Your cellphone can spy on you in many ways. It can be a remote listening device, report your location, and send copies of all your text messages to a third party. Get a copy of the software to install on the target phone here.
If you are concerned about such things remove the battery or leave the phone someplace where you are not.
[J]urisdictions will be forced to allow some form of handgun carry, either open or concealed. Outright bans on concealed carry cited in cases from the mid-1800’s come from a time when it was assumed that only brigands carried handguns concealed, and it was an unquestioned right of the people to carry arms openly wherever they went. States and localities will not be able to delete the right to bear arms from the right to keep and bear arms.
David Rittgers
March 10, 2010
Gun Control After McDonald
[Logically, I think this is inevitable. But logically we would not have had to deal with NFA ’34, or GCA ’68 or 20,000 other insults and infringements either.
I still think this is a likely outcome but it is far from certain and it will take a minimum of two years if not five or ten to implement in all 50 states.–Joe]
I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”
The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.
The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.
The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.
It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.
When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.
Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it’s technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it’s gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.
So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.
The Eggman
March 10, 2010
Enough about “Gun Rights” already!
http://www.the-eggman.com/
[I agree with him but I think that horse has already left the barn. Just like people calling a “magazine” a “clip” and to a less extent “cartridges” “bullets”. I still sometimes use the phrase “gun owner rights” but in my old age I’m getting weary of fighting battles I don’t believe I can win.–Joe]
The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning.
Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
March 8, 2010
Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks
[Typical half-truth stuff from the anti-gun crowd.
First off, Starbucks does not have a policy to “welcome guns in its restaurants”. They have a policy of letting local, State, and Federal law be the determining factor as to whether customers may carry firearms in their restaurant. This is no different than a policy to not discriminate against mixed race couples who enter their restaurant unless the law prohibits mixed race couples from dining in public.
Second, 30,000 people are not killed annually by firearms in this country. The truth is that about 15,000 people kill themselves with firearms. In addition to that huge fraction of misrepresented deaths he is deliberately misleading his readers by including in those 30,000 people who were justifiably killed by police and private citizen defending themselves or other innocent life. Some of those people successfully defending themselves were in restaurants similar to Starbucks.
Third, Mr. Helmke makes a very large unsupported claim here by saying “Guns represent a public health threat…” Food poisoning from public restaurants has no upside. No one that I know of is advocating for more food poisoning. Carrying guns in public restaurants does have a potential if not actual upside and because of this there are people advocating for carrying guns in public in and outside of restaurants. It certainly isn’t obvious to everyone, as it is with food poisoning, that guns are “a public health threat”. Before making such a claim he should be able to show the studies that agree with him. While there are some studies that agree with him there are also numerous studies that disagree. And even the “Brady State Rankings” on gun restrictions by his own organization show no correlation to violent crime rates. I find it very telling that even when the rule-maker and scorekeeper get to make the rules and compute the score after the game is over they still don’t end up with a winning result.
Three sentences, three half-truths. That is a score worth publicizing.–Joe]
It may be self incriminating to say that the next idiot I hear yammer about “common sense” gun control will get my ten-and-a-half up his backside. Minus the cartridge case, which I pulled out and left at the range. The kick in the pants is only a misdemeanor; the rimfire case in the boot is a felony.
Borepatch
Common Sense Gun Control
March 8, 2009
[H/T to Roberta X.
I am of the opinion that we should pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for there to be victimless crimes. Any politician or law enforcement officer who proposes or enforces such a law should be convicted of a felony, heavily fined, forbidden to ever receive any money derived from taxes, and loose their right to vote forever.
Several years ago I was traveling in California and looked up the laws in the local library (this was, essentially, pre-Internet). Among their “common sense” gun laws was a law against having a loaded gun in public. The definition of loaded was ammunition in contact with any part of the gun–regardless of whether it was the correct caliber for the gun. Hence you could have a .22 LR cartridge epoxied to the frame of your .45 caliber 1911 and it was considered “loaded” by the State of California.
