UT ‘Glock’ protests: Dildorks pretend sex toys, not guns, stop active shooters

UT tweet

A funny thing turned up in my Twitter stream yesterday: Images students from the University of Texas juggling sex toys — sometimes on a unicycle. The “Cocks Not Glocks” protest was underway, which meant that hundreds of dildo-wielding students marched around and pretended that the world would be a safer place if cops carried plastic genitalia in their holsters. At UT, law-abiding students with concealed carry permits are a bigger threat to peace than psychos who always seem to be sane enough to target gun-free zones.

The College Fix reported:

“If you’re uncomfortable with my dildo you cannot imagine how uncomfortable I am with your gun.”

So says Rosie Zander, a College Democrat at the University of Texas who helped lead on Wednesday a “Cocks Not Glocks” protest on the first day of school. Zander made the comments to the Austin American Statesman in explaining that their goal was to “fight absurdity with absurdity” in protesting a new state law that allows people 21 and older with concealed carry permits to bring their weapon on campus.

“Why can we have guns on campus, but we can’t have dildos out in public, that’s absurd,” Zander said, referencing campus and state policies that forbid the public display of dildos.

Protest organizer Jessica Jin then told the New York Times that the point of “Cocks Not Clocks” was to “normalize sex culture the same way [gun-rights advocates are] normalizing gun culture, and see how they feel about it.”

Note to Ms. Jin: “Gun culture” in the U.S. was “normalized” with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 (perhaps slightly later if you want to get picky about the adoption of the Bill of Rights).

CN Glocks

Fact: “Sex culture” is normalized in the U.S.

Fergie Milf Money

Turn on television, go to a movie, or surf the Internet for about 30 seconds to see people objectify themselves in weird and grotesque ways. No one bats an eyelash at kids juggling dildos on an American campus in 2016 because “higher education” is mostly a joke. Students meander from safe space to safe space, and as long as they parrot their professors then they can graduate with a useless degree in Gender Studies.

If, God forbid, there is an active-shooter emergency on UT’s campus in the near future, then it is a good bet that every single one of these kids will be praying that someone with a gun — not a sex toy — comes to end the carnage.

UT campus protest

Exit question: How many of these male students are really only pretending to care about “Cocks Not Glocks” protests because they have some sad delusion that female activists will sleep with them? Your friendly neighborhood blogger has witnessed a few conservative/libertarian guys over the years who were happy to put on a liberal mask for a night if they thought it would be worth it…

Chris Evans says ‘no one is taking away guns’ as Steve Kerr claims only ‘muskets’ acceptable


Chris Evans Guns

People sometimes ask me why I spend time writing on what comic book writers, actors, or other celebrities think about public policy. I do that because the old saying is true: Politics is downstream from culture. People have a natural tendency towards the “easy wrong” instead of the “hard right,” which is why we must always keep an eye on popular culture.

Take, for instance, actor Chris Evans and Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr. Millions of Americans look up to both men, albeit for different reasons. They have enormous megaphones. They have influence. Given that, let us now examine what both men were saying in the wake of the June 12 terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 and wounded 53 others.

Chris Evans, aka Captain America, said the following to nearly 4 million people:

“We need common sense gun reform. And to be clear, NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY GUNS! Just looking for COMMON SENSE reform.”

How does one define “common sense”? NBA coach Steve Kerr’s definition of “common sense” requires only “muskets” to be available to law-abiding Americans because the Bill of Rights is allegedly “outdated.”

Steve Kerr

Here is what Mr. Kerr said while appearing on the “TK Show” withTim Kawakami on June 24 (Keep in mind that his own father was assassinated by Islamic terrorists in 1984 while working in Beirut):

“As a basketball coach, I’m not really, you know, I don’t often get political. If you don’t mind, I just want to say when 90 percent of our country wants background checks on gun purchases, and we’ve got our Senate and our House not only voting it down, but using the Bill or Rights as a reason for people to have rights to carry these automatic weapons — we’re getting murdered every day at an alarming rate — I just have to get this off my chest. …

Let’s have some checks. It’s easier to get a gun than it is a driver’s license. And it’s insane. And as somebody who has had a family member shot and killed, it just devastates me every time I read about this stuff, like what happened in Orlando, and then it’s even more devastating to see the government just cowing to the NRA and going to this totally outdated Bill of Rights, right to bear arms, you know, if you want to own a musket, fine — but come on.”

On one hand Mr. Evans says “no one is taking away guns” while on the other Mr. Kerr tries to convince millions that the Bill of Rights is “totally outdated.”

Marvel’s “Captain America” knows full well that lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate exist who agree with Mr. Kerr, but yet he still abuses the caps-lock button with “NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY GUNS!”

The Warriors’ Mr. Kerr must know that “automatic” weapons are nearly impossible to own in the U.S. outside of military and law enforcement communities, but yet he uses the term anyway.

When faced with objective facts — a.) people with power and influence do want to take guns away, and b.) more Americans died on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists using planes as giant missiles (2,996) than by “automatic” weapons (zero) — the response by pop-culture celebrities is to lie.

If you are interested in taking the “easy wrong,” then listen to men like Chris Evans and Steve Kerr on gun control.

If you are interested in taking the “hard right,” then look for people who are not so wedded to an ideology that lying to forward the cause trumps objective reality. You’ll be glad you did.

Editor’s Note: Hat tip to Colossus of Rhodey for the heads up on Chris Evans’ tweet.

White House: Stripping constitutional rights for gun control ‘common sense’

Trey Gowdy

The San Bernardino terror attack on Dec. 2 has caused gun-control activists to go into hyperdrive. President Obama and his administration have now latched on to using terror watch lists — those same lists once derided by his supporters — to strip Americans of constitutionally-protected rights. Yours truly and others have already mentioned just how dangerous of an idea that is, but it was perfectly illuminated Thursday during a House Oversight Committee hearing.

In one corner we have Kelli Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Quite a mouthful of a title there, so one would hope she would know her stuff…)

In another corner we have South Carolina Rep. Try Gowdy.

Here is how it all unfolded:

Trey Gowdy: Let me ask you a question about the terrorism list. What process is afforded a U.S. citizen — not someone who overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission — but an American citizen?  What process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?

DHS: I’m sorry, there is not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are and unduly placed on the list.

Gowdy: Yes there is. And when I say ‘process,’ I’m actually using half of the term due process, which is a phrase we find in the Constitution — that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process.

So I understand Mister Goode’s idea, which is wait until you’re right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea. My question is can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true of the First Amendment?

DHS: Sir, there are strict criteria before any gets put on the list.

Trey Gowdy:That’s not my question ma’am. That is not my question. My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? He’s fine when do it with the Second Amendment. My question is, ‘How about the First?’ How about we not let them set up a website or Google account? How about we not let him join a church until until they can petition the government to get off the list. How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite — how about the Eighth amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petitioned the government to get off the list. Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one? **pause** Can you think of one?

DHS:I don’t have an answer for you, sir.

She. Doesn’t. Have. An. Answer.


How is it possible for someone at the Department of Homeland Security, who is advocating on behalf of stripping American citizens of constitutionally-protected rights, to not have an answer to those questions?

As Rep. Gowdy points out, the Obama administration’s own logic dictates that if the Second Amendment can be stripped without due process, then there is no reason why any other rights can’t be taken as well.

Listen to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s comments on the issue Friday, and then ask yourself how comfortable you are with giving the federal government a blank check to do whatever it wants under the guise of national security.

Mr Earnest said:

“I think it’s common sense, the president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interest to prevent those who are deemed by the government ‘too dangerous to board an airplane’ that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun — until such time as they can resolve the concerns the government has about their  potential links to terrorism. There is a process administered by the Department of Homeland Security for those concerns to be considered and resolved. When it comes to gun safety, that seems like a pretty common sense step.

In response to Sen. Rubio, I guess I would simply say: Is he suggesting we should wait until someone who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun[store], purchases a firearm and kills a whole bunch of Americans before we pass a law preventing it? I don’t think that passes the common sense test either.”

To recap:

  • The Department of Homeland Security does not know how many of your constitutional rights can be stripped without due process.
  • President Obama wants to give women like Kelli “I don’t have an answer for you, sir” Burriesci the ability to deny you constitutionally-protected rights (The Second Amendment…for now.)
  • The Department of Homeland Security officials will “consider” not infringing upon your constitutionally-protected rights if you go through its petition process and it feels like changing its mind.

