« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »

July 30, 2008

Gun Rights My Ass

The AP via the Houston Chronicle: After court ruling, towns rush to repeal gun bans

In 1981, this quiet northern Chicago suburb made history by becoming the first municipality in the nation to ban the possession of handguns.

Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that affirmed homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense.


I don't normally say this, but what the hell: this is good news. I count it as an objective and substantive reduction in state power. Sure, the reason why the law was repealed is rotten - the Supremes' opinions do not cosmically determine Right and Wrong - but I'm glad the illegitimate authorities of one more block of land on this planet have backed down in one of their pursuits.
The village still bans the sale of guns.

Ohgawddamnit.

No matter what news I read, there is always something in it to trip my rage nerve.

"There hasn't been any pressure" to keep the ban, [Mayor Richard] Krier said, noting that the village's ordinance has been under scrutiny since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Washington case. He also pointed out that the mostly residential village has never had a big problem with gun crime.

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK, MAN?!

I cannot think of any more apt description to encapsulate the above except for primitive ignorance.

*grunt* Gun.
*grunt* AIIIIEEEE!!
*grunt* Huh?
*grunt* Gun dangerous!
*grunt* Danger?
*grunt* It kills!
*grunt* Kill bad.
*grunt* Push it away! No want here!
*grunt* Scaaaary gun.

Gun rights advocates hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense.

This was a bittersweet birthday present, one that keeps on giving.

Gun rights advocates are just as deluded as the morons in control of Morton Grove. The court did no such thing. If it did, every single federal, state, and local law in the United States that imposes any restrictions or controls on the production, distribution, sale, purchase, ownership, storage, and use of firearms would be unconstitutional and immediately abolished by anyone in a seat of power with a clear mind and shred of honesty.

But this did not happen. Oh, no, this did not happen at all.

"We have no plans to amend our ordinance at this time," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for Chicago's law department, noting that the ordinance has survived three previous court challenges. "We're prepared to take this fight to the Supreme Court if necessary."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said last month that his city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.

Even Washington, D.C., has remained defiant, quickly enacting gun regulations that advocates say are still among the strictest in the country.


Had the court actually ruled in favor of an individual right, this shit wouldn't be happening. For the vast majority of the nation, we must still get state permission to buy, own, and carry firearms. That isn't a right! That's a privilege! The 2nd Amendment was functionally invalidated decades ago. The court decision is a salve to the edge of a very open wound.
"Others want to spend taxpayer money on some Don Quixote-type quest," [Todd Vandermyde, an NRA lobbyist in Illinois] said, referring to Chicago, whose lawyers insist the city's ban will withstand any legal challenges.

You hypocritical ass. Like you'd be saying the same thing when, once the Supremes' membership changes, this "interpretation" of the 2nd is reversed and it's once again totally cool with the judiciary for governments to make it impossible to own guns or ban them outright. Oh no, you'd be right up there in front demanding Your Elected Representatives to direct their Attorneys General to defend their now-antiquated pro-gun stance with taxpayer money. Barrels of it.

Fuck you, Todd.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was disappointed to see communities' gun bans disappear because of financial concerns.

"The pressure that Morton Grove is feeling is because the NRA and the gun-lobby lawyers are pushing these issues, basically forcing them to make a decision on where to spend their money," Helmke said.

© 2008 The Associated Press
Copyright © 2008 The Houston Chronicle


And while I'm issuing condemnations, here's a double-fuck-you to Helmke. Not only is he a restrictionist tyrant, but he's reaching for anything - anything - he can use to substitute for an argument.

"Their money" indeed. Not one mention of private property anywhere. That idea was popularly rejected long before the 2nd.

July 23, 2008

Spammy Spam with a Side of Crap

Back in the Olde Tymes, I enjoyed posting some of the weirder spam one of my e-mail addresses collected:


It has been somewhat quiet on the unsolicited bulk e-mailing front. Not in any sense pertaining to levels of activity. Lawd no. Yahoo and Google are working 24/7 to keep that garbage at bay. No, I've just not seen a message that grabbed my attention in some (usually depressingly) spectacular fashion.

But I've got two new ones now!

