A Series of Unfortunate Decisions...

If you're a political activist and want to remain generally anonymous, one of the first things you should NOT do is act like a prick while linking to articles publishing the names and information of other political activists, only removing said link after being called out w/ your real name in (unpublished) comments.

Another thing you should NOT do is conduct television interviews using your pseudonym (especially a trademarked pseudonym) and post videos/photos of yourself during political activities. This can be optional unless you do the below.

Now Sebastian TBFKASIH believes we shouldn't 'out' someone unless they're using their various handles as sockpuppets to pretend there's more support for your cause than there really is.

Yeah, don't do that either:

Because then if someone happens to click on the name and see a profile picture of the exact same person pictured in said videos/photos they're likely going to do a little Googling, just to see what's up.

And when they find ANOTHER profile of you calling yourself a 'public figure' and admitting to both your real name and pseudonym under yet another picture of yourself, don't be surprised when we laugh at you for being, (how did you put it again?) "Sensitive" over having this information made a little more public.

After all of these unfortunate decisions are made, you have another one to make. You can either accept the fact that people know who you really are and avoid the 'Streisand Effect' or you can continue acting like a petulant child and try to escalate the hostilities. I wouldn't recommend the latter but it's your choice.

Sour Grapes

Ladd Everitt's a sad panda:

CSGV CSGV

.@komenforthecure handgun webpage up again w/ note about no more backorders b/c of "overwhelming popularity." bit.ly/w84Gh4 #komen

50 minutes ago

This is what it looks like when you're losing. But of course the CSGV et al would prefer women die from breast cancer than own a firearm.

Settlement W/ No Admission of Wrongdoing

Last week I accepted the challenge of the head of the NGVAC, Elliot Fineman. Well today I finally got a response. After some back and forth exchanges, I got this:

I guess your referring to what I copied from the website below. We do not say Hasan was on the Terrorist Watch List, we say what you had said was the case in your earlier email. Nonetheless, since you have taken the time to read the enormous amount of material on our website, we will send you the $25 as a thank you for having done so. Have a nice weekend and enjoy the Super Bowl.

So even though Hasan is used as an example on the page talking about people on the 'Terror Watch List' buying guns, they're not 'really' saying he was on the Terror Watch List.

That's OK. It's still a box of ammo and some Starbucks coffee courtesy of Mr. Fineman. Gotta love it.

Misogynists.

Weer'd takes a look at how anti-gun activists Joan Peterson and Abby Spangler prefer to have women die of breast cancer than own a firearm. You can also throw Ladd Everitt of the CSGV into that batch as well.

Classy bunch aren't they?

We can also take a look at Lori O'neill, Vice-Chairman of the NCGAV, (who also opposes breast cancer research if funded by firearms, even one's wrongly identified) again. On her FB page, she makes this comment regarding abortion:

It's pretty simple--you're either pro-choice or no-choice. I choose to trust women to make decisions about their health and lives without elected officials pressuring us to abandon each other so they can be re-elected by extremists who distrust women.

But when it comes to firearms, she's 'no choice'. When it comes to firearms, she DOESN'T trust women to make decisions about their health and lives w/o elected officials pressuring them to abandon eachother so they can be re-elected by anti-gun extremists (like her) who distrust women.

To be part of their ilk, you have to make the choices THEY choose for you and none other, in this case being anti-gun. Otherwise they don't give a cr@p what happens to you.

It's (Not) a 'GrassRoots Movement' Charlie Brown

Really it is. Let's take a look a Lori O'Neill, anti-gun activist from Ohio.

She served as president of the Cleveland chapter of MMM for two years and as vice president for two years.

Now she's the 'Vice Chairman' of the NGVAC, an astroturf group primarily made up of Brady board members.

She's also the 'spokesperson' for another 'group' that seems to only exist on Twitter called 'Gunsensus', of which David Codrea covered last year, which regularly makes up 'facts' .

In this op-ed, she claims to be a 'gun owner' looking to 'generate consensus' on gun laws. Yet she also opposes concealed carry and, one would guess through her connections to the Brady Campaign, 'assault weapons' along w/ supporting the full range of their 'reasonable, common-sense' measures, which comes across when she posts, especially in her attacks against Journalist Emily Miller during Ms. Miller's long journey to obtain a firearm in DC.

