On Jews and Lying

Some of you who haunt the Catholic blogsphere may remember that last year, when people weren’t completely losing their shit over Trump, a big topic was ‘lying’.

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, in Catholic moral teaching, it is never acceptable to choose to commit an objectively evil act, even if the goal of doing it is laudable and good.

Anyway, the big example was, of course, what would you as an American do if the Gestapo came to your door and asked if you were hiding any Jews (the assumption being that you were). There was much debate going back and forth of minutiae, touching on aspects like ‘the Gestapo here has no right to the truth due to their intentions’, some people claiming that you had to tell the truth, but in some way that wasn’t a direct lie, etc.

First, let’s be clear: In that situation, most every single of you reading this would lie, end of story. This is not because you are evil, or want to choose to commit an objectively immoral act, but rather your human reaction would simply be “SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT, if they find that family hiding in the concealed crawlspace area in the back of the basement we’re all dead!” and you’d simply say “Uh, no. Nobody lives here but me.” That’s just the way people are, in general, wired when exposed to something stressful like that.

Some people in the various arguments even mentioned that, then proceeded to go back and forth with if that was a valid response, if you had sinned, etc.

I’ve never seen so many pixels used for so little reason and to such little effect (aside from this year when people are trying to convince others that the latest Star Wars movie isn’t complete trash). Everyone seemed to miss the point that we’re Americans in that situation. That simple realization would have a saved a lot of time and gigs worth of posts. So what would be the correct response?

“Good afternoon, herr citizen. I am Lieutenant Klaus von Butthole vith ze Gestapo. My associates and I are here to check if you are hiding any Juden in your house. We need zem all rounded up you see. You aren’t by any cha-“

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! . . . . BANG! . . . . BANG! BANG!
*drop empty mag and insert full one. Drop slide. Check for any still alive. *
BANG! BANG!

Problem solved.

This may seem like nothing but bravado to many, and I don’t intend it as such. It’s really the most effective, moral answer.

“But they will just keep coming.” some say. Maybe, but that depends on how many Gestapo want to die, doesn’t it?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a man who actually lived through a similar horror as opposed to just some blogger writing about nebulous ‘what ifs’ and wondering if the enemy had a ‘right to the truth’, had this to say in The Gulag Archipelago:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

In the described situation, the Gestapo may or may not have a ‘Right to The Truth’. I don’t know. I don’t really NEED to know. What I do know is that they would have a Right to Lead, and I think people should be willing to fulfill that right if necessary. 

Bustin' a cap in Dumbo

I think it's time we had a discussion on big game hunting, specifically elephants. Some of you seem to be losing your shit over this topic in ways that are totally out of proportion to its importance.

So there's currently a flap over the possibility that Trump will allow elephant hunting torphies to be brought into the United States. This has caused roughly 100% of Starbucks patrons reading it to instantly spit their soy lattes and angrily update their Tumblr blogs with calls for impeachment. I mean, who else besides HITLER would think hunting elephants is an ok thing to do?! What's next? Killing the unborn? (Actually they're usually ok with that.)

Let's get a couple of basic facts out of the way first.

Nothing Trump does will alter whether elephant hunting is legal or not. In some African countries it is, in others it's not. Nothing Trump does will affect that in one way or other. There is simply a ban on bringing in trophies, ie tusks.

Even if the US were to somehow ban its citizens from elephant hunting it would change nothing, as it doesn't affect the rest of the world. Aussies, Europeans, shit even the Chinese go on safari now.

Preventing trophy imports doesn't dissuade rich people with stupid amounts of money from going on safari any more than finding out you couldn't bring your Louis Armstrong bobble head on the plane home would prevent you from going on vacation to New Orleans.

With those out of the way, let's dig a little deeper.

Going on Safari is a huge business. In some African countries like Mozambique it's almost the only way they can get money to fund conservation efforts. Guided elephant hunts run around $70,000, which is by no means the total cost. We are talking about Africa afterall, where you have to constantly bribe governments just to give you permits and licensing for things you already paid for.