From: "Ferral" deam_1962@gulfpackaging.com
To: Drizzten
Subject: God Destroys Boise For Not Being Gay Enough
Whoa! Now this is something that definitely slipped underneath my radar! Please, tell me more.
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:50:54 +0900

Bush 'Troubled' by Gay Marriages. Declares San Francisco Part of 'Axis of Evil'
http://sugar-dreams.it/viewmovie.html


Aw, gawddamn it! This could have been so much better. A shitty photoshopped image of a ravenous totally heterosexual president leering over the Bay Area menacing its inhabitants with the Army and Navy would have really spiced things up. Ya can't just throw out random shit, man! The subject should connect with the content of the body. Maybe insinuate Boise's mayor is really the crossdressing lesbian transsexual boyfriend of Gavin Newsom? Something to do with potato bestiality?

C'mon, be creative!

6 / 10
Points for trying, but ultimately a failure for lack of cohesiveness.

From: "Susumu" Susumu-koolvis@gscomm.com
To: Drizzten
Subject: Nigger slang derails McCain's campaign
WHOA!!! *speedclick*
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:36:20 +0200

New cheaper drugs in store for HIV patients http://gotharestaurant.it/start.html


Oh, gawddamnit. You bastard, you can't whip that kind of stuff out and let me down so quickly. You're worse than a skamp running around 6th Street with 90% of her boobs hanging out. At least with them you get a glimpse at the larger package. This, on the other hand, is pure wrapper around hot air.

*delete*

July 18, 2008

The Half-Grand Question

Damn it, damn it, damn it.

To get my trusty TDI Golf back up to roadtripping spec, I'm dropping over $500 on it today. That's not exactly money I have sittin' around, but if it was, I'd soooo much rather spend it on something cool and unique.

Like this.

I've read this sucker's availability is one of those once-every-few-years sorta things.

"Bargain" 70-79% of original condition. Shows more than average wear. May have dents, dings and a goodly amount of brassing and finish loss. Glass may have marks that should not affect picture quality.
$665.00 Look at the history behind that lens! When talking about wide-angle glass, every additional milimeter of focal length makes a difference.

Gawddamn it.

July 17, 2008

When Contributions, Aren't

The AP: McCain gets Social Security but criticizes system

People are not required to take Social Security payments, according to B.J. Jarrett, a spokesman with the Social Security Administration.

"An individual does have the right to refuse his/her Social Security retirement benefit. However, Social Security is an entitlement program and an individual would essentially be forfeiting a benefit based upon contributions during his/her working lifetime," Jarrett said.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


In March, I received a letter from some prick named Michael J. Astrue. He claimed to be the Commissar Commissioner of Social Security and in charge of part of my retirement. Without batting a metaphorical eye, he provides the documentation to show how much my productive output has been leeched.

Since 1996, the feds have threatened law enforcement violence my employers and I unless we paid them some arbitrary percentage of my income. Not counting 2007, their coercion has netted them over $14,000.

Ideally, I'd get all that back, with interest. Not involuntary participation in some scheme that, while it's a "compact between generations," I have to be aware that "the law governing benefits may change."

Yeah.

I'll tell you right now, I'm willing to forget that small fortune was ever stolen from me via administrative proxy. Keep it. Probably reeks of bureaucrat.

But in exchange, I want you motherfuckers to leave me alone. I want nothing to do with your "program." You do not have my consent. Refrain from harassing my employers. I don't trust you. Cancel my account. You're fired on general principles.

And by the way, stop calling these microrobberies "contributions." It's insulting to those remaining Americans who can think clearly.

July 09, 2008

Social Security Is a Disgrace

But not for the outraged reasons here.

McCain isn't about to stop the systemic, unjust, coerced transfer of wealth from the young to the old. But it is nice to hear someone accidentally imply they're against it.

July 03, 2008

Copblocking

July 4 "No Refusal" weekend for DWI blood tests

1. Cops will set up roadblocks to check for DWI.
2. Cops will determine "probable cause" to order a breath sample.
3. If refused, the cops will get a warrant for the blood sample.
4. The government now has the right to take your blood by force, without permission.
5. If you resist, the cops will be justified in escalating the situation with further force.

This, of course, goes straight against the grain of "innocent until proven guilty." But that standard has been violated as a matter of routine policy for so long it takes blatant offenses against it to rouse any significant degree of public awareness.

For further insult, check out this:

"Wes, I have a search warrant program that is going great. Had one judge who was reluctant to participate. Just happened to be a justice of the peace. So I just told him great, we will just let the county judge be the person who participates in this important program to keep drunk drivers off the road and you can explain to the constituents at the next election why you don't have time to help. He came around. In any event, if an officer presents a warrant to a judge whether he wants it or not, what's he gonna do? It's his job. Make him do it even if he doesn't want to."

My emphasis.

Public pressure against a perfectly legitimate concern (drunken driving) is all the justification these people need to trample your rights.