One could make a case for the anti-gun people being incredibly stupid for things like this. But another argument could be made that they know exactly what they are doing. It makes firearm ownership so risky that people are discouraged from owning them. I call it Huffman’s Rule of Firearms Law.–Joe]
I’ve been involved in gun rights activism for over 15 years now and I know that I don’t know everything there is to know about the law, important court cases, and the history of gun control. It shouldn’t be a big surprise to me that others get things wrong but it is.
It wasn’t very long ago that I used to still hear people talk about the Brady Act which banned “assault weapons”. This is wrong. The Brady Act created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and a five day waiting period. The waiting period provision disappeared in November of 1998 when the “instant” system went online. It was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which banned certain common firearms because they (mostly) were a default color of black or looked ugly to some people (technically this isn’t correct but it has a very high correlation to how it came about).
Many other people believe all guns are registered with the state and/or Federal government. This is a very common misconception in the mainstream media.
Many people believe machine guns and/or suppressors (call “silencers” by most uninformed people) are illegal. This is false. I’ve had people approach me, all concerned, at Boomershoot to tell me “someone over there has a machine gun“. My response is some variant of, “And your point is?” They appear to be shocked that machine guns are legal and that ninjas won’t be dropping from black helicopters any second. Similar things happen when people bring suppressors to the event. And that is with people attending a shooting event. You would think they would be relatively well informed.
Still, as inured as I am to the state of affairs the number and magnitude of errors in this editorial shocked me:
Chicago outlawed guns in 1982, but residents challenged the law, saying that it violated their constitutional rights. In 2008, the Supreme Court passed a 5-4 ruling on the issue; Chicago’s law was found to be in violation of the second amendment.
Of course it was the D.C. ban, not Chicago’s, that was ruled unconstitutional in 2008.
According to a New York Times article, the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, limited the federal government’s power to regulate gun ownership.
Since the two rulings, Supreme Court judges have been debating whether these decisions should apply nationally, therefore overruling preexisting state and city laws.
There was only one case, Heller, not two that the Supreme Court has ruled on.
Would this ruling overturn all the safety restrictions about where people can carry guns and who can buy them?
Even the Brady Campaign does not believe this or fear monger a slippery slope to this sort of situation.
Guns are everywhere and it’s never the safe, smart people who respect and follow the laws that lose their minds and come barging into post offices or schools to shoot innocent people.
Uhh… duh! Guns are just as common as recreational drugs. Bans on products for which this is a market are never going to be very effective. And the second part of that sentence seems particularly pointless to me. What are they trying to say?
Why should we make it easier for them to carry guns in public? While the argument behind the supporting the second amendment is about preserving our rights, what about our right to safety?
The writer apparently has not done any research on the topic or would have been aware that safety is one of the biggest claims of the pro-gun people. And “right to safety”? While it is a fairly common misconception that there is some sort of “right” to safety to ask the question is just wrong on so many levels. It presumes two facts not in evidence: 1) There exists a “right to safety”; and 2) Gun restrictions enhance safety.
I have to give the writer credit for that last sentence. That was really a piece of work. Even the classic, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” only presumes one fact not in evidence.
Seriously? The guy with the bullet covered gun belt is clearly trying to compensate for being a complete loser in high school. And college (if he even went). And well, now.
Kimberly Johnson
March 4, 2010
Comment about a Brady Campaign Facebook picture.
[I would like to suggest Ms. Johnson do a little research on the topic before arriving at the conclusions she desired. Other people who have done so arrived at conclusions completely different from hers. If that is what she believes then Ms. Johnson is living in an alternate reality. Facts, it’s what the world is made of. Check it out Ms. Johnson.
It even more interesting that if you hover your mouse over the pictures you will be able to read the names and labels the Brady folks have given to the gun owners in the picture:
Way to be classy Brady Campaign people.
I think Mike’s comments from over 10 years ago in a different situation apply equally well here:
He uses the word “little” as a verbal bludgeon, as in his frequent repetition of the phrase “hypocritical little nitwit.”