That's also not counting the cost of weaponry. When you go to hunt a massive elephant, you're not going to cart along your AR-15 or even your .308 bolty. You're looking more at something like a .458 mag, or even real monster rifles like the 577 Tyrannosaur loaded with Barnes solids. Hunting like this is not cheap. All of this gets expensive very fast. Yet many of the same people who would decry this as waste would have no problem with someone using the cash instead to buy a high-end Jaguar or Audi which would cost about the same, and would even spend such money on them themselves if they had the opportunity. And none of that money would go toward conservation of the very animals they claim they just LUV SO MUCH.

The cost is important because it means only a few handfuls of people can afford to do it. It's not like every Bubba in the US is now flocking to Africa to blast an elephant and wipe out the populations within a year.

Hunts are also strictly regulated. This is obvious when one considers the amount of money they get from these things. They are guided and only certain individual animals get designated as allowed for harvesting by those responsible for the conservation effort (for example, if a herd has too many bulls). So you don't just get to shoot whatever you want.

You're also not guaranteed to get anything. Like any other type of hunting, you could come home empty handed.

I've also seen people declaring angrily how it's a 'coward's sport', and super easy to just go out there and shoot an elephant. What I find funny is these same people also usually claim they don't have a problem with people hunting deer in the US. These people don't seem to understand how easy it is to hunt deer. It's way easier than hunting an elephant (and less dangerous). If drunk hillbillies in northern Arkansas can blast them away from tree stands, literally just sitting in a chair and waiting for the deer to happen to walk into the field of fire, it's really not that hard. Hell I've done it. It's easy. Also, deer are way cuter than elephants, so why aren't they angry about harvesting deer too?

Just to sum up, the hunting they do actually pays to preserve the elephant herds. In fact, the only places in Africa where the elephants are growing and the herds are healthy and doing better is where the safari hunting is allowed.

Do you want the elephant herds to grow, or slowly disappear? You certainly aren't dropping $70,000 in conservation funding in Africa are you? Shit, you still get pissy when you have to drop $40 on Steam when the game you wanted isn't on sale. Should said rich guy drop the $70,000 on one of those ridiculous 'pizzas' that is covered in gold instead? No, you'd be angry about that too. What, should they just give YOU the cash? Well, yes, you'd TOTALLY approve of that. Then you'd just GIVE all that money to the conservation effort, right?

Bullshit. You'd just go buy an Audi.

Dear Conspiracy Theorists: This is why no one takes you seriously.

By now everyone except 7 Inuits and your mom know about the mass murder that took place by the gunman in Las Vegas. It’s a peculiar case as it doesn't appear to be religiously motivated, angsty teen, etc. It's a retired man who was, by all accounts, a millionaire.

The cops as of this date (10/4) are being very tight about what info they release yet, which is about how it always works with them on active investigations. This has given rise to wild speculation regarding the nature of the attack and who was involved. In principle, conspiracy theories THRIVE and actually grow in scope in direct proportion to lack of facts. This lack of facts can either exist due to the police/authorities not releasing all info yet OR (to the point of this post) self-anointed 'experts' mischaracterize the things we do know.

I'm not going to go through all of the crazy shit I've seen on this topic as it would then be too long and I don't have the patience for it. Far from being bombshells, these points do little than to showcase why people tend to laugh at conspiracy theorists. The ones I want to focus on are classic examples of people declaring something 'doesn't add up' because they simply don't know the subject matter.

(In summary) "OMG you guys, there's like totally no way this old dude could have killed them. He was, like, a bazzilion trillion yards away and he wasn't a super Call of Duty Delta A-Team SEAL man trained killer, so NO WAY he could have hit those people. Besides, the guns he had couldn't hit anything at that range. FALSE FLAG!!"

I say: I swear, the number of retards who keep saying this is legion.

If we were talking about a total newb firing off hand with a Century Arms AK clone at a moving steel plate or bullsyeys at 300 yards, one could make that point.

HOWEVER, here in the real world, you had a situation where a man with high quality arms, shooting from a comfortably braced rest from a position of height fired down at an enormous (tightly massed group of people), mostly static target, well illuminated, that was held in position by fencing. He wasn't exactly sniping here. He was simply firing into masses of people who had nowhere to go. Viewing the phone videos that have surfaced shows this well as there are long bursts of fire that seem to put rounds everywhere by the look of the strikes on the ground. Yes, ANYONE, including your mom, could do that.