In the same press briefing where Josh Earnest created a giant Straw Man argument for Sen. Rubio, the White House Press Secretary admitted that none of the recent mass shooters were on the no-fly list. He also stammered and stuttered when a reporter pointed out that none of the current gun-control measures being talked about would have prevented the mass shootings in the first place.

Right now the federal government is asking for power that its own officials don’t know how to justify because they know that what they want to do is unconstitutional.

Whether you are a gun owner or not, it should terrify you that the same argument used in favor of stripping Americans of Second Amendment rights without due process can be applied to any right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 

If you cannot see the danger this poses to future generations of Americans, then I weep for your children.

Why you can’t ‘control’ guns in one image

50 Round Magazine

You can not control guns. This image pretty much sums it up.

From the ‘The Truth about Guns’:

The concept is solid and well established on Ruger 10/22 magazines: couple a whole bunch of them together at the floorplate and rotate the contraption when the mag runs dry. But FAB Defense took things a step further, gluing five 10-round magazines to a central spoke to create a New York-legal 50-round arrangement. Well, as near as we can tell NY legal.

If your state wants to make laws that arbitrarily max out magazine capacity at seven rounds, then someone will create a magazine hub that circumvents the law. If the regulations get even worse, then just wait it out for a year or two and 3D-printing technology will open the door to all sorts of bipods, buffer tubes, buttstocks and magazine parts currently unthinkable. The point is, with tens-of-millions of firearms in circulation, the effort to control the uncontrollable only erodes individual liberties while simultaneously empowering criminals.

At one point in time we had a civil society that valued life enough that even suicidal psychos generally kept their rampages to a single bullet. High schools had marksmanship and hunting clubs and kids actually brought rifles to school without issues. Somewhere along the line the culture changed, and rampaging idiots realized that taking out innocent civilians translated into cable news coverage long after death. Suicidal narcissists rejoiced and decent law-abiding citizens continue to pay the price.

Worse yet, media has managed to brain wash large swathes of the population into believing inanimate objects, instead of people raised in cultural rotgut, are to blame for gun violence.

Consider the reaction of a family that found an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle in the back of a rental car used by Lauren Tannehill, the wife of Miami Dolphins quarterback Ryan Tannehill:

“Thinking they would just call the owner, they searched for an ID, there was none, [the mother] said. Her daughter unzipped the bag and said, “”Oh my God, it’s a gun.’ I said ‘I think I’m going to throw up.'”

“I think I’m going to throw up”? In saner days, Americans would simply shake their head at the bone-headed move of the previous driver, call the cops and move on. They wouldn’t get nauseous. The United States is in sad shape when its own Second Amendment makes Americans ill.

Lauren Tannehill has a gun...and there are actually Americans who feel like throwing up at the sight. Sad.
Lauren Tannehill has a gun…and there are actually Americans who feel like throwing up at the sight. Welcome to the United Twilight Zone of America.

Dianne Feinstein, NSA apologist, is more dangerous to America than men with rifles will ever be

Sen. Dianne Feinstein did not even wait until rigor mortis set in on Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis before calling for gun control measures on Monday. It makes sense that she would jump at any opportunity to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, given that she thinks all of us are potential terrorists who must be under constant surveillance.

Here’s what The New York Times said on June 6 as the extent of the NSA’s spying scandal began to unfold:

Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers. …

A senior administration official quoted in The Times online Thursday afternoon about the Verizon order offered the lame observation that the information does not include the name of any caller, as though there would be the slightest difficulty in matching numbers to names. …

The defense of this practice offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd. She said on Thursday that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.

You. Might. Be. A. Terrorist. In. The. Future. (So Diane Feinstein and the feds should therefore be able to spy on you.)

Now that we have a better idea of what Diane Feinstein thinks of her fellow Americans, her gun control comments are more likely to appear in their proper context:

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is renewing her call for new gun-control laws because of Monday’s deadly Navy Yard shooting.

“When will enough be enough?” Feinstein said in a statement Monday evening.

“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.” …

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time,” Feinstein said.

