  This is truly unlikely.  The Bay Area is just about the hardest spot in a difficult state to get such a permit.  They go to famous movie stars, millionaires, former police chiefs, and so on….  only people with pull in the system.  Normal people can’t get them (we can talk about the unconstitutionality of such discrimination later).  Certainly, out of work people down on their financial luck (the case in the story) are not going to have one.

The incidence of criminal behavior on the part of concealed carry weapons permit holders in ANY state is very, very low, and it’s even lower in California, where it is so difficult to get such a permit in most places.

So, let’s just say that this episode of The Mentalist was written by someone who is mentally challenged….  and obviously knows nothing about guns and gun owners…..  and who has an axe to grind.

How do I know the script writer knows nothing about guns, as well as being ignorant about gun owners?   As a ploy, the police are supposed to have snuck into the bad guy’s house and replaced all his ammo with blanks.  Furthermore, these had to be blanks that would cause a fully automatic weapon to operate properly, so they could catch him in the act of trying to mow people down with a weapon filled with blanks, and then arrest him.

Since they didn’t know WHICH of his weapons he’d be using, they would have to have replaced ALL his ammo for ALL his weapons with blanks.  Outside of the unlikelihood that he wouldn’t notice the replaced ammo, and the impossibility of being certain they’d FOUND all his ammo to replace it, self-loading semi-automatic and automatic weapons mostly won’t operate with blanks.  But this guy is shown emptying an entire magazine of them with narry a malfunction.  This gives thin plot devices a whole new meaning.

Does anybody think the California Bureau of Investigation has thousands of rounds of blanks in all calibers just sitting around in case they need to fool some criminal gun owner?  Linked up in belt-fed form for machine guns?  Since, in the story, they couldn’t have known which weapon he would use, they would have to have planned for that one, too.   I can just see some flatfoot sitting at a desk laboriously building chains of linked blanks.  Maybe he’d get done in a week or two.

I’m still laughing.  Hollywood is indeed fantasy land, filled with dupes and dufuses.  What morons.

Aug 19 2011

Britain, R.I.P.? Part Seven

Category: government,guns,justice,left,liberty,societyharmonicminer @ 9:09 am

The previous post in this series is here.

Powerline has a brilliant article by Professor Malcolm from George Mason University Law School.  Normally, in these series, I don’t merely link, and I try to provide some original content and analysis.

But this article so perfectly captures the supine British attitude towards evil that I had to include it here.





Aug 11 2011

Pro-life policies include access to the means for self-defense, when you need it

Category: guns,libertyharmonicminer @ 12:36 pm

In my recent article at Renewing American Leadership, redefining the “seamless garment” argument for pro-life causes, I mentioned that supporting the personal right to own and carry suitable weapons for self-defense is itself a highly pro-life position.

In the light of the recent tragedy in Norway, Charlie Cooke at NRO has observed that if Norway’s firearms laws had been more like Idaho’s or Utah’s, it is very likely that the death toll would have been far smaller from the lunatic murderer’s killing spree.

It took about 90 minutes for the police to respond effectively.  While that’s an atypically long time by US standards, the fact is that the police in the USA almost never “get there” in time to stop murders, even multiple murders.  The only people who can stop them are those on the scene.

Those who congratulate themselves for being in favor of making it essentially impossible for private citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones, from some “morally superior” perspective that believes laws against guns save lives, are simply ignorant of the facts regarding gun ownership (including keep and bearing) by law abiding citizens, and have the blood of innocents on their hands wherever they’ve succeeded in imposing such restrictions.

A gun locked up in a safe in a closet does you very little good when you’re attacked in grocery store….  or on an island.  40 states have realized this, and now have “shall issue” laws for concealed carry permits, meaning that people without criminal backgrounds are automatically approved with suitable training.  I wonder how long it will be before the rest of the states come around.  I wonder how many people who could have defended themselves will have to die before those states change their laws.  I also wonder how many people will be attacked who might not have been if the criminals had not been so certain that their intended victims were not armed.

“Gun free zone” equals “target rich environment” for lunatics and just plain killers, who ignore gun laws by definition.

Jul 04 2011

A pink gun can still kill you

Category: freedom,government,guns,mediaharmonicminer @ 11:49 am

The Orange County Register reports that a Transient finds police gun replica under leg.

A Costa Mesa homeless man called Costa Mesa police officers Sunday night to turn in a gun he said he found under his leg after waking up at Lyons Park.