As for the guns (or rather, the caliber he used) being incapable of it, I suggest you look up some youtube vids that Blackwater put up after the initial fights in Iraq, where they are firing on targets at that same distance from rests in their stronghold, and being very effective indeed.

"OMG, if he was so rich, then why did he do that?? It makes no sense!!"

I say: The implication here is that rich people are always stable and happy. Put like that it sounds pretty retarded doesn't it? You could just counter with "If Robin Williams was so rich and successful, why did he commit suicide?" Having money doesn't inoculate you from hating people or having mental issues.

"OMG, why were nearly all of the exits blocked and fences around the venue?? 'They' obviously wanted to make sure everyone died!!"

I say: The only honest people who can say this are people who have never seen nor been to an outdoor event and don't know what money is. The rest are just retards. Why, at an event you have to pay a high ticket price to get access to, would they put fences around the venue? How about….. to make sure the only people coming there PAID for a ticket? How hard is that to understand?

"OMG, how did he get all those guns into the hotel room without anyone seeing them?? He, like, had no training!!!"

I say: The same way you bring your 27" suction cup dildo and full collection of Star Trek commemorative jumbo butt plugs on vacation with you - in multiple suitcases. He was there for over week and it's not like he was trying to sneak a giraffe up to his room. Although this is Las Vegas so I doubt anyone would have noticed anyway.

Anyway, more to it, but that's all I have patience for.

"That’s all I have to say."

I have others stuff I need to do. But, I just need to put this out there because it's just the latest example of the weapons grade bullshit I've been seeing.

Ok, let me back up.

Today is July 7th, 2016. There have been a couple of police shootings today that are very controversial. One especially looks very bad for the cop involved. Of course immediately people began taking sides as far as who was right, or which shooting was justified. I thought that since I wasn't there for either of them and news reports are usually unreliable at the very best, I'll just wait until after the grand juries / trials are over and hear about them then. You know, what I considered a sensible move.

Then... Oh man, then...

I saw a link to an article by someone named Simcha Fisher and no, I don't expect you to know who that is. The article was referencing one of the shootings that happened today so I wondered "What could she possibly know about this?" I clicked on the link. Bad move.

The article, just a couple of lines really, wasn't about the shootings of today, though she had linked it as such. It was titled "But Philando Castile was black". In the body of the article she instead talks about some old white codger who was disarmed by police after he threatened them. Her summary: This guy was white. He's still alive. That's all I have to say." The implication being, of course, that cops don't shoot white people, just blacks, because, you know, racism and stuff.

This was cross linked with a similar heap of bullshit from the one and only Mark Shea, who responded with this image:

Because cops don't shoot crackers! Only blacks get the pop pop pop of stainless steel, bitches!!! He goes on with this gem soaked in 30 weight sarcasm: "That’s because white guys in open carry states are Patriots, but black guys in open carry states are thugs."

Because cops just shoot black guys. Because they're racist! White guys are never viewed as a threat. His smug self-satisfaction was bordering on the masturbatory.

Now here's the thing: I know there are bad cops. I know there are even some racists out there. That's reality. But the assertion that cops are just going out daily and mowing down innocent black guys for sport and letting whites get away with everything because they're white is a stupid, false leftist trope and if any of you reading this actually believe it, then you need to either get snipped or have them tubes tied, because you are too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.

What's that? Can I prove it's false? Well, yes, actually.

There's actually a site called "The Counted" that was set up by the Guardian newspaper explicitly to showcase how overwhelmingly disproportionate the racial violence against blacks by American law enforcement was. Thing is, once they put the data in, is actually showed the opposite.

You can check out the site here and play around with the stats.

So far in 2016 the cops have killed 279 whites and 136 blacks. So, right off the bat you can see that both Shea and Fisher are totally full of shit. Whites do get gunned down by the cops, quite often in fact. It just doesn't make the national news.

Now I could end it there, but there is one last point I wanted to share. If you sort the numbers by 'white' on that site, you'll see the name "Dylan Noble". I saw it when I checked  the site out and the name struck me. I had heard about it somewhere, but couldn't remember where. So I searched for the case.

