Picture courtesy wafflesatnoon.com

Louisiana passed a bill that makes it illegal to publish personal information on concealed carriers. This came in response to the outrage last December after a newspaper in New York published an interactive map that showed the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in two counties. As you can imagine, the MSM is livid. Rebecca Savastio with the Guardian Express proclaims they’ve “criminalized journalism” with the passage of this bill. I wonder how she’d feel if a someone published her address, home phone, cell phone, work phone, and a list of valuables she has in her home in the paper or on a web site. After all, it’s “an infringement on the right to free speech through the concept of prior restraint” to deny us the right to do so. And . . .


She’s also pissed about the penalties. Anyone who “intentionally disseminates”  this information for publication faces penalties of six months of jail time and a fine of $10,000. Unless they’re public officials or police officers. Then the fine is just $500 with no jail time.  You know, just like how they make special provisions for them in gun control laws. So how does it feel, Rebecca, to have a state pass a law that restricts one of your closely-valued rights?

The Market Research Foundation did a poll for Fox News to find out how people feel about President Obama’s job performance on gun control. Only 38 percent said they approve of what he’s done; 57 percent disapprove. Stuart Varney discussed this with Celia Bigelow from MRF and he tried to make it sound like this meant the majority of people think he hasn’t done enough and want him to be “more aggressive” in controlling guns. No, said Celia, it means they think he’s  has gone too far and that “young people are increasingly becoming more dissatisified with government intrusion in our daily lives.” Watch the interview and tell us what you think.

Last January, Seattle, Washington held a gun buyback. It cost the city $31,306, including $23,223 in overtime for police officers.  They collected about 716 guns and gave out $68,000 in gift cards. The mayor claimed it a success.  Not so fast, says Washington CeaseFire, the state’s most active gun control group. You should “have talked to us… about this before moving forward,” President Ralph Fascietelli emailed the mayor. “The overwhelming research shows that buybacks generally don’t work well and are a waste of resources and are mocked by the NRA… Buyback programs by themselves don’t work, and we’ve found that out.” So why haven’t they been sharing this information with other cities that are wasting money like this?

If you have an iPhone, you will soon be able to buy a “Grip & Shoot” handle for it, designed to provide greater control when taking photos. The phone snaps onto the grip, which connects using Bluetooth to let you control the camera via buttons on the handle. The inventors said it could be also used for other purposes “like an augmented reality shooting game.” But we all know that attaching a pistol grip to something makes it inherently evil, so it’s only a matter of time before the police get calls about someone walking down the street “shooting” things with this strange weapon.

Jeffrey Burtner was prevented from buying a hunting rifle in Pennsylvania when a routine background check said he was a “mental defective” because he had been voluntarily committed to Butler Memorial Hospital in 1992. Only problem is that he never was.  He’s sued the Pennsylvania State Police who run the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. He tried to get his record corrected but says a PSP attorney told him he would have to sue to get action. He’s asking the court to order the PSP to declare he’s never been voluntarily committed, declare he isn’t prohibited from buying guns, expunge all erroneous records, and pay his attorney’s fees. And the Feds want to add mental health records to NICS? Imagine how screwed up it’ll be when they get involved.

On a related thought, the “C” in NICS stands for “criminal background.” So if the Feds start requiring the states to put people in NICS because of a mental problem, are they automatically categorizing them as a criminal? That seems like it would set back the efforts in destigmatizing mental illness a few centuries, to when they used to lock those with mental problems in jails like they did the criminals. Just sayin’.

Apparently the folks on the MAIG Magical Mystery Tour (AKA “No More Names”) have their own version of the Constitution. They made a stop in Knoxville, Tennessee Wednesday where they heard from local victims of gun violence. One stated “The Second Amendment, I do support. The word ‘regulation’ is in there and why as a country are we not choosing to oversee that properly?” Hmm….  I’ve looked at several copies of the Bill of Rights that I found on line and nowhere in the Second Amendment does the word “regulation” appear. However, the phrase “shall not be infringed” definitely is there. I’d love to hear her thoughts on that.

In Sanford, Florida, two men came in through the back door of a couple’s home. One of them pulled out a gun and started shooting. The man inside the home pulled out his own gun and shot back. Both must have been really lousy shots because no one was injured by any of the flying lead. The two home invaders tucked tail and ran out of the house then took off in a Dodge Caliber. I don’t know which was the bigger offense — the home invasion or driving a Dodge Caliber. Anyway, police have identified one of the intruders but are still looking for both of them.