There is no 'grassroots' for gun control anymore. It's made up of a few die-hard fanatics and funded primarily by Bloomberg and the Joyce Foundation. These fanatics have proven to be nasty, foul individuals w/ no integrity, ethics or morals in their drive to restrict and ban firearms.

And these are their spokespersons.

@CSGV: No Shame, No Integrity, No Ethics

Sebastian TBFKASIH talks about the smear piece Ladd Everitt does on journalist Emily Miller because she dares complain about the fact it's taken her months to obtain a firearm in DC. Well Ladd and his supporters don't stop there, they also delve into criminal activity and mysoginism by using copyrighted photos from Oleg Volk (who has sent a cease and desist letter) and Ms. Miller apparently believing it's OK to break one law to push for another. A vehement anti-gun activist and CSGV supporter going by the handle @gunsensus says this about Ms. Miller having a photo taken w/ guns:

@SebastianSH @CSGV @EmilyMiller No, posing with guns like an amateur centerfold is juvenile for editor of a newspaper. #credibilitylost.

Yeah, she's just askin' for it. What an enlightened view of women. I'm sure the anti-gun lobby is proud to have criminals and misogynists in their midst.

Kenneth Quinnell's a Genius, Just Ask Him:UPDATE

Anti-gun activist puts up a list of ad hominems, character attacks and strawmen on how repetitive pro-rights activists are. Just to prove how right he is, he doesn't approve any comments. Here's one from reader LeagleEagle45 (long):

UPDATE: Well after several days, he finally got around to approving comments. Now we get to see if he bothers responding to the unwashed masses.

Kenneth Quinnell writes: “Fictional constitutional rights: One should never accuse any pro-gun person making a constitutional argument of being a constitutional scholar. ” Lets give it a whirl, OK? Kenneth Quinnell writes: “The text of the Second Amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Almost every pro-gun person leaves out the militia clause, which is there. I don’t, so let's continue. Kenneth Quinnell writes: “Almost every pro-gun person ignores the words “well regulated,” which explicitly authorize gun control. ” Mr. Quinnel, although this argument is frequently made by persons with little knowledge of the subject matter or used as an unstated argument by those who know better (letting the uniformed reader assume something that is untrue to obtain their agreement based upon a misconception), your assertion is incorrect. First, the term “well regulated” is an adjective which describes a certain type of militia. You seem to wish to read it as a “well regulated right of the people”, rather than as “a well regulated militia”. Secondly, the terminology describes something (in this case a militia) one which functions properly or efficiently. The term originated with the adjustments made to a pendulum clock. The action of turning the screw to adjust the length of the pendulum was known as “regulating” (some pendulum clocks to this day are called “regulators”). When a clock was properly adjusted so it kept the correct time, it was termed “well regulated”. The adjective quickly spread to describe anything that was functioning properly and is still used today in connection with not only pendulem clocks but also digestive systems… you eat bran and fiber to become well regulated. This is really not an issue amongst scholars of the 2nd Amend, regardless of which side of the argument you are on, as an amicus brief by Linguists and English Professors in support of the District of Columbia in the Heller case clearly demonstrates. See, Amicus Brief of “Professors of Linguistics and English, Dennis E. Baron, Ph.D. Richard W. Bailey, Ph.D. and Jeffrey P. Kaplan, Ph.D. In Support of Petitioners”, DC v Heller. See also, Hamilton’s Federalist #29 which states: “[T]he degree of perfection” through regular “military exercises that militia members had to achieve before they could earn “the character of a well regulated militia.” ” A contemporary usage as contained in the Journals of the Continental Congress: “That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.” Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1788. ” You do not really think that the Continental Congress thought that Creek Indians had better laws regulating their warriors than did the Wabash Indians, do you? What “a well regulated militia” describes is a military body composed of ordinary citizens that is an effective and efficient fighting force. Now let us substitute our respective definitions into the 2nd Amend: Your version: “A militia which has good gun control laws, being necessary to the security of a free state…” My version: A military body composed of ordinary citizens that is an effective and efficient fighting force, being necessary to the security of a free state…” I do not know about you, but I would rather be defended by the latter rather than the former. Kenneth Quinnell writes: ” Almost every pro-gun person adds the word individual to this text, despite it not being in there. There is no right here to kill anyone.” The 2nd Amendment protects a preexisting individual right. to have arms for self defense and for all other lawful uses. The core of that right is self defense and if that involves “killing someone” with the protected arm, so be it. See, William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765)Book the First : The Rights of Persons, Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals at 125. By protecting this individual right, the 2nd preserves the capacity of the state to form a well regulated militia from the ranks of its citizens regardless of anything the federal government might do, whether it be a failure to adequately provide for arms for the militia through benign negligence, or whether the federal government decides to extinguish the militia totally, for whatever reason. It provides an unassailable armory from which the well regulated militia can be resurrected and armed in the event of an emergency. Kenneth Quinnell writes: “There is no right here to use guns against the government.” There is no right contained in the 2nd Amend to use guns against lawful governmental authority. There is a right in the 2nd to use arms against governmental usurpations of power. See, Madison’s Federalist #46. Thus, for example, the use of arms to put down a military coup. This is what Blackstone referred to when he described the preexisting right as protecting and preserving a fundamental right of “resistance” (to prevent governmental usurpation) and “self preservation” (self defense). Kenneth Quinnell writes: “There is no right here for anything beyond the right of the collective “people” to bear arms as part of a militia.” All nine members of the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amend protects an individual right and not a collective right. Your argument has been consigned to the ash bin of history, and for good reason…. From the dissent of Breyer in DC v Heller: “I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).” Id. at page 3 of the slip opinion. Kenneth Quinnell writes: “The Supreme Court changed this interpretation way back in 2008. Because Republican appointees who were activist judges decided that was what it meant. The decision wasn’t based on precedent or constitutional text.” Incorrect. Perhaps you may wish to cite prior cases decided by The Supreme Court which support your position? Since there is only one case in which the meaning of the 2nd Amend was actually litigated and thus necessarily decided the issue so as to have precedential impact, you must be relying upon United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). I suggest you read that case again and then read the case upon which Miller relies, to wit: Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154.

