Ladd's new strategy

For the last two days, Ladd Everitt, as well as about half a dozen fellow travelers have been spamming the hell out of the Starbucks facebook page.  Unsurprisingly, each of their posts draws resonses form 20-30 different individuals, as well as even more people simply dropping by to encourage the coffee giant to stick to selling coffee and not trampling peoples basic rights.  Ladd has been getting more and more strident, and occasionally when someone in reply says something mean he grabs a screencap and either posts it on the CSGV FB page or he tweets it.

He just posted his cell number.  On the Starbucks FB page.

He is begging for someone to call him and say something mean or threatening, or that could be twisted to sound mean or threatening.

I've been wondering why the CSGV bigwig would be punching down for such a long time, and this is the only thing that makes sense.  Given their propensity for taking anyone trolling to be an activist (check their note on Abby Spangler-sumdood named "steamingpoopfart" left a nasty comment to Abby and he's now a gun rights activist.)

I have no doubt that in the event that no one obliges him, he'll have an intern call and say mean things.

UPDATE:  Right on cue...

Keep this in mind

HR822, the national concealed carry reciprocity bill has passed the house and will possibly get a senate vote this year.  If this happens you can count on all manner of lies, obfuscation and general pants shitting hysteria.

It's almost assured that a hit piece written by Michael Luo for the NYT will be cited incessantly.  It goes without saying the "article" is fraught with falsehoods, but fear not.

Sean Sorrentino, working with NC state legislator Grass Roots North Carolina president Paul Valone, has managed to paint Luo into a corner and effectively refute Luo's piece. (Thanks Sean)

Remember this post when this comes up for debate.

The mask slips again

Advocates for gun control will frequently scoff at the notion that they support widespread citizen disarmament.  "Heller took that off the table" or some variant is what they say.  The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has posted another screed demonizing gun owners, highlighting the following quote from one of their true believers:

"A "parent" who sees no problem with possession and use of a weapon is bad enough."

Being a parent and in possession of weapons while possessing the will to use them, should the need arise, is a bad thing.  Bad enough, apparently, to move you from parent to "parent".  Leaving aside for a moment how twisted it is to view the responsible exercise of a basic human right as bad, how can you hold this view of firearms ownership, be fired up enough to blog/comment/tour/speak/fund-raise and NOT advocate for total disarmament?  The fact is that you cannot.  Anyone that feels this way about firearms must, as a matter of consistency, be working toward their removal from society.

And who is this "Pastoral Counselor" that CSGV quotes?  None other than Craig Hexham.  Yes, it's one of the folks from that I pointed to in my opening post detailing why I blog anonymously.    We should also point out that Hexham thinks that dealing with people lawfully selling their firearms via private sales should be dealt with much more harshly than people viewing "pictures of 16 year old girls on the internet" should be .

When kiddie porn (as I am assuming that is what he is referring to since non-pornographic pictures of kids do not draw squads of armed men to your house) is less objectionable than firearms, then clearly you must work to eliminate firearms from society.  To do anything less is inhuman, and that is precisely how they view us.

For the record, while I appreciate the frustration of the father in the video linked above, I do not think that I would respond in the same fashion to one of my children behaving badly.  But, it's his kid-it's his decision.

Winning

Brian Doherty, from Cato, being linked on Huffpo.  By Huffpo.

PEG Facebook link

PEG linked to this post, hie hence and express yourself. Make certain to include the fact that it was PEG that alerted you to the story.

Tweaking Their Noses

Earlier I referenced the notion of using the anti-rights social media to tweak their noses by going to articles they link and mentioning in the comments how the article was found.  It's possible that this is juvenile and ineffective, but it is my opinion that the way to keep moving public opinion in our direction is to juxtapose the truth with their lies.  By linking back to their social media sites, at worst it will have no effect.  At best, it will force them to adjust what they are doing.  Somewhere in  middle, it will hopefully cause Ladd Everitt a bit of heartburn-assuming that is he even bothers himself with a fourth stringer "insurrectionist" from the practice squad such as myself.

To that end here are a few more:  Head over and follow suit if you're so inclined.

PEG linked this one:  http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/154519

CSGV linked this one:  http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/op_perrycols/article_95454434-47a0-11e1-8cbe-0019bb2963f4.html?success=9  (I see Sean Sorrentino has already been there as well.)

The mask slips

Anti gun organizations like Brady typically poopoo as tinfoil hat nonsense the notion that they want to disarm the public at large.  The latest group on the block, the NGVAC, described any sane gun law as one that allows the government to take your guns.  Perhaps it was poorly worded?  Perhaps we misuderstood the format that they were using to structure the layout of information on the page?

Or, perhaps they were just say what they meant.

"As our population is 5 times that of England’s (300 million vs. 60 million) we should expect 5 times their gun homicides each year or 375.  In fact we have 12,000 each year.  But in our country, not only do criminals have all the guns they want*, but so do the law-abiding citizens. 

There  is only one explanation  for these facts:  It is the law-abiding citizens with guns, not the criminals, who are committing the majority of the gun homicides. (emphasis supplied-OP)

We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns.  Criminals are interested in getting money, not in killing people.  Over 50% of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals. (FBI Annual Uniform Crime Reports)."

If your primary goal is elimination of gun violence, and you feel that a particular group (in this case law abiding gun owners) is causing most of that violence, then any rational person would  try to disarm that group.  They do want to take your guns away.  Of course we need to remember how this colors the Brady campaign as well.

I will leave it to those better suited to fisk the nonsense regarding the percent of homicides due to argument vs criminal behavior, but here's a hint-criminals have friends, family and associates that they argue with...