And in Atlanta, Georgia, five thieves used hammers to break a display case in a jewelry store in a mall. Then they scooped up about 20 watches valued at almost $900,000 and ran off — all within 30 seconds. Almost a million in a half-minute without using a gun. Gun control activists should be so proud!

50 Responses to Daily Digest: Sauce For the Gander Edition

  1. Modern “progressives” and socialists (but I repeat myself) always seem to argue that there’s nothing wrong with their ideas, it was always the implementation, or the lack of same, that people found so distasteful.

    I’d suggest that these “progressives” ask people from the USSR how they feel about that trope. Try to argue that the problem with Stalin’s purges was that he didn’t send enough people east to count trees until their deaths, didn’t ship enough people to Kolyma, etc. See how that works out…

    • I’ve got a very close friend who grew up under the hammer an sickle and never wishes to go back to that type of life. Its funny going through current affairs in the states with him because he just can’t understand what is wrong with “progressives” here.

  2. I’m sure some of the 57% who disapprove of O’Bama’s performance on gun control are on the left. These people think that the Second Amendment meant that the federal government had the right to establish the National Guard 130 years later. They’re pissed that he hasn’t issued an executive order banning all firearms. Most of them are on the right though.

    It would be interesting to see a study on the percentage of those who’ve been treated for mental issues who actually go on to commit violent crimes. I’m sure that the vast majority don’t. Adding to the stigma of seeking help will be counterproductive.

    • A large portion of that 57% of those disapproving of the stance of the Obama Machine on guns are indeed on the left, but you are mistaken – as contards usually are – about why.

      Not everyone who doesn’t tow the Exxon Party line on the environment, believes in Medicare or doesn’t believe those who would limit cadmium levels in drinking water “hate business” are anti-gun.

      Fact is, a lot of us left-leaners like guns. They’ll come in real handy when some rightist wingnut tries to take away our kids ’cause we don’t attend the right church.

      • Mr. Bixby, your post very offensive, and completely unacceptable. If you disagree with someone’s views, so be it. But to start bullying people by calling them some trumped up insulting name is low and uncalled for. I don’t particularly care how much you dislike someone because they don’t bow to your beliefs; keep your bully tactics to yourself.

        • Mr. Bixby is a liberal who just happens to be right about one issue. But being a liberal he has become accustomed to being unable to make serious arguments on issues because he makes his decisions based on emotion, not analytical thinking. When confronted with reason he refuses to go back and do the research to reassess his position and rather resorts to name calling. Impugning another’s character is easier than enlightenment.

        • When you take those who use “libtard” to task, I’ll take your argument a tidge more seriously.

          Whie I am religious, it’s not mainstream and thats caused me some serious trouble on occasion – as many conservatives feel about parts of 1A the way Bloomberg does about 2A.

          I’ve seen Genesis read on the Senate floor as a refutation to the idea hat humans can seriously damage this world. God won’t destroy it again; fine. But while only God can make a tree, any plonker can chop it down.

          I’ve seen lots of legislation based upon the premise that ones home is their own private fiefdom – except the bedroom, which had better comply with the blue-noses.

          While I’m fiscally conservative and in favor of keeping the government within the constitution, “conservatives” as a group haven’t made a friend of me on a number of social fronts.

          Thar be issues in addition to firearms, methinks.

          Someone who asserts that all lefties who dislike Obama on guns believe he’s not going far enough have in my book earned a “-tard.” We weren’t mimeographed, and aren’t dittoheads to anyone.

          If that makes me a low-information, emotionally-driven ‘tard, so be it. So, then, was Jefferson.

          Retread my original post, and that to which I replied.

        • Well hell Russ, I thought you were a liberal!?! Fiscally conservative AND pro-gun? There might be hope for you yet.

      • Yeah, but the party you vote for and support would see to it that you had no firearms when the evil conservatives try to take your children. By the way, no one on the right is going to take away your handout, er, I mean medicare. So just relax pal and get started on those Hillary for President yard signs!!!

        • Also, I don’t think of Medicare as a giveaway. I’ve been “investing” in the government through taxes for a very long time, and consider myself a share holder. That I should eventually collect a dividend only makes sense.