As it stands, Diane Feinstein advocates ‘Minority Report’ tactics to watch people who might become terrorists … in the future, and she thinks stripping away shotguns, semi-automatic rifles and pistols from the American people will keep “deranged” psychopaths from occasionally committing horrific crimes.

Just to hammer home to how dangerous to the country men and women like Diane Feinstein are, I will again quote The New York Times:Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.

There are existential threats to the Constitutional Republic our founders fought and died for, but none of them include random guys with mental problems who snap and go on suicide missions.

The Constitution Center frames the debate nicely:

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

Sen. Diane Feinstein doesn’t want you informed (even though she wants access to all of your phone records). She wants you armed solely with emotion and she wants you to channel fear and anger in a way that will put more power into her hands. You generally have a one-way ratchet when it comes to increasing the size and scope of the federal government, and the people who think you might be a terrorist “in the future” know it.

Dianne Feinstein is more dangerous to America than men and women with rifles will ever be. It doesn’t matter what her intentions are if the practical effect of the public policy she supports is that she serves as an architect of tyranny. In the weeks on months ahead she will continue her attempts to erode your Second Amendment rights, and it is your responsibility to intellectually and politically stop her in her tracks.

CO Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar: Women are too emotional and stupid to use a gun

Colorodo's liberals want women to know they'd prefer projectile vomiting on rapists instead of projecting bullets out of the barrel of a loaded gun.
Colorado’s liberal academics and politicians want women to know they’d prefer projectile vomiting to ward off rapists instead of projecting bullets out of the barrel of a loaded gun. Mysteriously, UCCU’s rape advice page was taken down shortly after if it was mercilessly mocked online.

The gun control issue just won’t go away. When it isn’t Vice President Biden trying to make the case for gun control by telling all of us to buy shotguns, it’s a university broadcasting a new way to avoid being raped: menstruation.

February’s winner (and by ‘winner’ I mean ‘loser’) for his ability to continue the gun-control distraction (we are almost $17 trillion in debt) is Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar. In one fell swoop he manages to let women know that he thinks they’re all a bunch of emotional basket cases that can’t be trusted to carry a firearm, and that they’re too stupid to know when they’re being physically assaulted.

“There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. … It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody,” (Colorado’s golden bow tie wearing Democrat, Joe Salazar).

Unlike the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Mr. Salazar does not openly support projectile vomiting and sudden urination as a deterrent to rape. He’s a big fan of whistles and “safe zones” (because as everyone knows, rapists abide by the same “safe zone” rules once used in elementary school during games of freeze tag).

Question: If Salazar’s last name was Akin and he had an “R” next to his name, what are the chances that his rape statements would be aired around the clock on MSNBC and CNN? Given that Marco Rubio taking a sip of water was replayed over 200 times on MSNBC alone, I’d say the chances are pretty good. But because Rep. Salazar has a “D” next to his name, those same “news” outlets will work overtime at ignoring the story. Sadly, the average American only thinks about media bias in terms of what is actually reported, without ever factoring into the equation what is left unsaid.

Luckily, with the invention of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs (like this one), it is a lot harder for partisan media hacks to ignore the stories that don’t conform to their particular word view.

In response to Mr. Salazar’s desire to create of safe-zone call-box utopia for whistle-carrying paranoid women, the hashtag #LiberalTips2AvoidRape began trending on Twitter. Oddly enough, the people making fun of politicians whose policies would endanger more women found themselves being attacked … by women.

Liberal Tips 2 Avoid Rape

Someone needs to tell Anna O’Hara that she needs to save that puke for the next time she’s approached by a rapist. Semi-automatic and automatic vomit (with three-round burst capability) is currently legal in all 50 states.

Luckily, the feed was also filled with sanity:

Liberal Tips to Avoid Rape reactions

Indeed. Women do deserve better. Men deserve better. The country deserves better. But we’re stuck with an electorate that spends most of its free time watching Harlem Shake videos on YouTube or kittens on Buzzfeed. Every four years voters memorize a few talking points given to them by whatever cable news channel host they like, and then they pretend they’re policy experts before voting for a stooge who has lived in Washington, DC his entire life.

