He’s Looking At Me

A guy in a gym is looking at a woman. That apparently justifies her and her husband in threatening the man. It isn’t a crime to look at someone, but it certainly IS a crime to threaten someone with violence.

Chicks like this dress the way that they do because they WANT people to look at them. They just don’t want people who they find unattractive to look at them. If the man had been “hot” she would have enjoyed the attention and continued to show off for him. Because he wasn’t physically attractive, she decided to play like she was offended. These women seem to think that they can use or threaten force because a guy that they don’t find attractive dares to look at them. This is evidenced by the fact that they post videos and pictures of themselves all over the internet for people to ogle. They enjoy being the center of attention.

Back in 2011, I was standing in line in a Quizno’s sandwich shop in Tampa. The woman who was standing in line in front of me had on one of those midriff-bearing tops, and had a tattoo in the middle of her back. The tattoo was in an old English type of font, with her pants covering the lower half of the letters. I was standing in line, trying to figure out what the tattoo said when she turned around and asked me what I was staring at.

I replied that I was looking at her tattoo, and asked her what it said. Now it’s been my experience that people with tattoos love to show them off. Not this woman. She got angry and said, “Did I give you permission to look at it? Where do you think you get the right to stare at me without my permission?”

Now my natural smartass came out at that point, and I replied “What were you thinking when you put on that outfit this morning- ‘Oh, I hope no one looks at me!’ ??”

At this point, some huge guy, presumably her boyfriend, comes over and asks her if I am bothering her. She replies in the affirmative, and the meathead tells me that we are stepping outside to settle this. I tell him that there is no way that I am going outside and that I am not going to fight him, to which he replies that either I am going to go on my own, or he is dragging me outside, and he is kicking my ass whether I like it or not.

At that point, I tell him that it would be a VERY bad idea to drag me outside, and tell him that he needs to just let it go. Long story short, I didn’t have to go outside, and I didn’t have to shoot anyone.

Causis Belli

Newsweek says that millions on the right are heavily armed and just itching to overthrow the government if Biden wins in 2024. They say that the obvious manipulation of the 2020 election is “false” despite the fact that Time magazine admitted to it. Then the article soon goes on an antigun screed:

If the Supreme Court ruling, expected in mid-2022, on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen establishes an unrestricted right to carry a gun anywhere in the country, bringing firearms to the Capitol in Washington, D.C. could be perfectly legal. Says Winkler: “The Supreme Court may be close to issuing the ruling that leads to the overthrow of the U.S. government.”

My answer to this is that the government SHOULD be afraid of its citizens. Don’t be dictatorial assholes and there won’t be a problem.

Look for more articles like this, along with a red flag event some time in 2024, probably after another manipulated election. Then they will have all the excuse they need for a military crackdown.

Business Opportunity

In California, new laws to prohibit small engines is worrying people who need those small engines to run the generators to power their RVs. Assembly Bill 1346 would compel the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations by July 1, 2022, to prohibit emissions from all small off-road engine engines (SORE) including portable generators.

The question is whether the new regulations will ban the sale of these engines, or will they go one step further and ban their use, as well. I am betting the latter. If the regulation only bans the sale of small engines, I predict that there will be a booming business in small engine dealers just across the state line in Nevada.

Lefty Law

A lefty law professor proposes rewriting the 1A and 2A. Here is the proposal for the First:

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

Of course the escape clause embedded in the above makes the entire thing meaningless. Now look at the proposed 2A:

All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.

Note that this Amendment is now not about Arms, but about abortion. It’s poorly written, though. I could make a case that a fetus is a person, and has the right to defend itself. That would also mean that others could defend that fetus. Could a person then use force against an imminent abortion?

It’s all academic, of course. I don’t think you’ll get the requisite 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.