A Geek With Guns

Gun control advocates have been harming about supposed loopholes that allow individuals to purchase firearms without first submitting to a background check. They’ve come up with fancy names for these supposed loopholes such as the “gun show loophole” and the “private sale loophole.” Oddly enough, they never discuss another way to get around background checks, be a violent revolutionary in a country that isn’t on friendly terms with the United States government:

President Barack Obama’s decision to begin arming Syria’s rebels deepens U.S. involvement in a regional proxy war that is increasingly being fought along sectarian lines, pitting Sunni against Shiite Muslims, and threatening the stability of Syria’s neighbors.

Another way to get around background checks is to be a member of a Mexican drug cartel.

Why haven’t gun control advocates spent any notable time discussing these loopholes? Unlike the “gun show loophole” and the “private sale loophole” the violent revolutionary loophole and the Mexican drug cartel loophole are almost exclusively used by violent individuals. Perhaps these loopholes aren’t discussed by most gun control advocates because the same organization they want to close the gun show and the private sale “loopholes” are also creating the violent revolutionary and Mexican drug cartel loopholes by supplying both of those organizations with arms.

I know Americans like to think of themselves as number one. However, when it comes to establishing and running a police state, the United States is still learning from the truth granddaddy of the police state, Great Britain. As it turns out the British government was spying on foreign officials who came to London for the 2009 G20 conference:

Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.

The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.

America may have PRISM but Britain had Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) on almost every street corner before the National Security Agency’s (NSA) massive surveillance network was a twinkle in a snoopy bureaucrat’s eye. Unfortunately, as the unveiling of PRISM demonstrated, the United States is quickly catching up to its ally across the pond.

Remember when MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry started a great deal of controversy by claiming that children belong to the community? It turns out the New Jersey Supreme Court agrees with her:

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled this week that authorities can seek custody of a child, even where there’s no evidence of abuse or neglect.

The case involved a divorced Camden County mother of 9-year-old twin girls. In 2007, she asked New Jersey’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency for help, claiming she was unable to care for the girls who had psychological and developmental disabilities and needed to be placed in residential care.

“You can turn to the Division for help, but it may come with a cost,” says Diana Autin, executive director of Statewide Parent Advocacy Network of New Jersey. The group filed an amicus brief in the case.

Autin says under the court’s ruling, the state can get custody of a child with behavior problems if it proves that the parent can’t provide the type of services the child needs and the services are in the child’s best interest. She says the division can get custody without using the state’s abuse and neglect law.

In layman’s terms your child is the property of the state. You may be allowed to raise the state’s child if you are the biological or adoptive parent but that privilege may also be revoked if the state decides you are unworthy of the task. Or, to be put even more tersely, shut the fuck up slave and raise “your” child as you’re told to.

Seriously, how much more ridiculous does the legal system in this country have to get before people finally see it as illegitimate?

The Nazgûl have finally ruled on whether or not your decision to remain silent when confronted by the police can be used against you in a court of law. As you can guess they ruled that your silence can be used against you:

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

In other words you only enjoy your Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination if you’ve specifically invoked it or are being arrested and have been read your Miranda rights. If, on the other hand, you simply remain silent your act of not talking can be used against you.

At this point the entirety of the so-called Bill of Rights, with the exception of the Third Amendment, have been turned into a Bill of State Granted Privileges. I’m sure that the only reason the Third Amendment remains unmolested is because the state hasn’t found a sufficient way to exploit it without a war breaking out here. Then again, with the way the current administration is continuously murdering people in foreign countries with remote controlled killing machines, a war in the United States isn’t entirely out of the question.

A lot of information regarding the National Security Agency (NSA) has come to light in the last few weeks but none of the information we’ve seen so far as been as disturbing as this:

The National Security Agency (NSA) has used sensitive data on network threats and other classified information as a carrot to gain unprecedented access to information from thousands of companies in technology, telecommunications, financial, and manufacturing companies, according to a report by Michael Riley of Bloomberg. And that data includes information on “zero-day” security threats from Microsoft and other software companies, according to anonymous sources familiar with the data-swapping program.

In the security industry this is what we would call bad news. Having early access to otherwise unknown zero-day exploits would give the NSA an window of opportunity to attack systems before the owner’s knew a problem existed. Effectively, the NSA could do anything from take down a network controlled by Microsoft systems to installing back doors into networks controlled by Microsoft systems. Beyond receiving information regarding zero-day exploits the NSA may have even more influence over Micorsoft.

This information, combined with the information that Microsoft was the first company to sign onto the PRISM system, makes me wonder how much influence the NSA has over that company. Could the NSA convince Microsoft to hold back patches that fix exploits that the NSA is currently using to attack systems?

I’m also curious how many other companies are giving this type of preferential treatment to the NSA. Is Apple giving the NSA information regarding exploits? Are the lead developers of Linux? Things could become very interesting in the next couple of weeks.

Remember when Mr. Obama said the National Security Agency (NSA) wasn’t listening to your phone calls:

The president added that the “hype” surrounding the NSA revelations is largely unwarranted. He said that “nobody is listening to your phone calls” and that if the feds decided to actually listen in, they would have to go back and ask for a warrant from a FISA court judge by showing probable cause.

Turns out he was lying:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

So much for needing a warrant from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judge. It’s nice to know that the NSA not only has a widespread surveillance system but they have no oversight. This story just gets better and better.

I don’t think I have to introduce Journey so here’s Separate Ways:

Happy Flag Day, mateys!

And no celebration of a piece of colored cloth would be complete without a some form of anthem:

Peter King, a schmuck from New York who claims to represent some people, recently stated that he believes Glenn Greenwald should be arrested:

“Not only did [Greenwald] disclose this information, he said he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world and threatening to disclose that,” King said when asked by host Megyn Kelly why he wants to prosecute the reporter. “I think [prosecuting reporters] should be very targeted and very selective and a rare exception. In this case, when you have someone who discloses secrets like this and threatens to release more, yes, there has to be legal action taken against him.”

He then asserted: “This is a very unusual case with life-and-death implications for Americans.”

I believe there has to be legal action taken against Mr. King. When Mr. King took his position as a “representative” he, along with his cohorts, took the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

While I’m not particularly fond of the Constitution I have read it and know that the Fourth Amendment makes the actions of the National Security Agency (NSA) illegal:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Greenwald broke the story on the NSA’s widespread surveillance operation, which was a complete violation of the people’s right to be protected from unreasonable searches. Mr. King, by demanding the prosecution of Mr. Greenwalk, is aiding and abetting a criminal organization and that shit ain’t legal.

It’s pretty well known at this point that the police have no legal duty to protect you. In fact, as this country deteriorates more and more into a full blown police state, it’s becoming more apparent that calling the police can only lead to grief. Whether they’re blasting kittens in front of children or forcing a landlord to evict a woman out of his property because her boyfriend beat her too many times — no that wasn’t a typo — the police seem to deliver violence and grief wherever they go:

Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs’ boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, “You are on three strikes. We’re gonna have your landlord evict you.”

Yes, that’s right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown’s “disorderly behavior ordinance,” the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of “disorderly behavior” within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes “domestic disturbances” as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

I’m starting to suspect that the police are doing everything in their power to persuade people not to call them. It makes sense, they probably want to eat their doughnuts in peace but keep getting called by the people that they’re supposedly tasked with protecting. The fastest way to put an end to such interruptions is to kill the pets of whoever called them.

One thing is certain, calling the police will end in misery.