Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged anonymous

628 notes

Anonymous engaged #OpJustice4Rataeh this morning in response to the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons. Justice Minister Ross Landy says that it is important for Nova Scotians to have faith in their justice system. Mr. Landy, justice is in your hands.

Anonymous has confirmed the identities of two of the four alleged rapists. We are currently confirming a third and it is only a matter of time before the fourth is identified as well.

Our demands are simple: We want the N.S. RCMP to take immediate legal action against the individuals in question. We encourage you to act fast. If we were able to locate these boys within 2 hours, it will not be long before someone else finds them. 

We do not approve of vigilante justice as the media claims. That would mean we approve of violent actions against these rapists at the hands of an unruly mob. What we want is justice. And That’s your job. So do it.

The names of the rapists will be kept until it is apparent you have no intention of providing justice to Retaeh’s family. Please be aware that there are other groups of Anons also attempting to uncover this information and they may not to wish to wait at all. Better act fast. 

Be aware that we will be organizing large demonstrations outside of your headquarters. The rapists will be held accountable for their actions. You will be held accountable for your failure to act.

That is all
We Are Anonymous.

Anonymous, in a statement responding to the suicide of seventeen-year-old Retaeh Parsons of Nova Scotia, Canada. She was allegedly gang-raped by four boys, one of whom is known to have photographed the attack. The facts of the case bear a chilling resemblance to Steubenville, Ohio police’s own blind eye to the rape and assault of another young girl.

If law enforcement chooses not to act, Anonymous will.

Good.

Filed under Anonymous rape Retaeh Parsons Crime Stuebenville social media tw: rape

11 notes

Anonymous asked: My pell grants are 5500 a year.

Why would you write in to tell me that? To gloat? 

Piss off, anon. Not all of us are as lucky as you.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

8 notes

Anonymous asked: why is your pell grant so low? i thought pell grants were $2400 a semester? did congress cut funding to it or something?

They are $2775 per semester, but yes. They’ve been cut for many students.

Here’s an explanation:

When Republicans took the House majority in 2011, the first piece of legislation passed included $5.7 billion cut to Pell Grants, though the bill never made it through the Senate. Later, however, Pell Grants were cut during the debt ceiling debacle in the summer of 2011.

Then, in December 2011, when a government shutdown was looming, the deal congressional leaders struck included a provision which preserved the maximum Pell Grant, but reduced eligibility to use them from 18 semesters to 12. An estimated 62,000 to 100,000 students could be hurt by this change.

It doesn’t matter if you went full-time, part-time, or somewhere in the middle — if you use the Pell, it counts toward your limit. I knew I had 18 semesters, so when I was going to school part-time and working full-time, I expected it not to be a problem.

I’m not sure what wizardry financial aid did in the fall, but I wasn’t even supposed to get it then. But it ended this semester, not only for me, but several other people I know who are parents going part-time, or those who’ve worked full-time like I did.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

57 notes

Anonymous asked: Do you actually know what all those articles mean or say? You're a DJ. Or whatever you are.

Well, I have a degree in psychology, will graduate with my degree in Criminal Justice this spring, and I focused primarily on the intersection between social psychology, policy, and the law in my undergrad research. I also researched various forms of media and its effects on different demographics and balanced it all with a pre-law concentration focusing on conflict theory and economics.

So yes, I’m a DJ, but I also understand the implications of the articles and their methodology/conclusions.

In conclusion, piss off.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

56 notes

Anonymous asked: Not every man is a gentleman like me and what do you do if you meet one unarmed? Especially when girls like you screech about the right for other girls to dress like rape bait. What's more feminist then carrying a gun and being able to protect yourself instead of relying on policeMEN to do it for you? I'm serious.

image

1. You are not a gentleman. 

2. “Rape bait” — or people can wear whatever the fuck they want because you don’t get to rape people and blame it on them. If you’re calling women “rape bait,” it leads me to believe you’ve thought about it at least once. At the very least, you’re a misogynist who actively perpetuates rape culture. 