The purpose of using the word that way is to belittle: literally, to make little. When someone is depicted as “little,” for a moment he might appear (to the flamer) to have become smaller and less threatening. When the flamer is hooked on such talk, it seems likely to me he has revealed that he’s afraid of something — and he has to make the thing that frightens him into a small, harmless, even ludicrous object. But it doesn’t work; he has to go on doing this kind of thing because he can’t stop being afraid. He’s doing it to you today; he’ll do it to another guy tomorrow. (Each time, he’ll think it is a victory for him; in fact it does nothing for him — he’s just a little slow to realize it
)
Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.
But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)
I have no doubt that some small percentage of “gun people” (those few who are outright fascistically-minded) “deserve” every bit of fear I had for them — then and now. But for crying out loud . . . what a stupid, prejudicial way to think about an entire group of people, with no distinctions made. It took some years to realize what a big lie there was in imagining myself enlightened and non-bigoted — all the while that I’d been thinking like a garden-variety bigot. That was one of the fun things about the ’60s and ’70s: You could fantasize that you were on a higher plane of consciousness than “those” people — and be every bit as bigoted and vicious as you thought they were. You didn’t have to hold yourself accountable, nor wonder if you weren’t being two-faced about it. By definition, as a more “enlightened” person, you didn’t have any of those problems. Only other people had such problems. It was all so convenient . . .
H/T Sebastian.–Joe]
Nice! Free gun training at Front Sight Training Institute for Starbucks employees:
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute is ranked among the best places in the world to receive firearms training and self defense training.
In support of Starbucks for not buckling to the hand-wringing gun-grabbers with the Brady campaign, Washington ceasefire and the million mom march, the Founder of Front Sight, Dr. Ignatius Piazza, has decided to award the employees at Starbucks a $2,000, four day defensive handgun course!
What can the Brady Campaign offer in return?
Gun owners have all the carrots. The Brady Campaign only has a stick.
Slightly off topic is that I have a similar deal (see the link in the right column?) that I need to take cash in on sometime. Any Starbucks employees or blog readers/writers want to attend the same class at the same time?
Sebastian (mostly) and I have been defending civil behavior toward those that disagree with us.
In contrast see how Brady Campaign people treat others when they ask to be left alone. Paul Helmke says Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate. That is being a jerk and doesn’t further your cause any. Just quietly avoid them and you will be viewed far better than picketing their stores.
There is a reason the Brady Campaign is doing this–they don’t have many options.
We have enough purchasing power that we can make a major impact on our friends and opponents. The Brady Campaign cannot. They are on a downward spiral into oblivion and they need a win soon in order to have relevancy. They invested a lot into this battle with Starbucks. They were very, very public with it and to have Starbucks tell them “please just leave us alone” is a huge blow to their egos and their status. It affects their influence with legislatures and it affects their income.
The best thing we can at this point is to quietly, unobtrusively, politely buy Starbucks products. Let the Brady Campaign throw their tantrum. Nearly everyone is going to recognize them for what they are. They are jerks no different than those that would insist no blacks, Jews, or mixed race couples be served.
So showing civility to the other side is something I do believe is part of being a good citizen, but I also think it’s a smart strategy for moving the issue forward as well. If upon finding someone is anti-gun your response is never to speak to them again, you’re missing out on an opportunity to break down preconceptions and prejudices. How do you all deal with anti-gunners in your lives?
Sebastian
March 6, 2010
Lots of Anti-Gun Folks In This World
[Another way to think of this is that you respond to their actions and what they say rather than their presence.
Think of carrot and stick. If they say or do something obnoxious you punish them (verbally or perhaps in the courts or legislature). If they do something right you praise them. I just don’t see the point in being in a constant state of anger and/or vindictiveness.
If you are constantly a jerk toward them they and others will find justification for treating you poorly in return.–Joe]
If you didn’t get a chance or weren’t interested enough to go buy a hardcopy version the online version of Boomershoot! – Fun with Two Forms of Internal Combustion is now available.
Allowing that public support could be partly defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. It is telling to note Violence Policy Center’s tax returns as far back as the year 2000 have reported $0 in membership dues.The bulk of their money has ALWAYS come from the Joyce Foundation.
one-eyed fat man
March 1, 2010
VPC, aka Brady, aka HCI, and Joyce Foundation
[Yup. Very, very telling.
