Month: January 2012

Anti-Gunners Throwing a Hissy Fit

Will you look at that, the boys over at the Coalition to Promote the Creation of Disarmed Victims Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) are throwing a hissy fit because members of the pro-gun community decided to call them on their little propaganda campaign.

What I find more hilarious is the fact the author is “outing” several of the pro-gun bloggers by posting their real names and where they live. I’m not sure why the author does that because if it’s some kind of underhanded implication of a threat (“I know where you live and I’m watching you” kind of thing) it’s less than pathetic. I almost wish I would have posted a picture of myself holding a candle just so the author could have outed me… then again my name is the fucking URL so I guess there isn’t much to out.

You know what’s the funniest thing though? The links from the various gun blogs posting about this little hissy fit has probably increase CSGV’s blog traffic from one visitor a day to several hundred. Even when anti-gunners try to make us look like monsters we try to help them out a bit because we’re nice guys and gals like that.

Massad Ayoob on the Brady Campaign Light a Candle Publicity Stunt

In the self-defense community Massad Ayoob is one of the advocates I respect most. He’s dedicated a great deal of his time to educated people on matters of self-defense. While Mr. Ayoob spends his time teaching people how to defend themselves instead of being victims the Brady Campaign spent its time telling people to light a candle in remembrance of those who have been killed by guns (because victims of other violent crimes don’t matter to them and they would rather a woman be raped than a rapist be shot). As usual Mr. Ayoob has some words of wisdom to share with us:

If some monster tries to rape or murder a woman I care about, I don’t want him to see the flickering light of a candle.

I want him to see a muzzle flash, from the front.

Damn right. While I’m entirely opposed to initiating violence I am entirely in support of the right of self-defense. If some piece of shit has decided your life is no longer of value you shouldn’t hold their life to be of value either.

Rick Perry and Guns

Rick Perry was scrounging for some brownie points from the gun community at the end of ABC’s debate by brining up the fact he likes to unwind by hitting the shooting range:

“Just relaxing a bit @ Red’s Range before we leave for New Hampshire!” @governorperry tweeted Friday along with a photo of himself wearing a green sweatshirt and a baseball cap with a firearm in hand.

On the campaign trail, Perry, a staunch defender of second amendment rights, has not been shy about talking about his “long love affair” with guns.

“It was a long love affair with a boy and his gun that turned into a man and his gun, and it turned into a man and his son and his daughter and their guns,” Perry told reporters before a pheasant hunting trip with Iowa Rep. Steve King in October. “It’s, I think, one of the great American traditions is taking your family hunting.

Now numerous people in the gun community are jumping on the Rick Perry 2012 bandwagon. Let’s all take a second to step back and remember what Rick Perry is, a tyrant. Rick Perry is the same candidate who advocated an invasion of Mexico as a strategy in the War on Drugs and issued an executive order forcing girls to be injected with the HPV vaccine, which could possibly cause paralysis (sadly it’s such a new drug we don’t know enough about possible side-effects but hey drug company campaign contributions cay make such pesky details vanish).

Politicians pander to communities in order to get votes. They do this because pandering works and many single issue voters exist in the world. Yet even if Rick Perry is an advocate of the Second Amendment facts are none of us will be able to afford new guns or ammunition if the economy entirely collapses and Perry has no fucking clue about economics. On top of that if he’s willing to send troops into Mexico to enforce a United States prohibition you can guarantee he’s in favor of seeing troops into other countries we have no business being in. Don’t like the fact Perry goes to the shooting range and supports the Second Amendment fool you into supporting him, on every other ground he’s horrible.

On the other hand there is another pro-gun candidate (I’d argue far more pro-gun than Perry) who actually understands economics and supports every civil liberty running for presidential candidate named Ron Paul. I’m just saying why support a tyrant when you can have a true supporter of liberty?

Flag This Website

The European Union is feeling a bit jealous of Joe Lieberman’s ability to bring tyranny down upon a populace and have decided if they can’t beat him they’ll just join him:

Internet users may soon be asked to ‘flag’ for police review any web content they believe might incite terrorism, under new counterterrorism proposals put forward in Europe.

The ‘flagging’ mechanism is one of a number of initiatives proposed by a group of European Government officials participating in the ‘Clean IT Project’.