3. Really? “PoliceMEN?” Are you fucking kidding me? Did you know there’s female cops? And we women can even wear pants now, too!

4. What’s more feminist is to work to end sexual violence, plus identifying and prosecuting perpetrators. And how about teaching people not to rape and assault others, versus pithy self-defense statements that put the responsibility of a rape on the victim who didn’t try hard enough, fight back, carry keys between the fingers, walked in the dark, had a vagina, didn’t have a vagina, was too young, too old, etc… 

How about that?

And by the way, referring to women as “rape bait,” and insinuating we need guns and turtlenecks to protect ourselves from heterosexual men unable to control themselves at the sight of our flesh is a rather insulting view of male sexuality, isn’t it?

I could say more, but I doubt you’re truly serious. If you were, I might take you seriously.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

25 notes

Anonymous asked: I'm kind of embarassed that I don't get this, but I've seen a bunch of feminist sites referring to guys in fedoras "mansplaining" things. I think you've said something about this too. Is this a meme or some kind of website of guys in fedoras? Or something?

Kind of. It’s mocking the tendency of “sensitive” guys bitching about the friendzone or explaining how women should feel, think, act, etc. Either that, or anointing themselves as experts on feminism because they took a women’s studies class once upon a time. The whole fedora thing comes in because these guys are, for some reason, frequently wearing fedoras. Please see this flowchart. And Fedoras of Ok Cupid.

Here’s a real-life example of this from my own Facebook back in December. Meet Wiley. Here’s his FB profile pic:

image

He decided to completely jack one of my statuses to splice apart a joke after engaging my friend, Will, on correlation versus causation, social sciences, etc. And then things escalated quickly. (Note: This is copied from notification emails since his responses to the original post were deleted):

Wiley: ”I think we’ve established a pretty strong correlation between criticism and an emotional response here. Though, of course, the cause may be debatable.”

Me: ”No, actually I’m sick of people telling me that I don’t need to get angry and it’s not an emotional response to criticism, it’s annoyance at the need to splice a joke. I bet Wiley’s great at comedy shows.

Comic: ‘So the other day, I was eating pasta with my mom…’
Wiley: ‘WHAT KIND? I NEED SPECIFICS.’ 
Comic: ‘Well, it was orzo, but…’ 
Wiley: ‘That’s often mistaken for rice, are you sure it wasn’t rice?’”

Wiley: “A hypothetical: perhaps people tell you that you don’t need to get angry because you seem to be angry a lot? Funny you’d mention comedy shows, I saw your last one. Also angry. Do you get more listeners for your radio show by making fun of everyone that disagrees with you, or does it just help you feel better about yourself? You may be correct about some things, but the presentation often leaves a bit to be desired, in my opinion. Though, of course, I will probably ‘the douchebag of the week’ again, for (once again) making irrefutably valid points in a public forum. I eagerly await a trademark vitriolic response.”

Me: “You’ve obviously never listened to my show nor read my website. For some reason, over 26,000 people found my site worth following. Pretty sure that wouldn’t happen if I were just an emotional harridan. And need I remind you, you resorted to calling me emotional.

Without writing a dissertation on feminism, isn’t it interesting that as an outspoken woman, I’m frequently told ‘don’t be so angry’ because anger can never be acceptable for women… it’s always just us being emotional.

Don’t flatter yourself and think you’ll be d-bag of the week. That’s typically reserved for people who are d-bags with actual impact in the public sphere. I’m not sure I’m the one attempting to feel better about myself here. You felt the need to statusjack and continue on trying to prove your intellectual superiority even though Will has clearly demonstrated you’re wrong.”

Wiley: ”I think you devalue legitimate feminism by trying to stretch it to fit this situation… And I’ll add that you’re not helping your case.”