The piece, which turned out to be an air-soft gun, is an exact replica of the 40-caliber semi-automatic Heckler & Koch pistol that Costa Mesa police officers use, Sgt. Clint Diebell said. The gun has the same weight, look, color and feel as the officers’ sidearm. When the slider is pulled or the cartridge is removed, one can see brass that resembles a bullet, Diebell said.

Article Tab : The pistol found in Costa Mesa resembles a Heckler & Koch 40-caliber semi-automatic pistol like the one shown above.

The transient, David Betts, is well known to the local Police Department. He called on his cell phone at 9:26 p.m., put the gun in a white paper bag and waited for the officers at a bus stop.

The gun will be stored in a found property area, Diebell said. If no one claims it, it eventually will be destroyed.

Diebell said owning an air-soft gun that fully resembles a real one is legal, but owners are not allowed to brandish or fire the weapon in a public place such as a city park.

There is so much wrong with this article that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Let’s start with this:  the airgun shown above is not a “replica of a ‘police’ gun.”  It is a replica of a typical .40 caliber handgun, a real firearm that is entirely legal for civilians to own (and carry, if they can get a concealed carry permit), and which some police officers carry as well.  It is not a “police” gun in any sense, unless we plan to start referring to the donuts that police eat as “police donuts,” or the beer that they consume in cop bars as “police beer.”

The next thing that’s wrong with this report is that it isn’t news.  A hobo found a toy gun and gave it to the cops because he couldn’t tell the difference?  How is that “news”?

I don’t know how much training police receive these days in firearms identification, but I’m fairly sure that the report mischaracterizes Sgt. Diebell’s comments about how hard it is to tell the toy from the real thing.   The report makes it sound like the Sgt. thinks it’s hard to tell the difference between the toy and real thing.  I suppose that might be true, for someone who has never held or operated an actual hand gun.  I’m pretty sure that the Sgt. would be able to tell in about 1 second that it was an airgun, something the reporter chose not to mention.  Of course, people who really can’t tell the difference should assume such an item to be a real firearm until they know otherwise.  I’ve told my own kids that when they see a firearm-looking item, they should assume it’s ‘real’ till proven otherwise.  In what way is this a big deal, and newsworthy?

This sentence says it all, about the reporter’s ignorance regarding firearms:  “When the slider is pulled or the cartridge is removed, one can see brass that resembles a bullet, Diebell said.”  Guns don’t have “sliders,” they have “slides.”  Airsoft ‘guns’ don’t have “cartridges” at all, but they do have little tiny plastic pellets that the user puts in a magazine that is then inserted into the grip of the handgun.  There is no “brass” in them.  I strongly suspect that the reporter used the word “cartridge” where he should have used “magazine,” since, as I said, airsoft guns don’t have cartridges, let alone ones that can be “removed.”

Why am I belaboring all of this?  To make two points:

1) Reporters who report on “firearms related news stories” usually know less about firearms than they do about quantum physics or molecular biology.  They don’t have the background to understand what an expert tells them, and so they don’t get the report right.  It’s as simple as that.  Media outlets usually can’t FIND a reporter to send on such “stories” who knows anything about guns, because these journalism school graduates have mostly never been around them….  which makes you wonder why they fear them so much.   Maybe they watch too much TV.

2)  The slant of this story is clearly that there is something dangerous about people being allowed to possess toys that look like the real thing.  This is clearly meant to be in support of a new law to require them to be pink.  But the reporter’s obvious opinion belongs in the editorial pages, not masquerading as ignorantly presented “news.”

By the way, if this idiotic law to require all airsoft guns to be pink actually passes, I expect that some crooks will be painting their real firearms a nice shade of hot pink, just to cause the cops with whom they may be shooting it out to pause that extra deadly second to decide if the weapon is “real” or not.

In the story linked above, would the cop who shot the teen age boy have been able to see that the airsoft gun was pink, in the low light conditions in which the shooting occurred?

The boy was left paralyzed in the shooting, which LAPD officials said occurred when an officer felt threatened because he was unable, in the dark, to distinguish that the weapon involved was a replica of a Beretta  handgun.

You really can’t see colors well in the dark, can you?

And what reponsibility does the boy have for failing to comply with reasonable officer commands, and instead running, then brandishing his toy gun at the cops?  In the low light, would it have mattered if the toy gun was pink?

It’s worth pointing out that some REAL guns are manufactured pink (and a variety of other bright colors), on purpose, to make them more attractive to women.  Maybe the California legislature should make a new law that all real firearms sold in the state must be black or gun metal blue.  Just so everyone can tell the difference, you know.  Maybe the feminists will weigh in on that suggestion.  Or not.