Have fun with your safe-zone call boxes, my gun-control favoring friends. I’m not sure how long it takes to rape someone, but I’m hoping the campus security segway isn’t low on battery when you push the distress signal. When seconds count, the scooter patrol will be minutes away.

Obama to make gun control pitch flanked by kids

You either agree with President Obama’s gun control plans, or you stand against innocent children. That’s the message the administration will telegraph on Wednesday, when it plans to hold a press conference flanked by kids. The announcement was made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday, who also disclosed that the proposals put together by Vice President Joe Biden will include bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

In the past, presidents have welcomed children to bill signings (e.g., President Obama did so with Obamacare), but the dynamic shifts exponentially when kids become props in the pitch for legislation. That’s exactly what will happen tomorrow, when children who wrote the president in the wake of the Newtown shootings will surround him as he makes the case to curb Second Amendment rights.

Both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have made the claim that “if it only saves one life,” their proposals will be worth taking. It’s an emotional argument that breaks down in the face of the slightest bit of intellectual scrutiny. Should we ban motorcycles and cars? Cuttlery? Self-defense classes? Regardless, it is not surprising that men who cloak statist power grabs in lofty rhetoric also see nothing wrong with using little ones as propaganda pawns for their scripted press conferences.

Time Traveler: Future Liberals Outlaw Self Defense Sporks.

Franz Ferdinand was killed by a Browning, solid oak, semi-automatic Spork in Liberal Universe 616…despite the Progressive efforts to outlaw weapons. Don’t let this bizarre future come to pass in your universe.

As I’ve noted before, it’s tough being a time traveler. First I warned you about Barack Obama worm holes, and then parallel universe Rivers Cuomo, but this is different.  This is big.  Where do I start?  I suppose the beginning is as good as any.

The time I come from is 2250, but it all really started January 8th, 2011. In the immediate aftermath of the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, liberal pundits started talking about the explosive rhetoric used by the likes of Sarah Palin. Bill Maher and his friends jumped at the opportunity to tell people that the actions of a madman obsessed with “mind control” and the Communist Manifesto was a harbinger of things to come with a Republican-controlled House.  A cosmic chord was struck, and a chain of events began that ended only decades later with the complete and utter abolition of all guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Great, right? Wrong.

Although school books written by liberal historians were downright giddy, even going so far as to theorize Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have lived—with World War I avoided as a result—had such measures been in place in 1914 (a subject I’ll come back to shortly), it’s safe to say that the world is not a safer place in 2050. In fact, it’s just as dangerous and downright bizarre.

After the guns, they went for Tasers. After the Tasers, they came for modernized bow and arrows.  And then slingshots. And so on, and so forth.  But for some weird reason people still found ways to hurt, kill, or maim each other. Criminals found new and creative ways to circumvent the law, assassins continued assassinating their “targets”, and mentally unstable people continued to snap in public gathering places.

In my time, we’re at the point where sporks are now being used for self defense by the common citizen.  While the United States remains one of the last free enclaves to exist in the world (all governments, particularly tyrannical regimes, kept the guns for themselves), there’s something just plain wrong about the Spork Control debates taking place around the country.

For instance, while I agree with the saying, “Sporks don’t kill people, people do,” it saddens me to see the bumper stickers.  I feel worse for moderate Democrats. Forced into a corner, they feel the need to say things like, “Sporks don’t kill people, knives do.”

I mentioned Franz Ferdinand earlier, but I didn’t mention that I’m not the only time traveller. Buoyed by their legislative successes, rogue liberal spacemen made inroads in previous times in alternate universes. Only, there’s one pesky fact that continues to elude them: it doesn’t change anything.

In Liberal Universe 616 the Archduke still dies, albeit at the hands of an assassin wielding a solid oak semi-auomatic spork. As a sick side note, the spork was manufactured by Browning…the same company that made the .32 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) in your universe.

Don’t let this be you.  Don’t let them demonize a particular political party or ideology in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy or those who will inevitably follow (and they will).  Stand up for The Second Amendment, vigorously make the case for limited government, and defend free markets and a strong national defense.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a rendezvous with Spaceman Spiff sometime before armageddon.

Oddly enough, there’s also an alternate universe where Spaceman Spiff must defend himself with a wet noodle. Don’t let that be you.