Will: ”Your claimed ‘irrefutably legitimate points’ have little to no value to anyone on this thread besides yourself. I don’t think you are convincing anyone that you have any legitimate criticisms or ideas worth talking about. You are simply being an antagonist.

Wiley: ”That is abundantly obvious. I do like to poke the bear. Especially when it responds in such a predictable fashion. For what it’s worth, Will, I thought your responses were at least well-reasoned and intellectually challenging. Also, Meg is fully capable of ‘unfriending’ or ignoring me whenever she deems it wise.”

Me: “Please don’t call me an it. And it’s on me to ignore you being an ass, not on you to just not be an ass. Got it. I’m going to go make my man a sandwich and be barefoot in the kitchen now. My worth has been clearly established today.”

Wiley: ”Implying that I’m a misogynist really does give you credibility, doesn’t it?”

On feminism from his own blog

"An easy illustration of the paradox inherent to attempting to achieve individual freedom through uniformity/conformity is the institution/ideology of feminism. By defining as its primary power base a group which composes more than 50% of the world’s population, feminism utilizes a tried and true tactic (power by numbers) to solidify its claim as a formidable force in the fields of political advocacy and philosophy (more specifically, ethics)…

The risk factors for increasingly authoritarian behavior are abundantly obvious in this case: (1) the denunciation of the ‘other’ (in this case males and non-feminist females) implied by the exclusivity of the ideal, (2) inflexibility and hostility caused by negativistic associations with all things male… I do not wish to imply that feminists are closet dictators, or anything of the sort. Instead I mean to encourage all activists and those in the social justice fields to consider that exclusive advocacy of rights is tantamount to denial of rights to others…”

Interestingly, I was sent the link to Wiley’s blog by a woman who wished to remain anonymous. The catalyst for her sending it was that she saw him harassing me online (or poking the bear, as he calls it) and it made her angry because he allegedly said some pretty disgusting shit to her and her partner at a local bar after he discovered they were lesbians and seemed pissed because he bought her a beer. She’s apparently a friend of mine, but she submitted it under a fake name and email as far as I can tell.

To me, this demonstrates the power of online harassment of women (or PoC, LGBTQA people, etc.) under the guise of explaining things/having fun. Wiley can’t (or won’t) see how his actions are misogynist, and it’s on myself and other women to just get the joke, and not be so emotional and angry about it. Also, he claims one of feminism’s biggest problems is that it has “negativistic associations with all things male” — essentially, it’s a bunch of man-hating harpies and that makes me sad. Let’s not forget that advocating rights for one group is apparently denying rights to another — please tell me how advocating for rights for LGBTQA people, i.e. the same rights that WASPy straight men have, is somehow denying rights to someone else?

And as you can see in the above photo, he’s wearing a fedora. 

The tl;dr version: This is a thing, and it’s usually know-it-all straight white asshats in fedoras telling other people how to act, think, and feel, and simultaneously being able to deny that’s what they are doing because they’re “just saying” and are “nice guys” always stuck in the friendzone, so obviously they don’t feel that way about said group they’re denouncing.

Cheers, 

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

27 notes

Anonymous asked: You fucking feminists are full of shit and misandry

Oh, hi there anon! Glad you could crawl out from under your rock to join us.

I made you something:

image

Surprise! Your own gif to use when you get SO MAD YOU GUISE! 

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

29 notes

Anonymous asked: I wouldn't fuck you with someone else's dick but I would fuck you with the barrel of my AR-15. Piss off, OP.

image

About that…

image

By the way, if you’re going to hit up the askhole with insults, either don’t steal one from someone who reblogged the post that made you madfaced (likely this or this), or don’t be that person that reblogs it and then decides to send the same comment anon, just more boorish.

Cheers,

Meg

P.S. — Way to be one of the poster children for a gun registry and an assault rifle ban. 

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

26 notes

Anonymous asked: Would you be willing to share your playlist? I'm looking for not-traditional style x-8mas songs if that makes sense.