          Medicare certainly isn’t so horrendous as the uses to which my taxes are usually put – personal welfare, CORPORATE welfare, pointless and unprovoked war, congressional perqs et cetera.

        • Medicare recipients may be forced into Obamacare though… They cut Medicare funding to place the money into Obamacare. It may force you into one of the Obamacare exchanges due to lack of funds… and try to help you “[re]educate” yourself blue at the same time.

  3. I certainly hope that Mr. Burtner remains prohibited from buying guys, whether he was erroneously placed on the list or not.

  4. The right to freedom of the press means the right to challenge political authority, to report on the events of the day, to express one’s opinions, to tell stories, to describe or show sex acts, and whatnot. It does not give permission for one person to delve into the private records of another private citizen.

    • I consider them two different places. Much like NYC vs anything “upstate”, southern vs northern California. Some IL counties are allowing CC of legally owned handguns at this time. One would be crazy to even try that in Chicago.

  5. So . . . Are ya gonna publish the reporter’s personal info? I called the NY reporter at home several times and asked about his .357 (that they failed to list in the article), put pics of his parents on twitter and called Hassan late at night since I thought she was lonely. :-). I think the reporter needs to feel some positive attention, too. Love me some interwebz.

  6. There should be no law prohibiting the press from printing something. That IS prior restraint. There should, however, be laws that prohibit the government from releasing said information to the press.

    • Disagreement:

      If limitations of the First Amendement include irresponsible acts that endanger individuals has been established, then this Restriction also applies to this scenario.

      The 1-A Right to vocal or written informativeness can be limited. It serves no purpose here other than a perceived endangerment through the act.

      Before anyone can make this connection to the 2-A Right to keep and bear arms, as a juxtaposition, must realize it already exists in the form of Capital Murder.

      like wise, publishing personal information in regard to firearm possession should be considered a capital offense aswell as it serves no purpose other than an infringement of 4-A rights, as well as proliferating individual endangerment.

      • Yeah, that last paragraph needs some work.

        If you “retire” a cabbie so as to avoid paying the fare, that’s typically a capital offense.

        However, if you shoot someone in the leg, it usually isn’t.

        While stiff penalties for turpitude in journalism certainly do make sense, suggesting that it is in nature if not law a capital offense is just plain stupidious.

      • The people have a right to a *free* press. And that’s spelled out in the very first amendment, unlike the ‘right to privacy’ which is reasoned, rather than enumerated in The Constitution (I’m not saying it’s not important, though). You can’t have a free press with prior restraint. The case law is VERY much on the side against prior restraint… even to the point of allowing things like the Pentagon Papers and directions on how to build nuclear weapons to be published. When trying to silence the press someone always claims it’s a public good, so that’s just not good enough except in the most extreme of circumstances (like copyrights, because the government is in the pocket of the MPAA)

        The right way to do it and avoid losing a court case is not to actively prohibit the press from publishing; it is, like is now being done in NY, making it so the government cannot release the records. Even better, do away with registration and permits altogether for mere owning of a firearm.

        • You nailed it with the last sentence: do away permits to own and carry and you solve the problem. It’s ironic that we’re arguing the constitutionality of barring the release of permit records, when the permits themselves are unconstitutional.

  7. They should have listed ALL the Slave States on that sign…

    “Essential to the Security of a Free State,”

    So, if not Free, then what?

  8. Hey! Let’s get her to post all the names and addresses of everyone in her community that DOESN’T have a gun!

    • It’s Louisiana…someone will make a real one before too long. Now excuse me, I have to go buy some blue paint.

  9. and in nearby Marietta, a local jewelry store was robbed by two thugs with weapons, and the owner was shot and killed. the fight continues.

  10. Anybody here SCUBA dive? At the top of the tank is a device called a “regulator”. It makes sure you get air at the correct pressure whether you’re two feet down or two hundred feet down.

    That’s the “regulate” in the 2nd amendment.

    You’re welcome.

    • I scuba dive. What you said doesn’t make any sense. The regulator is a device you attach to the tank. Usually people refers to the part that goes in your mouth or the entire apparatus as the regulator, not the attachment point with the tank.

      Now, what does that have to do with the Second Amendment? Did the word “regulate” suddenly appear in the “shall not be infringed” portion of the Second Amendment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *