Month: March 2010

In Lieu of Real Arguments Violence Policy Center Uses Character Assassination

It seems that Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy center is on the war path again. And as Days of our Trailers points out his organization, Violence Promotion Policy Center, has no real argument so it’s moving to good old fashion character assassination:

The SAF head is a convicted felon — he was caught cheating on his taxes — who at one time lost the ability to possess guns. He later regained the ability to own guns through the now-defunct federal “relief from disability” program, a multi-million dollar program that re-armed convicted, often violent, felons, at taxpayer expense.

Let me see if I follow this logic. First Alan Gottlieb became a convicted felon, at tax payer expense, for fucking up his taxes. At a later date he was able to get his right to keep and bear arms restored which make sense since his felony has nothing to do with violent behavior. And we’re supposed to be enraged about this? This to me sounds like the “relief from disability” program actually worked correct that time.

So what Sugarman is saying is he doesn’t want to bar only violence criminals from bearing arms but all felons regardless of context. That’s a great idea, in a police state.

Sorry Josh would you like to try again?

Brady Campaign Can’t Do Math

It looks like Dennis Henigan, a favorite punching bag for Truth About Guns, has written another article complaining that his little Brady Campaign is getting beaten up by the big back bully gun enthusiast. From Mr. Hennigan’s piece:

In case you missed it, last Saturday was “Starbucks Appreciation Day.” No, it was not a gesture of support from lovers of strong coffee (like me). The “appreciation” was on behalf of Americans who believe it is their sacred right to have a handgun with them wherever they go – even to carry it openly to make sure the rest of us know who are the real defenders of the Second Amendment.

Reason number one why businesses should support us gun owners, we’ll support you back. That’s right because Starbucks was good enough to recognize our rights in their establishments we threw an appreciation day and spent money at Starbucks. You treat us well and we’ll treat you well. Did the anti-gunners throw an appreciation day for California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee and Tea after they issued their no girls guns allowed policy? Maybe you guys should try supporting those who share you views instead of ridiculing those who do not. Next up:

For a glimpse into its future as the corporate best friend of the gun-toters, Starbucks should consider the experience of a California restaurant chain, Buckhorn Grill. On February 6, a Buckhorn restaurant in Walnut Creek, California, was visited by about 100 men carrying their highly-visible guns. A recent New York Times editorial said this must have “looked like a casting call for a Sam Pekinpah shoot-‘m-up.” Shortly thereafter, Buckhorn’s management made clear that the restaurant had always had a “no weapons” policy and apologized for the “misunderstanding” that had led to the “open carry” event. How many gun carriers need to show up at Starbucks for the company to realize what a nightmare it is creating for its customers and employees?

Wait 100 paying customers is a nightmare? Really? Although I don’t own my own business I will say if I did I’d be ecstatic to have 100 people show up at my business to spend money on my goods and services. Heck I’d not only be happy but I’d treat them extremely well so they would return. And I love this paragraph:

Over 27,000 Americans so far have signed the “no guns” petition circulated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CREDO Action calling on Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores. Please join them by going to www.bradycampaign.org. Tell Starbucks that, in your America, parents ought to be able to take their families into coffee shops without facing the intimidation and danger of guns.

27,000 signatures? That’s it? Really? Let’s do some math here. There are roughly 4,000,000 members of the NRA in this country. So the number of signatures they obtained is less than 1% (.675% to be exact) of the number of members of the NRA. Why is this important? It’s not really it’s just another method of showing the sheer scope of pro-gun people vs. anti-gun people and why businesses are better off catering to use than them.

Of course the important question lies in the title of the article which is called, “Starbucks Sticks To Its Guns. Why?”

Days of our Trailers points out the bloody obvious to Mr. Hennigan:

4+ million NRA members

>100K Brady Campaign supporters.

Do the math.

Apparently Mr. Hennigan has as much trouble with math as he does with basic logic.

You’re Government Never Loved You

Here is an interesting story I came across directly out of the government hates you category. Apparently during Prohibition people were still drinking alcohol. That’s right even though it was illegal people were still consuming it. It’s almost as if banning a substance doesn’t stop people from obtaining it. Well the consumption rate was so high the federal government decided to try something new:

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Government was willing to indiscriminately kill people just to enforce the law. This isn’t like a police officer shooting a criminal in self defense. This would be akin to officers walking around and killing anybody they found who had consumed any alcohol.

And people wonder why us libertarians are proponents of small government. Hit the link and have a read it’s a rather interesting story.