Sure, no problem — this isn’t the final list, just what’s listed thus far. It could be subject to change:

*= requested by a listener

  • "Fire It Up" by Modest Mouse*
  • "Christmas At Ground Zero" by Weird Al Yankovic*
  • "The Season’s Upon Us" by Dropkick Murphys
  • "White Wine in the Sun" by Tim Minchin
  • "Leon (The First Noel)" by Bad Religion
  • "The Christmas Song" by Weezer
  • "Another Christmas Song" by Stephen Colbert
  • "Cowboy Christmas" by The Killers*
  • "X’Mas Time (It Sure Doesn’t Feel Like It)" by The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
  • "We Three Kings" by The Reverend Horton Heat
  • “‘Zat You, Santa Claus?” by Louis Armstrong & The Commanders
  • "Christmas at the Zoo" by The Flaming Lips
  • "This Time of Year" by The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
  • "Everything’s Gonna Be Cool This Christmas" by Eels
  • "Gift X-Change" by Calexico
  • "Christmas Boogaloo" by Big Boss Man
  • "Oi to the World" by No Doubt
  • "O Come All Ye Faithful/O Holy Night" by Trans-Siberian Orchestra*
  • "I Believe in Father Christmas" by Six by Seven
  • "Please Come Home for Christmas" by Willie Nelson
  • "Christmas" by Blues Traveler
  • "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" by John Lennon, The Harlem Community Choir, Yoko Ono & The Plastic Ono Band
  • "Little Drummer Boy" by The Dandy Warhols
  • "Carol of the Bells" by The American Boychoir & James Litton*
  • "All I Need Is Love (feat. The Muppets)" by Cee Lo Green*
  • "Santa Looked a Lot Like Daddy" by The Reverend Horton Heat
  • "Silent Night" by Johnny Cash
  • "When I Get Home for Christmas" by Snow Patrol
  • "The Christmas Song" by The Raveonettes
  • "All I Want for Christmas is You" by My Chemical Romance*
  • "You Put the ‘Ho’ in ‘Holidays’" by Nineteen Cent Feast
  • "Blue Christmas" by Bright Eyes*
  • "Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24" by Trans-Siberian Orchestra
  • "Christmas Party" by The Walkmen
  • "Christmas As I Knew It" by Johnny Cash
  • "I Won’t Be Home for Christmas" by Blink-182

There should be a few you’ll dig on here.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

91 notes

Anonymous asked: More people are killed in automobile accidents than by guns. We should outlaw cars, too. Even more people die due to obesity. We should outlaw fast food restaurants and all junk food. Black people, while only 12% of the population, commit 60% of the murders in the U.S. We should outlaw black people too. Mass murderers tend to be white male "weird" loners who are the children of liberals. They shoul be profiled. You can either have freedom or safety, but you cannot have both

Dear racist anon,

Already addressed your fallacious argument here

And lots and lots of citations are needed. I really hope you don’t carry a weapon. You seem paranoid and willing to believe that not only should we expect to be in Wild West style shootouts, we should be goddamn grateful for the privilege. 

I want you to look in the mirror and repeat after me:

"My right to carry and possess any gun of my choosing outweighs the lives of over ten thousand of my fellow Americans on a yearly basis.

My right to own high-powered semi-automatic rifles outweighs the lives of 20 first graders in Newtown, Conn.

My right to be free of background checks and filling out a form for registration of my weapons outweighs my fellow Americans’ lives because these forms are an inconvenience. 

My right to have access to implements of destruction capable of mass murder in seconds is just like my neighbor wrecking his car due to a flat tire. These are the same thing.