See also Bitter’s grassroots post.–Joe]
In response to the QOTD;
Ah, but Mr. Coolidge, and the Republican Party leadership, apparently never understood the game. The assertion that building up the weak is the Left’s goal is one thing. Taking that assertion at face value is another. It’s the Big Mistake of the 20th century, and has resulted in perpetual confusion (to say nothing of the stagnation, decay and destruction around the world). The preponderance of the evidence regarding the Left’s goals points elsewhere. Their objective is statism for its own sake, and the tactic, stated openly in some circles time after time, is to bring down “The System” so it can be remade– “Redistributive Change” in Obama’s own words, and it’s been said in other ways throughout the generations.
Republicans, as they occupy themselves trying to understand and argue the details, the costs and so on, of the “healthcare” bills, are demonstrating their utter cluelessness (or is it their complicity?). “Why, this could end up funding abortions with taxpayer dollars, and that would be bad, and I’m not so sure we can afford this other bit over here…”
That’s not the point, Skippy. The point is, the whole thing is a massive power grab. What more do you need to know, for crying out loud?
Weigh down the economy with debt, entitlements and restrictions, then blame what remains of the private sector. Take advantage of the chaos and the public demands for an altogether new approach that they hope will ensue. They’re telling us every day; “Never let a crisis go to waste” is only part of it. The other part is their understanding that they can manufacture the crises. Chip, chip, chip, chip, and sooner or later even the hardest stone will crumble, after which (they believe) they can swoop in and take it all.
So far as I can tell, the Republicans have been playing along for decades. “Oh, but you’re crazy, Lyle. Look at the differences between Republicans and Democrats! Are you willfully blind, or what? Surely you must be mad! Look! Just look! LOOOOOOOOOK, MAN!”
Uh huh, and there’s a world of difference between that “good cop” and that “bad cop” too. The bad cop is a real, dangerously scary, out-of-control sonofabitch, but that good cop– why, he’s a sweetheart! Look at him! Just look! He brings you coffee and food and he talks nice. He doesn’t like that bad ol’, meany mean bad cop at all, either. No Sir, not at all. Such a nice fellow, and he really cares. He listens. He understands. He’s my advocate in this time of uncertainty. I want to work with him, by golly gosh oh gee. Yessiree. No doubt about it. Without him, that bad cop would have beat the living shit out of me by now, for sure. Man, am I lucky to have Good Cop! Wow! Thank God! This must be an angel sent from Heaven to deliver me from despair!
Right. Both cops are working to take you to the same place after they’re finished with your sorry, dumb ass.
OK; got that out of the system. Now I’m all ears.
Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Calvin Coolidge
[It seems simple and obvious but politicians frequently have problems with both simple and obvious when it runs contrary to their agenda.–Joe]
Peter Hamm is here. It’s cold out. Maybe I should be a nice guy and get the Brady folks some @starbucks.
Sebastian
March 2, 2010
A post on Twitter.
[That is very funny but just a little bit on the rude side given the current context of Starbucks. And to the best of my knowledge Sebastian did not follow through on this thought.
I know I’m very harsh with them on this blog but that would not extend to my personal interactions with them. My fight with them is over their advocation of anti-gun policies. Not with them personally. This is not to say I would invite them into my house (unless there were some sort of emergency that my failure to do so put them at risk of personal injury or extreme discomfort).–Joe]
Gene Porter, the inventor of “The Man” hot sauce used at Dixie’s BBQ, died Sunday.
The Seattle Times article tells a lot of the back story but it only vaguely hints at the Microsoft aspect with:
The restaurant crowd is often standing-room-only, and people have come from all over the world — CEOs from big companies on visits to the Eastside.
“The Eastside” refers to the east side of Lake Washington. The biggest company there is Microsoft. Dixie’s BBQ is so popular with Microsoft people that it is served in some of the cafeterias. The Gun Club at Microsoft put up signs along the order line at the restaurant indicating how much longer you had to wait before you would be able to order and receive your food.
It was nearly a rite of passage for new employees eat at Dixie’s. This morning I received an email from Kris, who I took to Dixie’s shortly after he arrived here from Australia, telling me of Mr. Porter’s death. I took my officemate Chandrika, from India, there. And I took son James there shortly after he went to work at MS.