There isn't a whole lot on him, actually. He led the cops on a chase when they were looking for another suspect. They confronted him and told him to comply with arrest. He made a sudden move for the small of his back, and the cops, fearing he was bringing a firearm into play, shot him. He died. It turned out he was actually unarmed.

Now, I'm pretty sure every one of you remembers the name "Michael Brown". How could you not? Slogans, t-shirts, endless Facebook memes, his face on signs at protests... How many of you remembered the name "Dylan Noble"? I can tell you how many. That number is zero. None of you do. Not a single one of you knew his name or what happened. This has a lot to do with the fact that the media really didn't pick up the story at all, and it stayed local news. No marches, no mass protests, No one, including you, could possibly have given a shit less. Noble, being white, wasn't politically useful.

Really, the facts in either case are irrelevant. The only thing that matters to people it seems is how politically useful the death was. Dylan's death wasn't useful in propagating the popular campfire story leftists like Shea and Fisher love to tell each other, the story that all the cops in the US wake up in the morning and the first thing they do is whoop out "YYYEEEEEHHAAAWWW! I'm gonna kills me a nigger today!"

* UPDATE *

BlackLivesMatter decided to have a march in Dallas this evening to protest the shootings. In the process, someone murdered 4 police officers. Yeah, there is a slim chance that it's TOTALLY unrelated I suppose. However, considering the race baiting that has been non stop in the news ALL DAY today, promoted by smug bullshit artists just like Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher, I don't think it's too much of a leap to make the assumption that someone decided to hell with the legal system, I'm getting payback.

Dear Mark and Smicha. If you two ever read this, eat a dick, the both of you.

"Civil War" Wasn't That Good.

So I've seen the Captain America Civil War film now. The visuals were really good and the fights entertaining but the story is forced, contrived and not believable. They never even address the two major villains in the film (neither of whom are the Zemo guy or the armored guy at the beginning).

So what's wrong with the story? It has no real conflict that comes naturally. It is made up and sustained, out of whole cloth, merely to drive the movie along. The conflict between the major characters wouldn't even survive 30 seconds of rational thought by the characters themselves. None of the characters, aside from the two minor villains, have any real motivation for what they do.

But before we actually address the story, the villains, the real ones, should be identified:

Tony Stark - Iron Man

Yes, he is a villain.

How so? Simply put, he is a megalomaniac who's actions directly lead to the deaths of many people. He is also a textbook example of a narcissist who engages in a massive amount of projection of blame onto others.

Let's do the math: minor villains and major villain in his initial story come into being because of his own actions. In the last Avengers movie the major baddie is literally his own creation that almost results in the total death of all human life on the planet. All that in that movie comes to past because of his actions. In this latest film, he projects blame onto the Avengers in general, portraying himself as the white knight who wants to do the right thing.

In Civil War we see Stark ignore his job with the Avengers to give an address at MIT, leaving a mostly B-Team level group to deal with a very dangerous and unstable situation in a shit-hole African country that is harboring deadly WMDs. One could convincingly make the case that, had Iron Man been there, the end result would have been vastly different. Captain America should have thrown all that in Stark's face when he was making his impassioned appeal for everyone to sign the accords. It wasn't the rest of the team that needed oversight, it was just him.

He also goes for full out murder at the end. It would have been murder of an INNOCENT person, btw. In case you have forgotten, morally and legally a person is not accountable for actions they committed when they had ZERO choice of action, which we are given to understand was the case for the Winter Soldier guy.

That's one villain down, but who is the other?











The Government / United Nations

The most annoying part of the film for me was when the general is showing footage from the Avengers' battles in an effort to shame them with guilt. However, none of the cases he shown proved his point, and in fact, did more damage to it.

The New York / Alien attacks: OK, what exactly were they supposed to do? NOT fight? How would having been under UN command at that point made any difference in ANY way in the outcome? The 'oh so concerned with civilian casualties' government also tried to nuke New York as well, so the general's argument there is a bust. What about Sarkozia (spelling? Meh, I don't care)? Again, how would it have turned out ANY differently? Delay would simply mean that the evil robot's plan would have succeeded as no bureaucracy would have reacted fast enough. (Remember what happened at Benghazi in real life?) And even if they HAD been under UN command, what would have changed? Nothing.