Google “pink airsoft legal California” and “SB 798” for more info and opinions on the proposed law. This is just another example of trying to fix everything in the world so that stupid people who do foolish things won’t suffer for it, at the expense of the freedom of everyone else.

It’s also an example of really bad reporting.

Jan 25 2011

Political Correctness Amok

Category: guns,Palin,tea partyamuzikman @ 8:55 am

There is no doubt the death of six people and the wounding of 13 others in Tuscon was a terrible tragedy.  As more information on the killer comes out each day  it is clear he is and has been a very troubled man.  But there is another tragedy in all of this – the tragedy of those who would use this horrific incident for political gain.  The number of silly accusations hurled towards Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, talk radio and others have been as baseless as they have been shrill.  Sarah Palin is to blame because she used the word “targeted” in describing certain congressional districts of interest in the last election.  She is also blamed because some of her literature used the graphic image of a scope sight’s cross hairs.  The PC crowd would have us believe that these words and images, long used by many in both political parties and elsewhere, are now enough to drive someone to violence.  And it didn’t take long before the PC madness began to take hold.  A mere 10 days after the mass murder CNN was apologizing for a show guest who had used the phrase “in the cross hairs”.

Do rational people really think that removing gun metaphors from idiomatic speech will stop random acts violence by the Jared Loughners of this world?

If anyone truly believes this then in the interest of public safety let’s commit fully and wholeheartedly to remove these phrases from our language:


No longer can a person be chewed out by their boss for something and then say, “She let me have it with both barrels”!
No longer can we have a civil dispute where the first side to get a lawyer is often referred to as “bringing out the big guns”.
No one is allowed to “go off  half cocked”!
You can no longer commit fully to something “lock stock and barrel”.
No more firing off a letter.
No more outlines with bullet points
Women can not be described as “hot as a $2 pistol”.
…or, as a “pistol-packing mama”. (I’m sure women are heart-broken about THAT!)
it is now off limits to “use a shotgun approach” (as to cover all bases).
Concluding a deal can no longer be referred to as “pulling the trigger”.
And poor old Roy Rodgers would have had to rename his horse AND dog!
The makers of Colt 45 Malt Liquor will be adversely affected.
Henceforth nothing streamlined will be described as “bullet-shaped”
(They’ll have to do something about that high-speed train in Japan)
Being drunk or high can no longer have the synonym “loaded”
Basketball players will have to come up with some other way of trying to make a basket since they will no longer be able to “shoot” the ball.
No one can stand “ramrod straight”
No one who speaks plainly and truthfully can be a “straight shooter”
Being accurate is no longer being “on target”
getting very angry is no longer “going ballistic”.
“Shooting from the hip” can no longer explain someone speaking extemporaneously.
“He’s just a flash in the pan” cannot be someone of temporary fame or importance
You may not “bite the bullet”.
you may not “jump the gun”.
Superman will have to describe his speed in terms of something other than being “faster than a speeding bullet”.
You cannot be “gun shy”
You had better not get caught “gunning your engine”.
…or “rifling through drawers”
no more “shotgun weddings”.
no more operations that result in “shooting blanks”.
No more job candidates described as “high caliber”
No more developed biceps described as “guns”
(And no more sleeveless shirts, apparently.)
You can no longer be “under the gun”.
…or “In the crosshairs” (thank you, CNN)
You cannot “drop the hammer”
..or look for “the smoking gun”.
You may not “ride shotgun” in a car
..or hazard a guess with “a shot in the dark”.
You cannot spend all your money and then complain “you shot your wad”.
You most certainly cannot describe the attitude of determined preparation as “locked and loaded”.
No one will encourage you to refrain from getting upset by telling you to “keep your powder dry”
You won’t be in any danger of “being out gunned”
And you won’t explain your preparation to tackle a difficult task by being “loaded for bear”.
Nobody will ever be a “loose cannon” again.
You’ll never be in danger of being “out-gunned”.
..or by having anyone “taking shots” at you.
(I wonder if this will adversely affect Tequila drinkers…)
There are no easy cures and no longer any other way to say it like, “there’s no silver bullet”.
There are no more “warning shots”
…or “a shot across the bows”
You cannot be “shot down”.
or “shot down in flames”, no matter how badly you lose an argument.
And you can’t “shoot yourself in the foot” ever again
You cannot be a “son of a gun”
You don’t have to take any “flak”.
And no one will criticize you in a malicious, underhanded manner by “sniping” at you.

That’s all there is to it.  Just see to it that these and other gun metaphors are forever banished from our language, then sit back and watch the world become a safer place!

Next Page »