Ry used to pick up fresh vegetables in Royal City (central Washington) on his way back from Idaho and give them to Mr. Porter.
And there is a story about Mr. Porter, a shotgun, and a ham that Ry or I could tell you sometime too.
He will be missed.
There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can’t be used. We don’t — we don’t resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?
Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States.
Justice Antonin Scalia
March 2, 2010
Regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments in OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., : Petitioners : v. : No. 08-1521 CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
[As expected, he uses a better example than I did yesterday when refuting Half-Truth Henigan’s claim that the Second Amendment is the most dangerous right.–Joe]
Brady Campaign Lawyer Dennis Henigan claims:
Of course, it is true that the exercise of free expression, for example, also can create a risk of violence or physical injury. If that risk becomes sufficiently great, the courts will deny the protection of the First Amendment altogether. But the core exercise of freedom of expression is unlikely to pose serious risks of physical harm, particularly lethal harm. The same cannot be said about the Second Amendment right.
…
It is unclear whether the high court will declare the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” as the other rights that have been applied to the states. But even if it does, it should confront the hard reality that this “fundamental” right is also the most dangerous right of all.
I agree that guns can be dangerous. But it is far from the most dangerous right. I would like Mr. Henigan to do the arithmetic on how many people have been murdered based on the following books:
And that is just off the top of my head with a couple seconds of thought. And when have U.S. courts denied protection of the First Amendment to these books? If “guns kill” then surely these books can be blamed for the deaths of approximately 100 million people just in the 20th Century.
If books “responsible” for the deaths of many millions can be afforded protection under the First Amendment the Second Amendment can surely afford protection for firearms in common use.
As is usual Henigan only tells half the story. The half he tells is true. But he wants you to overlook the ugly truth of how dangerous ideas and the free expression of them is. And it is an outright lie that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the most dangerous. In fact, had the murder victims of the governments built upon those last two books been armed the body count of the 20th Century would most likely have been much lower.
The “hard reality” is that the right to keep and bear arms protects us from those that exercise their First Amendment rights.
This is a different Brady than who I usually post about.
These are the good guys:
Special Attention Taxpaying Residents of Los Angeles, California
The Fifty Caliber Institute is working closely with the law firm of Michel & Associates, PC in the Los Angeles area to locate possible candidates who have suffered under the restrictive laws of the City of Los Angeles relating to firearm ownership and the possession or transfer of ammunition. If you meet the criteria established here, please take the time to make a phone call to one of these attorneys to see if we can start turning some of these egregious laws around.
J Sigler, President-FCI
Call to Action
NRA/CRPA Seek Plaintiffs to Challenge Los Angeles Bans on Sale of .50 Caliber Firearms and Ammunition
Discussions between NRA/CRPA attorneys Michel & Associates, P.C. and the City of Los Angeles, California, regarding repealing that city’s ban on the sale of .50 caliber (and larger) firearms and ammunition have reached an impasse. As a result, NRA/CRPA have no option left but to file suit to invalidate the ordinances.
“Ideal candidates” for the “.50+ Caliber Ban” would be homeowners/taxpayers in Los Angeles who legally own or possess a firearm (handgun or rifle) that uses (or can use) ammunition that is .50 caliber or larger; especially if you would like to have the option of selling, giving or transferring the firearm (or its ammunition) in any way.
An “ideal candidate” would also be a person who would like to purchase/receive such a firearm – especially good children who want to “inherit” such a firearm from a parent; or someone who is receiving one as a gift.
There is no charge or fee to any person who wishes to participate as a plaintiff.
If you or anyone you know fit the above description of an “ideal candidate”, please contact Sean Brady, Esq. of Michel & Associates, P.C. as follows:
Sean A. Brady, Esq.
Michel & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Direct dial number: 562- 216-4445
sbrady@michelandassociates.com
If you fit the description of the “ideal candidate” – please contact Sean Brady today!
She says she doesn’t want to think about the consequences if the gun registry disappears.
I see no evidence that she did any thinking up until now so I think the risk of her starting now is pretty low.