Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Cracked: 5 More reasons the NRA is the worst

So... Adam Wears has a list of  more "under reported' reasons why "the NRA is the worst"
(And true to his... tone there's plenty of scatological and juvenile humor)

Now given the NRA just recently kicked out their president Oliver North out of office in an internal mess that included them using their massively dysfunctional ad agency, and said ad agency that threatened to blackmail long time power behind the throne Wayne LaPierre exposing his flagrant spending on wardrobe and other luxuries on the NRA's dime or that the New York AG is investigating their non-profit status.

So there is a lot of dirty laundry that Wears could talk about.

Instead we get  the expected the NRA are conspiracy theorists, racists, domestic abuser supporting paranoids who know good guys can't stop shootings*, and deludingly want to harden schools.
*But Wears brags about how guys with fists are supper effective.

It's not quite a repeat of the last time Wears wrote this article, but these are all things he's written before. It's his flat out boilerplate.

And he posts yet another rage filled screed when... as mentioned the start, there's plenty of bad stuff that is openly being reported in major publications.

So he may be angry about hating the NRA, but he's also lazy about it.

Maybe in a few months Cracked will pick up on it.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Cracked: Non-stupid self defense advice.

So two days after whining about a jurisdiction where nunchucks might be legalized. (Seriously, this is a thing they have a habit of doing).

Cracked now has an "article" of... rather okay self defense advice. Specifically mocking "self defense myths"  That is not even token-anti gun or anti-self defense.  Now article is in quotes because it's not written by their staff or really written at all, instead it's a user submitted  meme-list.

So maybe that's it.

And the "self defense myths" are legit (as far as I can tell).  Such as
  • cautions that pepper-spray can blow back
  •  size is a factor and attackers tend to target those they perceive are smaller and weaker
  •  the importance of deescalation techniques
  •  that you are very likely to know your attacker
  •  that if someone wants to kidnap you then your "unlikely to come back" and should get out.
When they talk about guns it's literally guns require training and "whichever gun you chose, you have to learn how to handle one."

Which is... quite good advice.  

Monday, May 6, 2019

Cracked: Banning weapons due to a moral panic is stupid...

Unless it's guns!

So, Arizona might repeal their nunchuck ban.  And Cracked is there to fret about it.

Now unlike an earlier article where they fretted about at Judge in New York daring to cite McDonald vs Chicago to overturn a weapon ban.

This time they complain that prole are less influenced by movies and moral panics saying "Huh, weird to think there was once a time in this country when movies could get a weapon banned, but now multiple school shootings every year somehow don't."

But nobody wants to ban guns.

This also shows that Cracked can't even write an article laughing about the banning of literal sticks with a chain, without having to go on about gun control.

And for more amusement, the article asserts "nunchucks have been on the same ban list as sawed-off shotguns and silencers,"... except those are legal to own in Arizona.


Monday, April 29, 2019

Indy Councilman accuses Jewish deli owner of supporting Nazis

By unwelcoming NRA attendees during a convention. For reference this is the same Councileman Zach Adamson (D-17) who last year was part of a push to get the city-council to pass a law that amounted to demanding the state legislature ban all sorts of guns in Indianapolis.

It started with Zach Adamson (D-17) a grandstanding fellow who read his resolution and bragged about being in DC for a "die-in"

He did the standard litany of "weapons of war" and "designed to kill" and went with how assault weapons are specifically to mow down lots of people. But would not define /what/ caused it.

It turns out that Zach hates preemption. He railed against the statehouse taking power for itself and limited what the municipality could do.

He also went on about how congress made it legal to own "tools that can only kill mass amounts of people"

And on the "fetish with guns is out of control"

Now last year this did not even get out of committee (because 2 committee members of Zach's party did not bother to show up and thus when it went to a party-line vote it failed.

Still... the guy is very angry about Hoosiers having guns so this is not surprising at all.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Wired: "Guns are like free speech! Which is why the state should ban speech in a crisis!"