If I understand the characters correctly, the general in the film was also responsible for causing the destruction involving the Hulk and Abomination. So much for 'there would be consequences'. He seems to have kept his stars and even been given more power.

So why is there no natural conflict? Captain America is shown agonizing over if he should sign the accords. The problem is that for someone like him, who is a modern incarnation in fiction of the medieval paladin, there is ZERO choice there. Considering how much DIRECT evil the UN engages in on a constant basis (from supporting or ignoring wars of aggression waged by member states that deliberately target women and children like it does in the dirty conflicts in the Middle East now, to winking at active slavery in nations in its membership.) "No, I will not submit to UN control" should have come off the Captain's lips as easy as saying "No, I won't be a hitman for the Russian mob."

Oh, and Nigerian Batman shows up in the, but I'm not sure why I should care.

Enough for now, it's late.

How to Tell if You're Watching a Shitty Superhero Show

Answer: It has this guy in it

About a year and a half ago I heard they were making a TV show about the DC character "Green Arrow". I thought: "They are making a show, now in its second season, about a guy who literally dresses up like Errol Flynn and fights criminals with a bow?"

Had it been earlier in the year I never would have even checked it out. But I decided to see if it was any good. After all, I had just seen a fan made Punisher short (not Dirty Laundry, it was another one, I forgot the name) that was actually pretty good for what they had to work with. How bad could this really be?

Pretty much crap, as it turned out. I decided to find the first three episodes and check them out. I forced myself to watch the first two and couldn't go any further. Now I actually became hopeful at first. I mean, right out of the door, boom, Deathstroke shows up to stab him. But as it turns out, it was all fluff and no delivery.

Now keep in mind, I really don't know anything about this hero character, so maybe I was missing all sorts of interesting things that fans of him (Is there an actual fan base for him?) saw and loved, but I honestly shouldn't have to know anything. There shouldn't be any prerequisites.

The guy, whats-his-name who plays Green Arrow (and they don't even call him that), seems to play it like he's Batman, but without any of the story, character or motivation that makes Batman, you know, Batman. And he looks like he's always about 5 seconds from crying. They pair him some girl playing his sister who is perpetually whining (probably because she was in desperate need of a sandwich, by the look of her). It was really that grating sister character that almost made me give up during the first episode.

So I stopped after those two episodes. The constant grating whining, moping and "why did you leave me" bullshit just got to me.

Fast forward to about 2am this morning.

So my youngest kid was tossing around a lot. When that happens I usually sit in the basement with him on my lap as that calms him down so he can sleep. So I'm flipping through YouTube cinema sins channel and one of the suggested videos links was something about "Latest Arrow episode the best ever" I thought "Wait, that's still on? Huh, maybe it got better." A quick Google search led me to a stream for the latest episode, which I watched.

I honestly don't understand why people think this show is so amazing. It starts and... damnit! They still have the whining sister but now everyone is running around in leather bondage gear. Who is the black guy? Am I supposed to know who he is? Is he a big name guy?

Ok, yeah, I know they are on season 3 or something by now so I don't know the story up until now, but even taking that into consideration, it still sucked. Tom Cruise's friend from 'Minority Report' is the bad guy. He's in jail and he wants a monkey statue. HE WANT'S IT BAD. This guy is actually not a bad actor btw, but they don't really use his him well. He just does the 'glare at people and clench my hands' thing that Fasbender does in X-Men. They get in a big fight with a bunch of military types who, lucky for Green Arrow and friends, are completely incompetent and opt for using Queensbury Rules against our heroes instead of doing what bad guys actually do and mowing them down with machine guns. Bad guy then stabs Green Arrow's girlfriend (who is now into bondage too). She manages to whine a bit more before she dies. (oh no!) My reaction: "Good."

There were several people at my last job who loved this show. Why?

Stupid Songs Idiots Like - Entry 1

There's a lot of shitty music out there, but there is one song that particularly annoys me, especially as a landlord. It's a song you might even bob your head along to as well, if you're into classic rock. It's one of those songs people consider of the 'devil may care, independent, American man' style. They only think this because they're stupid and don't actually listen to the lyrics.