When (these things are no longer a matter of if) this passes I’m sure my site will get flagged as promoting gun rights, liberty, and unregulated commerce is likely an act of inciting terrorism in the European Union. In fact I would feel downright horrible if my site didn’t get flagged because I try really hard to be against everything the European Union is for (namely tyranny).

Asking people to flag ‘terrorist’ websites is nothing more than an evolution of asking neighbors to spy on their fellow neighbors. Only the introduction of anonymity is really different and that anonymity may make things far different as neighbors no longer have to worry about being caught spying on their fellow neighbor before turning them into the Stasi. On the other hand the denizens of the Internet are a notoriously fickly and anarchistic group and will likely use any flag feature to troll the living shit out of those who read through the reports. How many times do you think a reviewer is going to be stuck reviewing a Rick Astley video or horrible porn?

An Open Letter to Anti-Gunners

There are many reasons why individuals fighting for gun rights win against those who fight to disarm the populace. Beyond the facts though another thing that really helps us is our community, which A Girl and Her Gun describes beautifully:

The gun community is a generous community. It is unlike any other I have been associated with.

I did, for a while, belong to the adoption community for a few years and though I am still crazy passionate about children and orphans.

Those are not my people.

I did, for a while, belong to the church going Christian community and though I am still crazy passionate about God.

Those are not my people.

Generally a group, any group, has an agenda. Stated or not. Conscious or not. No matter how well meaning, they almost always want something.

That something is usually steeped in power and control.

Politicians, religions, schools, the anti gun crowd, you name it. They want to bring you for what you can give them, which is often nothing more than a feeling of power and self worth for the leaders of the group.

They want to take something from you in order to gain something for themselves.

Not this group.

It’s a great letter and perfectly describes how great the gun community really is.

You Could Have Saved Yourself 15 Minutes of Grief

The front page of the Red Star had one of those rare featured self-defense stories. The story was likely featured only because the would-be victims were able to defend themselves without the use of a firearm… after 15 minutes of being terrorized by a crack addict while the police were nowhere in sight:

Two young couples were watching TV Saturday afternoon at the Bloomington house they share when they heard a dog bark, and then a woman scream.

Suddenly, a desperate-looking stranger burst into their house.

The man, later identified by police as a suspected bank robber and fugitive on a crack binge, bounded up the stairs into their living room. Brandishing a screwdriver and claiming he had a gun, he ordered them onto the living room floor.

“Everything happened so fast,” one of the victims said later.

Then the intruder demanded a car. For 15 long minutes, the victims tried to appease him.

The families could have saved themselves 15 agonizing minutes, minutes where they were at the mercy of their assailant. How? Easy, they could have had a gun and shot the bastard as he burst into their home. Instead the two families remained entirely defenseless while the police didn’t respond:

In the upstairs living room, the three others were calling police.

When you have a crack addict taking a hostage waiting for the police is not a viable option if you want to ensure your continued existence. In this case the crack addiction slipped up and gave his would be hostage a window to find a weapon and defend himself but that isn’t always the case. While it’s good that nobody important was hurt (sorry but a piece of shit who breaks into somebody’s home ceases to be important in my book) the situation would have been much quicker resolved had one of the family members been able to shoot the bastard. Remember when you call the police it will take them minutes to arrive if they decide to come at all.

Why Do Anti-Gunners Advocate Initiating Violence

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to understand the sheer amount of hypocrisy behind the anti-gunner’s cause. Those demanding more gun control laws are advocating the initiation of violence against gun owners while claiming to be against the proliferation of violence. Case in point let’s take a hypothetical case and follow it to its logical conclusion. Let’s say the gun control crowd suddenly get a huge surge of followers and somehow manage to nullify the Second Amendment via an amendment that entirely bans firearms within the United States (yes I realize this is far fetched but I’m performing reductio ad absurdum).

After the amendment is passed you the legally owned firearms will need to be confiscated. It’s true that a great number of gun owners will be stupid enough to voluntarily surrender their arms to law enforcement but you’re going to have a lot of gun owners who tell the collection agency to fuck themselves. What do you think the state is going to do to these stubborn gun owners? As with any other law the state is going to enforce a prohibition against arms using violence; if the gun owners don’t surrender their firearm armed agents of the state will be sent in to take them and murder the gun owners if they attempt to resist.