My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 28 people in Newtown, Conn. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 8 people in Minneapolis, Minn. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 10 people in Oak Creek, Wisc. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 70 people in Aurora, Colo. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 7 people in Seattle, Wash. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 10 people in Oakland, Calif. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 5 people in Norcross, Ga. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 9 people in Seal Beach, Calif. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 12 people in Carson City, Nevada. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 19 people in Tucson, Ariz. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 11 people in Manchester, Conn. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 5 people in Parkland, Wash. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 43 people in Fort Hood, Texas. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 18 people in Binghamton, N.Y. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 11 people in Carthage, N.C. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 7 people in Henderson, Ky. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 27 people in DeKalb, Ill. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 8 people in Kirkwood, Mo. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 13 people in Omaha, Neb. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 7 people in Crandon, Wis. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 56 people in Blacksburg, Va. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 10 people in Salt Lake City, Utah. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 11 people in Lancaster County, Pa. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 9 people in Capitol Hill, Wash. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 8 people in Goleta, Calif. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 15 people in Red Lake, Minn. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 11 people in Brookfield, Wis. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 12 people in Columbus, Ohio. 
My right to carry a gun is worth killing and injuring 15 people in Meridan, Miss.

All of these people massacred in the past ten years do not matter, because now I have my guns.

Because I have my freedom to carry.

Because now, I truly feel safe.

Oh, and correlation doesn’t equal causation

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

1,200 notes

On “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

Rebloggable by request:

Your argument is invalid. Youre basically saying that someone can either use guns to kill someone fast or they can use something other then a gun to get the same fucking result. So should we outlaw baseball bats because I can take one swing a someones fucking dome and kill them instantly? Fucking stupid. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t matter the weapon.

image Anonymous

image Meg at Cognitive Dissonance:

Yep, you’re right. Obviously, a gun sitting on a table is not going to simply kill someone. However, you cannot deny that a semi-automatic rifle makes it easier to kill larger amounts of people in a shorter amount of time from further away.

Ever heard of dozens of people being killed and wounded by a mass-batting in a movie theater? Or a drive-by knifing committed by an assailant from the window of a moving car? Doubtful. Though pro-gun proponents have pointed to the case of children being knifed in China on the same day as those slain in Connecticut, unlike the children in Newtown, all the children in China survived the attack.

Or how about the number of homicides committed with firearms versus other methods? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

image

In 2009, the latest year for which the Center for Disease Control has national statistics, there were 16,799 deaths from homicide in the U.S. — of those, 11,493 were committed with a firearm. That means of the homicides committed in the U.S., 32% used something other than a firearm. According to the Department of Justice, the likelihood of surviving a violent attack increases dramatically without the presence of a firearm by either civilian or criminal.

The Harvard School of Public Health debunks several myths surrounding guns, primarily that guns are used in self-defense all the time (false), and that guns do not increase the rate of homicide (false again). From the University of Utah School of Medicine:

A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home. Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession.

The University of Utah also finds that when firearms are used for hunting, accidental injuries are very rare — more rare than among all gun owners. That’s the only time guns are used as tools, but their purpose is the same across the board — to kill something. 

I make the tool distinction because a baseball bat, a car, a knife, rope, your hands etc. have a purpose other than killing something or someone. A gun’s purpose is to kill. Period. Even when a gun is used by a police officer, a homeowner, or a hunter in a legitimate manner, the intent is to kill that at which said person is aiming. 

I think we need to examine a culture where it’s easier to purchase a gun than to get mental health treatment. It’s easier to get a gun than to get a driver’s license in many states.

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Meet Nixon:

image

My husband and I adopted him in 2009. In order to do so, we had to get a background check, pay an application fee, fill out this form, and then wait to be approved. Obviously, we were, but the animal rescue has rejected numerous unfit people.

Now, in 2005, I walked into a gun show in Wyoming, and purchased a Springfield bolt action 30.06 Rifle for my then-husband, and a .40 Glock for myself. I bought from two private sellers and neither checked my ID. I actually asked the dealer I purchased the Glock from if I needed to give him my ID, or if he needed to do a background check or anything, and he laughed. He explained that our forefathers didn’t need “a fucking background check — they lie anyhow” and that the Second Amendment was better than any ID. He ended his speech by throwing in a free box of bullets, and said, “God bless the Second Amendment!”