The Song
"One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" - George Thorogood and The Destroyers

What People Think It's About
Hard livin', hard drinkin', down-on-his-luck independent man just trying to get by in the world.

What It's Really About
Pathetic welfare leech with crippling alcoholism who lies to friend and stranger alike so he can fuel his addiction and thinks highly of himself for doing so.

So let's break it down.

Our 'hero' returns (more likely staggers) home on Friday and has to tell his landlady he can't pay his rent due to no employment. The landlady (the only decent, although naive character in this song) tells him he can pay later. I guarantee her contract doesn't not leave this open. She does this only out of the goodness of her heart.

Our 'hero' then complains that as the days go by, the landlady isn't all cheerful when she seems him. Sorry, what does he expect? He's behind on his rent and she is seeing evidence day after day that he has no intention of doing so.

She eventually confronts him about this situation directly. Remember, he has said he will have the rent in a few days. We aren't told how long it's been, but we can guess by her reaction that it's been beyond just a couple of days. He makes an excuse that he can't find a job. She then points our that she has seen him loafing around corners during the middle of the day. He makes a pathetic excuse about 'being tired' because he's walked all day looking for a job.

What happens? She gives an ultimatum: Rent money on Friday or your out. That day comes and what does our hero do?

Our 'hero' shambles to the home of an acquaintance, a man who is obviously more successful and harder working than himself, with a family to care for. He asks him if he can crash on his couch for a few days because he's losing his apartment. This friend, obviously a bit lacking in the character judgement department, asks his wife if his unemployed, alcoholic loafer of a 'friend' can stay at their house. While that scene is not spelled out, my guess is that the wife is shocked that her husband would display such a lack of judgement and says 'no'.

This acquaintance, obviously a modern man not used to direct conflict, tries to give his friend the hint that, no, it's no ok for him to crash here. Our inebriate 'hero' misses the point and thinks it's all funny.

He then goes to his apartment and grabs his clothes and a few other items. He doesn't totally pack, as the lyrics say he leave quietly out the back on foot. That means he grabbed some clothes and perhaps a few small items. It also means he left his trash and whatever insect-ridden furniture he was accustomed to passing out on in his apartment, meaning that now the landlady has to do a full clean out of the apartment (see my videos for an example). He leaves laughing to himself that the landlady isn't going to get any of the current or back due rent. In short, he's delighted with himself with stealing from her.

Now one may be tempted to sympathize with him at this point. I mean, no job, no money, what is he to do? Oh no, the next part just brings it all home. Where does he go after screwing over his landlady? To the bar.

He apparently knows this bartender, and begins to order enormous amounts of alcohol. In fact he stays there for what we may guess to be about 10 hours. Why 10 hours? Well, his landlady was 'hollering' at him as he was leaving, so unless the lady lived there herself it was, latest, about 5pm. After pickling himself he asks the time only to be told it's 3am. That's 10... solid... hours....

Which brings up another good point. Liquor at a bar is not cheap. He's been drinking, 3 drinks at a time, for 10 hours. That's a SHIT load of money. Given the age of the song, he wasn't using a credit card, so he was paying with cash. I'm willing to bet he spent CLOSE to his rent amount just in booze that night. So in reality, he could have been responsible, he could have paid his rent, but he chose not to. It's at this point that an objective listener will also conclude that he lost his job because he constantly smelled like a distillery.

This song is meant to be liked by a 'toughguy' audience. But the 'hero' is really just a first rate piece of shit. The next time you're even in a bar and this song plays on the radio, look around at who actually seems to be into the music. It will usually be some fat, balding guy in a Harley vest, who in real life is a mid-level accountant with a perpetually angry wife and 2 layabout, loser kids. It's kind of sad really.

Where not told the final fate of the song's 'hero'. I like to think that, almost blind drunk, he tries to stagger to his friend's house, begins banging on and trying to force the front door, not realizing that it's the wrong house, and receives a barrage of 9mm rounds to his face when he finally bursts into the living room. It's a pity that part never made it into the song.

The kind of person you losers THOUGHT the song was about

The kind of person the song is REALLY about