Someone is really overcompensating here

Oh, Gary Larson, your absurdism is so extreme we never have to worry about it coming true, so we can laugh.

Unfortunately, the reality is worse.

What is he going to do with that cannon in congress?


  1. Walter Solomon says

    He could take down Air Force One or a passenger plane with a gun like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a stockpile in anticipation of the next attempted coup.

  2. says

    Ah yes, the Barrett .50 cal. So practical for when you want to obliterate a deer’s head from a mile away or cut down trees without swinging an axe. Or disable trucks.

  3. says

    Had a proud buy here in Portland drive by a protest just last week. One fatality on the scene, six in the Hospital. Can we do something about assault rifles yet?

  4. lumipuna says

    The right to own firearms implies a right to own firehands

    The right to bear arms implies a right to bear paws

    The right to own long arms implies a right to reach the top shelf

  5. birgerjohansson says

    So will it be OK to carry around 14.5 mm Soviet-era antitank rifles? If you are expecting an attack of Japanese kaiju monsters a puny liberal 0.50 cal. Barrett is not going to make much difference.
    Real manly men has a 40mm Bofors in storage, just in case.

  6. davidc1 says

    In todays Guardian,a guy at a McDonalds drive through,who was dragged out of his car by plod told his 4 year old in the back seat to fire a pistol,one of the plod managed to knock it away so the shot missed.
    He also yelled kid,thereby savinghis life.
    All this happened in Salt Lake City,amurica you are doomed.

  7. davidc1 says

    @6 According to one historian wot I read,the British army’s version of a anti-tank rifle ended up
    being given to the company drunk as a form of field punishment.

  8. robro says

    birgerjohansson @5 — Perhaps he does have some 40mm Bofors in storage, or it’s modern day equivalent. However, anti-aircraft weapons might not be that useful in an insurrection so he may have an Mk-19 grenade launcher with ammo at hand.

    Shortly before “Ax Handle Sunday” in Jacksonville, Florida in 1960, my dad came home from the garage where he hung out telling us that someone there said the Klan had moved heavy weapons into town, including tanks. I don’t completely believe it, but on the other hand these guys are seriously nuts.

  9. Akira MacKenzie says


  10. strangerinastrangeland says

    I think most of this gun fondlers claim that they only own guns to protect their home and family. So this guy is ready to protect them when the next T. rex escapes Jurassic Park – and who is laughing then, ha???

    (My first thoughts when I saw the picture were already addressed by @10 Akira & @11 christoph, but I HAD to comment on this ridiculous jerk.)

  11. Akira MacKenzie says

    @ 12


    blockquote>I think most of this gun fondlers claim that they only own guns to protect their home and family.



    Well, for many, it started as that. Then decades of paranoid, racist, crypto-fascist tirades from the NRA and other “pro-gun” groups mutated the concept of “home defense” from “defending your family from an intruder” to “overthrow the government if the liberals start letting blacks, gays, women, and poor people get too uppity!” Now we’re stuck with his lot, poisoning public discourse and holding back progress.

  12. davidc1 says

    The late lamented Ed over at Dispatches from the culture wars used to post about a
    wackaloon named david barton,last time I saw a post about the fruitcake,which is a few years old,
    he was saying the 2th added on bit gives amuricans the right to own Nuclear weapons.
    Fancy someone starting a nuclear because someone mows his lawn at 7AM on a Sunday morning?

  13. dbarkdog says

    @birgirj. That video is just down the road from me. Biggest critters around here are moose, and people murder them with ordinary hunting rifles. Maybe my neighbors are worried about invasions from Canada or the F off and die state next door. Not many Soviet tanks in evidence.
    And yes, we are doomed.

  14. simonhadley says

    Those .50 cal rifles are just about the most useless firearms imaginable. It’s a military weapon specifically designed for disabling vehicles (even tanks) from a long distance and nothing more. To see Bo Hines posing with that thing having never served is frankly embarrassing.

  15. wzrd1 says

    Gotta love the “he can shoot down an airplane with that”, ignoring historic footage of warships lousy with fully automatic versions being fed by lengthy belts of ammunition entirely failing to shoot down airplanes very much. Indeed, when they did hit the airplane, the damage was so ludicrously low that the .50 BMG guns were replaced for antiaircraft usage with 5 – 8 inch monsters with proximity fused shells.

    That is designed as a rifle to destroy equipment, especially trucks (originally, they killed tank engines, but only scratch the paint a bit these days) and during the GWOT, over ludicrously long ranges to take out someone lugging around an RPG. Most weigh in between 25 – 30 pounds, plus a five round magazine and sight that costs more than the $5 – 7k rifle and rounds range between $5.00 and $25.00 per round, depending upon source (avoid Nugent’s overpriced crap or generic SLAP rounds, the former being overpriced by a lot, the latter nearly killing someone trying to use overloaded ammunition). Firing the damned thing is punishing in volume, an almighty shove to the shoulder and something I’ve politely declined doing.
    I’ll stick with high power rifle, intermediate caliber rifle and pistol for my competitions and either a .45-70 or my trusty 30-30 for hunting wild game. The ammunition lasting a lifetime, as I typically don’t even load my hunting rifle, so the only way I’d bag a deer is if it has a heart attack in front of me.

    Still, I could use that .50 BMG rifle – as a garage door prop while I adjust the springs.

  16. blf says

    @21, I presume if there was a shoot-out in the Oklahoma legislature, few of the legislators would be hurt (except for being deaf since ear protection is a liberal plot), but most of the result of Oklahoma would resemble gauze or cheesecloth after several nearby ball-bearing manufacturing plants exploded.

  17. robro says

    nondeplume @ #21 — Ironically, the shoot out you obliquely reference was ostensibly an no-carry enforcement by Tombstone law enforcement.

  18. nomdeplume says

    @22 um, it was a reference to the OK Corral?
    @24 comes under the heading of learning something new every day – I did not know that detail!

  19. andrei613 says

    @20. As a log time student of naval history, I will point out that the dual purpose guns of larger than 5 inch size, the twin 6 inch mount on the pair of Worchesters, and the triple 8 inch mounts on the Salem class cruisers all only showed up well after 1945.

    That said, you are quite correct about small sized A/A guns having ridiculously low rates of success, compared to rounds shot off, and that’s with guns that were much faster to fire than this oversized penis substitute.

    The UK Army had a similar gun at the starts of WW2, the Boys anti tank rifle, with a size at 14 MM, or .55 inches.

    Such overcompensation as in this electoral ammosexual is right up there with flashy sports cars and toupees.

  20. davidc1 says

    @28 That’s the one I meant in my earlier post,I have seen photos of Universal Carriers that have
    had the Bren Gun replaced with a Boys AT rifle.
    @20 Well,the 40mm Bofors seemed to be very good at bringing down aircraft.

  21. wzrd1 says

    @29, the 40mm Bofors actually was middling against kamikaze aircraft. They needed to up the game to 5 or 8 inch monsters with proximity fuses to physically destroy the aircraft. Better the explosives scatter and the ship hit by an engine and airplane fragments than for an intact explosive laden aircraft strike the ship at speed.

    @20, look up Winter War and Continuation War and the Lahti L-39. Limited usage, but it was a wee bit larger than those toys you’re talking about – 20mm. The Finns stalled the Red Army cold in the forest.
    Didn’t do so well once they left the forest to try to retake cities already long lost though, best to stay with one’s strengths than to play against the other guy’s strengths.

    Still, 109 pounds of rifle or 20 pounds of rifle, they’re welcome to the damned things.
    Besides, I’m far more lethal and portable, armed only with a can of beans.

  22. davidc1 says

    @30 Well a lot of Japanese aircraft didn’t have armour,or self sealing fuel tanks.And a 40mm could chuck up a lot of metal.
    As far as anti-tank guns go.20mm is still a pea shooter,even at the start of WW2.

  23. po8crg says

    The Barrett is an anti-materiel rifle, ie mostly for shooting at (non-tank) vehicles. They’re also used as long-range sniper rifles by expert snipers who are shooting at things more than 3km away.

    And what he should do with it is ship it to Ukraine and give it to their military.