CSGV has initiated a vicious and mean spirited attack against Emily Miller of the Washington Times. Just when I think the cretins at CSGV can’t possibly stoop any lower, I am proved wrong. Their string of vile and unprofessional behavior just continues to get worse. My guess is that what Emily did to upset them so much, is to be very effective in her testimony in front of DC City Council:
No, CSGV does not like having an attractive, educated and independent woman standing up to them and demanding the District of Columbia respect her and her rights. I have to wonder if half their anger is over gun owners not living up to the prejudices and stereotypes they have in their minds about the kind of people we are.
You see, they are supposed to be up against the kind of stereotype CSGV featured in their video. They can laugh, poke fun, and pass it around, safe in the smug satisfaction they obtain believing they are better and smarter than we are. They can remain safe in the notion that the right of those kinds of people don’t matter, and those folks are being done a favor, regardless, by limiting their access to objects that they are too incompetent to use without hurting themselves or others. But that’s not the case is it? Not with Emily, and not with the vast majority of the dedicated activists who have pounded CSGV’s political and cultural influence into the fatuous pagent of irrelevance that CSGV now parades in front of the public on a daily basis.
The 5 stages of grief in the Kubler-Ross model are worth mentioning, because I think it can be applied to watching their anti-gun movement slowly die on front of them. The Brady Campaign is still in denial. CSGV has clearly moved on to anger. The next step is bargaining, but there will be no bargaining; we are dedicated to their political extinction, and there will be no bargain. My advice to them is to quickly drink their way through depression, and get to acceptance as quickly as possible.
This is in the same vein as a comment I made over at Joe Huffman’s blog (blog.joehuffman.org sorry I don’t know how to make that linkable). His resident troll backed up my theory. They, through denial or whatever, have the stereotype or caricature so ingrained in their beliefs that they CANNOT deal with real opponents. Whenever they get the chance, they go directly into arguing with their imaginary opponent, and thus, their arguments make zero sense. The people that they think they are arguing with only exist in their own minds, and their arguments don’t translate into the real world.
Like when Ladd accused me of ‘running through the woods shooting cutouts of Obama’. He NEEDS to believe those kinds of things and to make his supporters believe them as well. It hurts them to have their opponents viewed as equals or even human.
After dialoging with Joan Peterson ( I know i know, like talking to a mule, lots of noise, no result.)
I agree that the Brady et al cannot slide into oblivion fast enough. The most annoying bit is their caricatures of us as wackos, (as you point out above) grrrrrr!
Also, what the smurf Ladd? You complain constantly that background checks are not rigorous enough then castigate Emily for not trusting background checks? Hypocrite Much Mr. Eaveritt? AND ANOTHER THING!! Why no comments? Afraid of what we will say?
What takes the cake for me is at the end when Ladd says since only 2,115 guns have been registered that means DC residents don’t really want guns, so we don’t have to make it easier. Huh? The whole point of the hearing is that DC requirements are prohibitively onerous, which that low number proves (compare that to similar urban demographics). I like to say the phrase: We have Dick Heller, they have Joseph Heller- since they love Catch-22 logic.
No, Ladd has no shame. I could go on but why bother with someone of his ilk.
Thank you so much for defending me! I thought that was a low-blow by that group. Clearly they weren’t going to debate on facts and substance. I appreciate your support! I won’t let hate and ignorance stand in my way of fighting for my second amendment rights. -Emily
Ms. Miller,
This is just par for the course for that group including publishing personal information to intimidate, libel, etc.
Hopefully Ms. Emily will remind them that you don’t mess with someone who buys ink by the truckload!!
They are lower than whale crap at the bottom of the sea.
Emily…. You are a hero and patriot! (I hope you see this)
As you pointed out, mandated training is solely meant to prevent minorities and the poor from having legal guns. Its outrageous what DC is putting people through, especially since you have paid more money to buy a gun for your home than the majority of states charge to carry.
Mendleson’s idiotic statement about the market not being there for guns is significantly detached from reality in the rest of the US. Of course, there is no market. How often do DC residents encounter a neighbor with a gun? Word of mouth is how gun ownership spreads. Tom sees John with a gun and he decides to get one.
Here in Georgia, the number of people licensed to carry ($70 for 5 years – no mandated training) has exploded by 84% in 2 years as a result of making gun carrying easier and allowing it in more places.
If you are looking for ideas for future articles, these links may give you some ideas:
Impact of Crime After Gun Law Changes – DC’s ban is in this one:
http://georgiacarry.com/research/GCO-Guns_Good_Bans_Bad.pdf
History of DC’s Gun Control Laws. This was GeorgiaCarry.Org’s brief in the Heller Case
http://www.georgiacarry.com/Heller/07-290bsacGeorgiaCarry.pdf
You should apply for a Arizona Carry License. You already have the training requirement and all you need is $60. That way you could carry in VA and elsewhere.
Keep up the good fight. And please know that we are behind you.
Thank you for fighting for Liberty!
“Mendleson’s idiotic statement about the market not being there for guns is significantly detached from reality in the rest of the US.”
Quite right. And if he really thinks there is no demand or market, then his argument still falls down since the laws he defends would be entirely pointless if nobody wanted a to buy a gun.
Heck, as far as I know Missouri has the most expensive CCW license (much mitigated by it accepting one from any other state even if you’re a resident), and it only requires one 8 hour class that’s otherwise not onerous, $100 for the initial application and then $50 every three years. Plus fees for a new driver’s license or a “non-driver’s license” (seriously, that what they call it) and in a recent improvement you can get one for CCW purposes for $5.50 that expires with your license.
And that’s of course just to carry concealed with a license most other states respect. Ownership, no problem, after they not long ago removed the KKK requirement to get your Sheriff’s approval if you buy a handgun from a FFL.
Anyway, I too salute your bringing to light what D.C. is doing or should I say refusing to do….
Emily, welcome!
Your public exposure of your personal gun experience in Washington D.C. is extremely helpful to the cause of gun rights. Thank you!
Every step of the way the Washington D.C. city government has fought tooth and nail against any easing of the handgun ban. They could have given up before the Supreme Court heard the case, but they so wanted to keep the ban they didn’t care if they risked a loss with nationwide repercussions, they were that fanatical. Even after they lost in the U.S. Supreme Court they still tried to put every possible legal obstacle they could think of to continue the barrier to gun ownership in the city. Hence your own nightmarish experience with your good faith effort to comply with the current gun laws of the city.
But your stories have shed a brilliant light on their ugly tactics.
So when Mendolson challenged your testimony, it was nothing more than a rear-guard skirmish and continuation of the effort to restrict gun rights in the city. You must be a considerable threat to their position for them to even make the small concessions they are now considering. I can only imagine your newspaper column is bolstering the current litigation against the city’s gun laws, and the city hopes to minimize the chance of losing again by making a preemptive yet small change in the law. It’s something they have done before.
Keep up the good work.
In their smear campaign, they also have no problem stealing not one, but two copyrighted images for their article:
http://antitango.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/all-for-me-none-for-thee/
Meh. I’m anti-copyright anyway (they arose as a means for government to restrict what could and couldn’t be published), and for that matter, the photos may be potentially fair use–although I can never be sure, because fair use is such a murky thing anyway.
To me, the take-down notices issued by Oleg Volk is an attempt to squelsh the speech of these slimeballs–although the take-down notice probably will only affect the pictures, and come to think about it, the pictures of average people holding guns themselves are probably harmful to their message of “look at these evil monsters–they’ll gun you down as soon as look for you!” Thus, I’m inclined to say, let them steal the pictures. Next thing you’ll know, they’ll be stealing Mr. Volk’s Holocaust posters!
At most, I suspect that they are hypocrites: I suspect that if we copied any of their work, they’d probably cry “pirates” loudly and clearly. It is also an action I’d expect from them, because they’ve already demonstrated that they dislike the 1st Amendment about as much as they dislike the 2nd.
Oleg is entitled to be paid for his work, the fair use argument is not valid.
I’d agree with Oleg challenging them. Hell, I’d even agree with suing them over it to make them spend money they don’t have. But it’s arguably fair use, in the way they’ve used it.
Well, go ahead and make the argument then. I’ll start out by disagreeing that it’s fair use (they aren’t printing it to comment on the photo itself, just using it a as a photo illustration of their own piece), but who know? You might convince me to change my mind!
I used to believe that we’re entitled to be compensated for our work, too, but the more I’ve looked into patents, and then copyright, the more opposed I’ve grown to it. The turning point for patents was learning about the evils of software patents; for copyright was Steven Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property”, where a “natural law” case is made against patents and copyrights.
“Against Intellectual Monopoly” by Boldrin and Levine make a good economic case against IP.
Strictly speaking, I don’t mind CSVC being legally harassed, although I wouldn’t endorse this particular method–it makes me feel icky inside–and certainly, they’ve gone beyond the call of duty to demonstrate that they deserve it!
So, he’s speculating that there is no market for firearm ownership, and that’s why he won’t consider changing the law? Reasoned discourse! (insert Robb Allen graphic here)
They are so out of step with reality. Honestly, I think the more exposure that they get, the better. The general public will get to see more of their ridiculous statements and realize they aren’t out there to help, but to control. They condescend and make fun of people for living their lives and wanting to be safe. Well, why would someone want to walk their dog at 1:00 in the morning? Gee, I don’t know. People live their lives on different schedules and a law-abiding citizen should be able to do what the heck they want at 1:00 in the morning. If a criminal thinks otherwise, then law-abiding citizen should be able to have the ability to defend themselves.
Be cautious Emily, these people not only have no shame but they have no ethics, no morals and no boundaries.