Indeed.

In conclusion, it was harder and more arduous to adopt my cat than to purchase a gun. I’m glad it’s tough to adopt. It’s fucked that it’s harder than buying the guns.

Unlike many people who own guns, I was in the military and know how to shoot. But I no longer own guns. I don’t know if my ex-husband does, nor do I care. One big reason I got rid of mine? See above.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under guns guns DO kill people Second Amendment shooting murder homicide violence mental health obviously we're all gonna ban bats and knives anon anonymous politics

52 notes

Anonymous asked: Your argument is invalid. Youre basically saying that someone can either use guns to kill someone fast or they can use something other then a gun to get the same fucking result. So should we outlaw baseball bats because I can take one swing a someones fucking dome and kill them instantly? Fucking stupid. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Doesn't matter the weapon.

Yep, you’re right. Obviously, a gun sitting on a table is not going to simply kill someone. However, you cannot deny that a semi-automatic rifle makes it easier to kill larger amounts of people in a shorter amount of time from further away.

Ever heard of dozens of people being killed and wounded by a mass-batting in a movie theater? Or a drive-by knifing committed by an assailant from the window of a moving car? Doubtful. Though pro-gun proponents have pointed to the case of children being knifed in China on the same day as those slain in Connecticut, unlike the children in Newtown, all the children in China survived the attack.

Or how about the number of homicides committed with firearms versus other methods? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

image

In 2009, the latest year for which the Center for Disease Control has national statistics, there were 16,799 deaths from homicide in the U.S. — of those, 11,493 were committed with a firearm. That means of the homicides committed in the U.S., 32% used something other than a firearm. According to the Department of Justice, the likelihood of surviving a violent attack increases dramatically without the presence of a firearm by either civilian or criminal.

The Harvard School of Public Health debunks several myths surrounding guns, primarily that guns are used in self-defense all the time (false), and that guns do not increase the rate of homicide (false again). From the University of Utah School of Medicine:

A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home. Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession.

The University of Utah also finds that when firearms are used for hunting, accidental injuries are very rare — more rare than among all gun owners. That’s the only time guns are used as tools, but their purpose is the same across the board — to kill something. 

I make the tool distinction because a baseball bat, a car, a knife, rope, your hands etc. have a purpose other than killing something or someone. A gun’s purpose is to kill. Period. Even when a gun is used by a police officer, a homeowner, or a hunter in a legitimate manner, the intent is to kill that at which said person is aiming. 

I think we need to examine a culture where it’s easier to purchase a gun than to get mental health treatment. It’s easier to get a gun than to get a driver’s license in many states.

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Meet Nixon:

image

My husband and I adopted him in 2009. In order to do so, we had to get a background check, pay an application fee, fill out this form, and then wait to be approved. Obviously, we were, but the animal rescue has rejected numerous unfit people.

Now, in 2005, I walked into a gun show in Wyoming, and purchased a Springfield bolt action 30.06 Rifle for my then-husband, and a .40 Glock for myself. I bought from two private sellers and neither checked my ID. I actually asked the dealer I purchased the Glock from if I needed to give him my ID, or if he needed to do a background check or anything, and he laughed. He explained that our forefathers didn’t need “a fucking background check — they lie anyhow” and that the Second Amendment was better than any ID. He ended his speech by throwing in a free box of bullets, and said, “God bless the Second Amendment!”

Indeed.

In conclusion, it was harder and more arduous to adopt my cat than to purchase a gun. I’m glad it’s tough to adopt. It’s fucked that it’s harder than buying the guns.

Unlike many people who own guns, I was in the military and know how to shoot. But I no longer own guns. I don’t know if my ex-husband does, nor do I care. One big reason I got rid of mine? See above.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box

6 notes

Anonymous asked: What did you do when Tumblr was broken?

Pretty much this:

I survived easily. It wasn’t the end of the world, especially during finals.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under Anonymous ask ask box