Welp. Now the advocates of Government Control are directly saying "we should regulate free speech like guns." Via Wired which is being especially totalitarian.
I remember when pointing out if someone were hostile to the Second Amendment they were likely to be hostile to the First was something only paranoid gun-nuts would say.
We need social network control—sensible rules about where, when, and what kinds of platforms should be free to operate, much the way nearly all governments in the world impose comprehensive regulations about where, when, and what kinds of guns should be allowed in communities. To fail to rein in social networks because of appeals to “freedom” would be like allowing vague words written 250 years ago to get in the way of controlling guns.
This is not written by someone parodying gun control talking points. This is written by someone who is praising a country banning social media after a terrorist attack. A country that the writer openly admits "has a relatively unfree press".
Note the writer is explicitly using the "The founders would never have intended X!"
An attack where guns were not even used.
But by focusing on those individuals’ shortcomings, wasn’t I buying into the argument that there was a good way for these social networks to operate, even during a time of crisis or during divisive elections? If only they had the right leaders! In essence, I was replicating the tired defense of unrestrained gun ownership—social networks don’t kill people, people kill people. In point of fact, guns magnify the violence of their users, as do social networks.
And this scary bit? Note how "decisive elections" are slipped in there.when talking about a media and clamp down after a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack done by an organized cell, not some lone person or group of social media trolls. But like how gun control advocates will use an attack where the killer murdered to get his guns to blame the manufacture's advertising or attacks where the killer passed a background check due to governmental incompetence to demand expanding the existing background checks. The facts simply don't matter.
I recommend reading the whole article. Its is a frightful example of how the folks who soothingly say they only want "common sense gun control" and then turn around and demand speech control.
Another scary part is that the author out and out lists several defenses /against/ the totalitarian controls he dreams of framed explicitly using firearms analogies:
* People should be able to defend themselves, good guy with a gun / users should be able to make their own speech to counter speech they disagree with
* Social media bans have can result in more violence / cities with more gun control have higher gun violence 
* So what if other people use free speech for bad purposes, I did not. IE "I don't care if every other person in the world murdered someone with a gun, I did not. 
* Social media can allow people to communicate in a crisis, firearms can allow people to defend themselves in a crisis.
Annnnnd... the writer's response to all that? Ignoring it. Except for the first which was dismissed as " every-person-for-themself anarchy" (which is really scary because if someone were to make an analogy that only the state should have guns to free speech...) and a conclusion that says that people *not* demanding for free speech controls are like people saying "Thoughts and Prayers" instead of offering real solutions...

Like using a terrorist bombing attack to try to ban free speech... or ban guns.

Monday, March 25, 2019

NZ Chief Censor shows it's not just the 2nd Amendment they hate...

New Zealand doesn't have a Second Amendment,  their Prime Minister recently bragged about how firearm ownership is a privilege over there (a couple days before deeming a whole bunch of guns banned without even bothering to put a bill before parliament)

But they also are  going after free speech.

It's one thing to deny the terrorist bastards the infamy and fame they so desire.  It's another, as NZ has done,  to make it a crime to posses or show people their manifesto. 

And conveniently this particular manifesto is where the monster says he expects and endorses the State to take certain actions.   Actions that the State eagerly and proudly did.

"The Office of Film and Literature classification announced Saturday that the document is objectionable under the law."

Well...  isn't that a handy power for their State to have.

This was said by.....  "New Zealand's Chief Censor David Shanks."  And yes, they do have a Chief Censor. Take in this puff piece on the office from a couple years ago

Keep that in mind,  all the people going "We should be like New Zealand."  They have a Chief Censor,  who will ban documents that are problematic for the goverment.

Of course you'l say "It's on the internet, so it's silly for them to think they can ban it."  Which I say "Welcome to the Party, Pal."

But more importantly... 

Now only is the NZ goverment doing some of the things the terrorist wanted,  but they are literally making it a crime for someone to provide evidence of it.

Just consider the incentives of that.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

The Founders could never have imagined....

See....  Normally When someone goes "The Founders Would never have Imagined X when they were drafting the bill of Rights!"

That argument is used to say that gun control is (up to even banning handguns) is a-okay.

And the obvious rejoined is.  Well does this apply to First Amendment?  The Founders couldn't imagine internet and TV and...

Well this letter to the editor the New York Times published decided that was a good argument for speech control.  (One of three that they decided to highlight)

Unmoderated internet echo chambers are a danger that the founding fathers never envisioned when they wrote the First Amendment.
Americans love the First Amendment, but as with the Second Amendment, we have to have a conversation. In this digital era, is unrestricted free speech worth the proliferation of hate, and potentially more tragic events like those in New Zealand?