Thus we have a contradiction, the anti-gunners are advocating the initiation of violence in order to, as they claim, prevent violence. Non-violent gun owners whose only crime was to be in possession of property not listed at verboten will be killed if they don’t roll over and take what the state is dishing out. Why do the anti-gunners want this violence? Do they believe the ends justify the means? If that is the case I’m sure they would love to read up on Joseph Stalin’s means to accomplish his desired ends.

Whenever a law to interfere with property ownership is passed it necessarily requires that property be confiscated from violators of the law. Confiscation always requires the threat and use of force otherwise few will willingly surrender what they have worked hard to obtain.

Anti-gunners are hypocrites who don’t even see that the laws they advocate will simply lead to a spike in violence. Perhaps they don’t care because according to many in the anti-gunner camp us gun owners are lowly knuckle dragging neanderthals best rounded up and executed so we don’t spread our backward ways of thinking.

United States Government Looking for Power to Revoke Citizenship without Charges

During the passing of the PATRIOT Act so many years ago many people were arguing the act violated the Bill of Rights. As this debate went on many “representatives” in government claimed that the Bill of Rights only protected citizens of the United States. It appears as though out government is sick of even this restriction and are moving to enact legislation that would grant the government power to revoke American citizenship:

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

Information related to the bill including the full text can be found here. As it common for these tyrannical pieces of legislation Joe Lieberman is one of the primary sponsors. The exact text of the legislation is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

Once you citizenship is revoked Obama no longer has to worry about his empty promise to not detain American citizens as he can first have their citizenship revoked.

The war on terror has resulted in some of the most idiotic actions being labeled as terroristic meaning grounds for revocation of citizenship may become something as minor as insulting the government of the United States. With the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised to see a return of the Alien and Sedition Acts with a new clause claiming those in opposition of the government be labeled terrorists and treated as such.

We live in dark times where we no longer enjoy any rights whatsoever. Free speech, protections against illegal search and seizure, and protection against self-incrimination are nothing more than illusionary.

What Could go Wrong

One of the only saving graces we as a country have in defending ourselves against Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personell is the fact they don’t have the power to arrest people. Lacking this power has made many TSA agents feel as though their penises are quite small forcing them into seeking arrest powers:

Worse, sometimes people get shouty or even—very occasionally—cross the line into assault when TSA workers are just doing their jobs. When that happens, “the passengers were allowed to board flights because TSA screeners are unable to arrest passengers who assault them.” All because of the finicky detail that “TSA cannot legally arrest or detain power under powers granted to it by the federal government,” and must instead “call local police situated in the airport.” So inconvenient.

In other words they want arrest powers to they don’t have to rely on the actual police before being total assholes. Did I mention TSA agents are pissed because they feel their job doesn’t offer property compensation for the stresses they deal with in sexually molesting air travelers:

Elk’s complaint is situated in the middle of a larger argument about the need for collective bargaining to improve the “often brutal working conditions” of TSA employees—which seem to consist of some male-female pay disparities, low pay overall, and low morale—but it’s not clear that arresting unruly passengers who are not otherwise a threat to national security is the sort of thing that would be on the table, should robust collective bargaining rights be granted.

I don’t know about those of you reading this but if my job involved sexually molesting everybody from toddlers to the elderly I’d have no morale whatsoever. It’s also funny that TSA thugs are complaining about the low pay when the job doesn’t even require any training or schooling equivalent to law enforcement. Those wishing to join the ranks of the airline Gestapo need only have a desire to be granted authority and a willingness to set aside any common decency. With meager requirements such as those it’s obvious the pay isn’t going to be anywhere near that of job that requires actual training and specialization not naturally had by most.

The TSA is lucky I’m not in charge because I would disband their entire organization and place every agent involved in sexually assaulting air travelers under arrest.

Vermin Supreme 2012

It’s no secret that I’m a big Ron Paul supporter but I think I may have found a presidential candidate that would be even better. Vermin Supreme describes himself as a friendly fascist who will promise is constituents everything because he has no intention of ever delivering on those promises. He also advocates giving every American a pony, a plan nobody could refute in its wisdom and clarity: