February 2012 – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Starbucks and the Opposition

Thirdpower’s Starbucks Appreciation today was paid for by a surprising source. And he still had some money left over for some ammo. I have verified the check is authentic.Â I’ve known Thirdpower is a trustworthy source, but the idea that they’d actually cut him a check was so ridiculous, I just had a hard time believing it. I wanted to be sure it wasn’t an off color joke.Â It’s not a joke.

This has me thinking that the proprietor of National Gun Victims Action Council is crazier than a shithouse rat.Â I really do kind of feel bad for the guy. It’s difficult for a parent to get over losing their kid.

UPDATE: It is my understanding that I was mistaken about the incident described previously. His son was murdered in San Diego by a mentally deranged man.

Brady Denying the Boycotters?

It’s a shame Peter Hamm is no longer with the Brady folks, because I could totally make a great joke here, but several people have informed me of the fact that the Brady folks are denying the boycott. This is perhaps an indication that Dan Gross is bringing some semblance of sensibility back to the Brady organization. Brady would now, at least, seem to know a lost cause when they see one.

In the mean time, the Brady discontents who have spun off into NGVAC are sadly reduced to begging celebritiesÂ for a retweet, and failing that even begging their own friends for some Twitter love, only to encounter crickets.

If they weren’t attempting to shred the Bill of Rights, I’d really feel sorry for them. I honestly question the mental stability of the proprietor of NGVAC, given the behavior today. I know when I’ve been beaten, and hope in that instance I’d have more grace and dignity than has been displayed today by some of our opponents.

For those not keeping track of Facebook, the event has passed 24,000 and is closing on 25,000. If you haven’t been to Starbucks today, it’s not too late!

UPDATE: When will the Coffee lobby come clean about their sales figures!

The Justification For Toys

There are a few toys that are on my “maybe I should get, but can’t quite justify the cost” list. The first is the graphic attached to this post. It’s a 1 watt laser that can do cool shit like light fires and cut through plastic. I could perhaps justify it as an important survival implement, since after all, being able to start fires is an important survival skill. Plus, it can double as a pretty good signal beacon. But the real justification? “A 1W handheld laser that can start fires? I just need to have it!”

In that same space, I’ve been watching my friend Jason run off a couple of un-papered firearms on his CNC mill (more posts to come there later tonight or tomorrow) and I’m thinking I could stand to have a few of these myself. I can’t exactly get him to run one off for me, because you get questionably legal when you’re not just making them for yourself, and I also would like the machining experience. So I’m looking at mills like this one. A hefty price tag for a toy, and I don’t really have the space for one in this house. I’d have to get my dad to play along and let me use his basement to house the mill. Fortunately, my dad moved back Pennsylvania, which conveniently eliminates one legal obstacle to being able to mill myself an AR lower in his basement.

Alas, I can’t justify spending that kind of money for a couple of guns. I’d have to have some other use for it. Jason uses his mill for other things. Maybe I need to follow Mr. C’s lead and come up with some kind of nifty gun accessory to turn out on a mill to justify the cost of buying and maintaining one of these things.

Interesting Fact from the Lucky Gunner Shoot

I had no idea that we had a TV star among us at last May’s Lucky Gunner machine gun shoot. That’s probably because I vaguely recognize that “The Bachelor” is some kind of TV show, and even if they had told me that the girl over there was “Kacie B,” my response would have been “Oh… Well, Kacie is a nice name.” I guess if you’re a TV celebrity, hanging around geeks like me is probably the safest way to escape your celebrity status. This is what I get for not having Cable, I guess, or even a good antenna.

UPDATE: I am informed that Kacie B. is a current and active contestant on “The Bachelor.” Goes to show you how much attention I pay to TV :)

Boycott Fail

The media is started to pick up on the utter failure of the anti-gun Boycott of Starbucks, with articles appearing in the Hawaii Reporter and Loudoun Times about our BUYcott. What I find very telling here is this:

That article hasn’t been up that long and it already has close to 20,000 likes. The numbers don’t lie. The anti-gun Boycott has accomplished nothing but driving more sales to Starbucks then they otherwise would have had. For those not following along on Twitter, I can report to you that the other side is becoming positively unhinged, prompting one person to win the Internets:

In the mean time, our opponents are resorting to the only argument they have left:Â dick jokes. More of the same over at Joe’s.

Double Standards

Weer’d has discovered one of our opponents in the Gun Control movement is into swordsmanship. A perfectly fine hobby, as far as I’m concerned, but Weer’d notes:

Donâ€™t see a lot of swords around these days. One reason is many places restrict the carry of them. Another big reason is theyâ€™re really good for only one thing, killing. Back in the day swords in a similar design to his were issued to ARMIES!

Worth noting that the entirely of the Western world, and a good part of the Eastern world, was largely conquered with this:

This was the most sophisticated killing machine known to man up until he dawn of the gunpowder age. It is as much meant to kill as any firearm, and it is unambiguously a weapon of war. I find it amazing that an advocate of gun control, who practices swordsmanship, can’t understand why people who practice another martial art, shooting, get a little upset when you demean them, ridicule them, and try to limit their access and freedom to exercise their chosen hobby.

Federal Lawsuit Over Philly Open Carry Incident

The federal complaint can be found here. The media story about the lawsuit is here. I’ve read over the complaint. In addition to suing over the February 2011 incident last year, he’s also suing over two prior incidents with the Philadelphia police. He’s suing up the chain of command to reach Ramsey, the Philadelphia Police Commissioner. Section 1983 doesn’t just allow you to sue the individual officers, you can sue all the way up the chain to anyone responsible for overseeing and training officers. The agents of the PPD are being sued in their individual capacities, which means the plaintiff here needs to overcome qualified immunity. If successful, he will be able to recover damages. This is looking like it’ll be an easy case here:

60. During discussions with PPD Internal Affairs Sergeant Maria Cianfrani (BadgeÂ #8704), which occurred after Mr. Fiorino filed a written complaint with Internal Affairs relating to the Second Incident, Sergeant Cianfrani specifically stated to Mr. Fiorino that what happened to him with regard to the First and Second Incidents was â€œoutright illegal.â€

61. Sergeant Cianfrani also admitted to Mr. Fiorino that the Policy was illegal, and admitted that the officers involved in the First and Second Incidents were following the Policy when they detained Mr. Fiorino and when they confiscated his firearm, magazines and ammunition.

Even better:

Furthermore, in a May 18, 2011 radio interview with Michael Smerconish, which aired live on 1210 AM WPHT Philadelphia, Commissioner Ramsey admitted that at the time of the three aforementioned incidents, PPD officers were not aware that open carry was legal with a valid LTCF and that training on the issue was necessary and would be given to all officers.

The lawsuit asks the court to enjoin the city from confiscating firearms unless a crime is committed, and unless it’s necessary for an investigation. It would be a huge victory for everyone if such an injunction is forthcoming from the court. It also asks for damages and attorneys fees from each of the defendants. The complaint is rooted in the 4th Amendment rather than the 2nd. That’s a good thing here. His 4th Amendment rights are what was violated.

A Little Starbucks Appreciation

Bitter I went today. I was going to post my receipt, but I forgot to ask for one. Oops. Either way, we pumped 15 dollars into the Starbucks economy today. If Facebook is to be believed, there will be around 23,000 people that will join me.

Feel free to post a link or picture of your appreciation today, and don’t forget to let Starbucks Corporate know that you appreciate them staying out of the great gun debate. I’d also like to note that while the red velvet whoopee pies are good, they are no substitute for the full size red velvet cupcake, which I miss.

Crime Control Theater

Those of us who follow the debate over various gun controls understand the concept of “crime control theater,” though it’s something we usually talk about in regards to security measures that are actually quite worthless. I’m thinking about the subject because I just stumbled across this paper abstract on AMBER alerts that find they are actually not terribly successful.

Why am I looking up AMBER alerts? Well, because a girl from my high school class recently had her 17-month-old daughter taken by child’s biological father. Because she was not abducted by a stranger and has no medical conditions that put her in immediate danger, the child’s disappearance can’t be reported via AMBER alert. It also doesn’t seem to be getting any media attention, though that may be due to law enforcement procedures.

I feel terrible for the mother. There’s really not much she can do, but she is using social media to try and spread the photos of her daughter, her ex, and the last car he was known to be driving. A quick search indicates that the father was recently indicted in Texas on theft charges, so it’s questionable what his return plans are now that there’s a new warrant for failure to return in Oklahoma.

This is the ultimate type of case where there really isn’t much that can be done by the victims, so I understand where the support for some type of “crime control theater” comes from. Is it smart policy to do something that makes the victims feel good even if it doesn’t have a direct impact on the resolution of the crime? I don’t think so. The paper abstract points out that there is risk of blowback, which is a legitimate concern. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make the victims feel any better when the child is still missing.

UPDATE: I noticed that folks in the mother’s social circle are already talking about the “broken system” of the AMBER alert process. They want it “fixed” so that it will publish every missing child.

Needless to say, now is not the time I would even consider having a discussion over whether or not it is truly broken, but it does show how easy it is to get wrapped up in the theater without focusing on crime control solutions that will actually yield results. However, given that this situation is one where a non-custodial parent has taken the child, it’s been more than 10 days since she was last seen, and the father has access to multiple cars, the chances of the alert system working are basically nil. Again, that’s not what those who are calling the system “broken” want to hear.

It does rather remind me of many gun control supporters who came to the issue through knowing a victim. It doesn’t matter that their case would not have turned out any different if the laws were changed, they feel something in the legal system broken just because someone else was able to do something bad.

Why Support Self-Defense?

Justice Stephen Breyer encountered a machete-wielding intruder in his vacation home last week, so you’d think that he’d be a little more inclined to support the right of self-defense a bit more than he did in the days when he heard the Heller and McDonald cases. I doubt you’ll see him come around based on the history of which recent SCOTUS justices have been attacked and how they voted in the above cases. Fox News gives us an AP report with this background:

The last time a justice was the victim of a crime was in 2004, when a group of young men assaulted Justice David Souter as he jogged on the street in Washington.

In 1996, a man snatched Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s purse while she was out walking with her husband and daughter near their home in Washington.

In other words, experiencing an assault or robbery doesn’t seem to make them any more inclined to vote for a meaningful individual right to bear arms for defense.