But that's all just 're-inventing the wheel' according to self professed expert on everything Kenneth Quinnell so he won't even bother putting the comment up.

Or maybe he's just a narcissistic elitist w/ a nice yellow streak when it comes to an honest debate.

A Plethora of News Items

ATF 'Fast & Furious' has ties to Joyce Foundation

Joyce Foundation funded 'Media Matters' continues to act as apologists for criminal actions by BATFE in the name of 'gun control'.

MAIG/Bloomberg/Joyce spending big bucks for antigun ad during Superbowl .

Ladd Everitt hates Emily Miller. No comments allowed at this coward's site.

Tunnel Vision or Mental Illness?

Anti-logic: Even when an Anti admits that NICS violations are rarely, if ever, prosecuted and that there is a coordinated effort to shut down as many FFL's as possible through litigation and legislation. Yet the response: " I support a regulated professional industry over private gun sale anarchy." IOW, all firearm sales through licensed FFL's.

So more 'regulation' that does no good whatsoever. There is no reasoning w/ a mentality like this.

THAT Explains It....

Wondering what has happened to the professionalism once present in the Brady Campaign? Why they explain it themselves:

"You can't run an important agency or any agency with just an acting head," he said. "It makes it hard to launch special projects and crime-fighting initiatives and get support from agents to carry them out. I'm a former mayor, and if we'd had an acting police chief, things would have spiraled out of control." -Paul Helmke. Former President of the Brady Campaign

Former ATF directors/agents refer to an agency w/ an acting director as 'leaderless' and its 'ability...significantly curtailed..'

"Fast and Furious is what happens when you don't have a strong director," (Dennis Henigan) said.

Dennis Henigan is the ACTING director of the Brady Campaign. This is the result.

*POOF!!*

And the graphic on the side of the NGVAC's Starbucks boycott page showing the number of attendees has vanished.

What it looked like yesterday morning.

This is what you do when you're losing.

More at TBFKASIH

They Just Keep Getting Funnier

What do you do w/ an Anti (Kenneth Quinell, gun bigot extraordinaire) who's irony meter is completely broken? Just laugh:

Ad hominem attacks: This is common with all right-wing argumentation, but is particularly common with gun proponents.

What can you say to someone that is so blinded by ideology that they don't even recognize they're contradicting themselves in the very same sentence as he tries to dehumanize firearm owners?

I tried once but he's so ensconced in his personal ivory tower admiring his own alleged intellect that he can't see it was built w/o straw.

This is why they still believe they're winning.