Bloomberg Takes Advantage of Trayvon Case to Further Cause of Gun Control

In a disgusting display of opportunism, Mayor Bloomberg took advantage today of the Trayvon Martin case to further his anti-gun agenda:

"The 'stand the ground,' as they're called, laws are opposed by law enforcement and opposed by prosecutors. And there's another issue, which I didn't read very much about. The shooter, this guy Zimmerman, how could he have had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, a loaded gun in the first place? Because long before he shot Trayvon Martin, he was arrested for attacking a police officer and was the subject of a court order to prevent domestic violence. 

"But unfortunately, in Florida, the gun laws are very lax. And unfortunate, law-enforcement officials have never been able to revoke this guy's license to carry a loaded gun in public."

Did you hear that, kids?  The 'stand your ground' laws are bad for you, because your elders and handlers say so!

"The gun lobby is writing our nation's gun laws.  It's a disgrace. They write 'em in Washington. They write 'em in the state capitals. And the result is that our children are being killed, our police officers are being killed, you and I and our families are in danger."

Without knowing any firm facts about the shooting incident (Zimmerman likely being the only living person that knows whatever happened that night) the Mayor decided that "this guy" Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder, that his impunity is a result of laws that allow one to stand his or her ground against aggressors, that the so-called gun lobby's sole purpose is to reduce our safety and kill our children.

Perhaps, in all his anti-gun fluster, Mayor Bloomberg is unable to understand the simple dichotomy of this case: If Mr. Zimmerman was an instigator and threatened or provoked Mr. Martin in any way, nothing in the Florida legislation would prevent him from being convicted for murder.  The Florida 'stand your ground' law does not give someone a free pass for committing murder.  It simply allows one the use of lethal force if threatened with bodily harm, without the need to retreat.

On the other hand, if Mr. Zimmerman was simply walking the streets following someone he deemed suspicious, even if that may have been offensive to some (myself included), we live under the Rule of Law, and we do not have the right to use violence to discourage others' (legal) actions that we dislike.  If Mr. Martin indeed attacked Mr. Zimmerman provoked only by his legal action of observing and following, then Mr. Martin suffered only the lawful consequences of his unlawful actions, in this scenario.  In fact, even in some states that do not have so-called 'stand your ground' laws, the threat of bodily harm, if the victim-to-be has no way to safely retreat, would be reasonable justification for lethal force (I'm sure the prospect of forceful self defense by law-abiding citizens must horrify the Mayor).

The bottom line is that it is unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure what exactly happened that night.  So far we only have Mr. Zimmerman's word.  The mayor is no better informed of the facts as any one of the two readers following this blog.  His vilification of Mr. Zimmerman and his aspersions cast about Mr. Zimmerman's past are no more than ad hominem attacks.  Mayor Bloomberg's quest to disarm citizens and force them to rely on government services for their self-preservation is unsettling enough.  But his willingness to use a young man's death to his own advantage, and co-opt the facts of this issue to benefit his anti-gun propaganda, these actions are downright villainous.

To Serve and Protect

Whatever you do, do not appear agitated if the police knocks on your door:

• We Are the Police, and We Are Here to Help Kill You
• Why Was William Reddie So Agitated?

Not all crimes go unpunished, though:

• 5 ex-cops sentenced in Katrina killings case

Gaming Industry Succumbs to Emperor's Temptations, Turns to Dark Side

PlayStation Orbis and Xbox 720 both restrict “used” games

The following is presumed to exist on some executive bastard's desk at both Sony and Microsoft headquarters.

Dear Gaming Industry,

Pursuant to your request for the most effective method for promoting piracy and alienating your user base, we have itemized the following for your convenience:

1. Treat ALL customers as potential criminals, because they are; 
2. Enforce unfair and unnecessary restrictions on ALL media sold;
3. NEVER, under ANY circumstances, legally permit your customers to own what they purchase from you;
4. When all else fails - and it WILL fail - purchase some lobby lackeys to rebrand censorship as a public service, then make haste to push the result through Congress.

That's about it. We were happy to be of service to you, and please feel free to write back with any further inquiries. We wish you and your business model the best in the upcoming, decade-long spiral into irrelevancy.

Yours Truly,
MPAA and RIAA


PlayStation Orbis and Xbox 720 both restrict “used” games

Common Law and Self-Defense

Interesting discussion about Common Law and Self-Defense by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned, in light of recent evens in Florida.

Anonymous and the Second Amendment

Much has been made in recent times of the cyber-antics of the hacker collective known as Anonymous.  The group has claimed responsibility for data breaches and Distributed Denial of Service attacks on countless religious, corporate, and government servers in the past few years, with 2011 seeing a sharp rise in activity.  This increase in activity can mainly be attributed to the notorious rise of splinter group LulzSec, the publishing of military files and diplomatic cables by watchdog group Wikileaks (and subsequent government responses), and the attempted legislation of internet censorship in the U.S. via SOPA and PIPA, although there are those who believe that the time has simply come.

There have been a plethora of responses to Anonymous and their active resistance tactics against what they perceive (not without cause) as widespread wrongdoing, corruption and censorship in our political and economic systems.  These responses generally range from hero worship to cries of Terrorism, and everywhere in between.

However, the media and the blogosphere have been relatively mum on the topic of what Anonymous (not to mention the social media-driven Arab Spring) has shown us about the power of the Internet, especially as it pertains to the United States' Second Amendment. 

We have already pointed out that there is a large-scale ground war being waged for the soul and future of the Internet.  Now, more than ever, it is important to take a look at what has made this war possible; specifically, how a single father living in a housing project can obtain the power to successfully take on the U.S. Government (and, subsequently, the power to help the U.S. government track and arrest other such individuals).

The Internet is a beast unlike any mankind has seen before.  With a seemingly-infinite amount of information freely available to anybody with a phone or cable line, it is now possible to do just about anything online, from shopping to earning a Master's Degree.  Theoretically, a motivated individual could learn just about anything online; with enough patience (and a skillful choice of Google search terms), one could learn everything a college degree has to offer, and more, for free.  In fact, university sites worldwide have begun posting lesson materials and even offering free courses with open and limitless enrollment.  With this much information available (and currently uncensored) to the average citizen, ignorance and lack of education have become a willful choice, rather than a tragedy of circumstance.

Equally important is the Open Source movement, which has exploded over the past decade and created a vast market of tools and utilities which are free to download, use, modify and distribute.  Such projects are run by a dedicated base of volunteer coders who modify, expand and perfect the software as they see fit, creating customized and powerful tools for almost any use case.  With thousands of such tools emerging from the movement every year, there is an open source alternative to everything.

As any true believer in the Second Amendment will tell you, the right to bear arms is not merely just a tool to ensure citizens have the right to defend themselves against lone criminal aggressors (unless they are outside their house, and as long as they can prove to a court that they made every effort to hide and retreat, and had no choice but to use deadly force).  The Founding Fathers, having just fought a war for freedom against a tyrannical and vastly superior force, wanted to ensure that there would be an everlasting physical deterrent against tyranny and opression (having correctly predicted that the lawful deterrent of the Constitution may not always be strictly adhered to).  Perhaps V said it best from behind the Guy Fawkes mask: "People should not be afraid of their government; Government should be afraid of its people."

Here we are, 236 years later.  There is no civilian militia (nor any foreign power) which can match the technology, training and discipline of the United States Military - but then again, the Second Amendment is not about being superior in might to the government, nor is it about violence or coups.  To me, anyway, the Second Amendment is about reminding the powers-that-be that this country was founded on a Fuck-You-Attitude towards authoritarianism, and that we will not bow to threats against our freedom, be they foreign or domestic in origin.

And that, if nothing else, is what the Anonymous movement has shown.  Through an albeit controversial show of force, Anonymous has proven that with free military-grade encryption and powerful anonymization tools, a little bit of patience and motivation, and a whole lot of talent, the playing field has been effectively leveled by the Internet.  There are no social, educational or financial barriers to what one can achieve on the Internet; all one needs is a connection and a willingness to learn.  The technology and training available to the NSA and the Military are effectively identical to those freely available to citizens online; the discipline is something that must be developed from one's self.

As recent events worldwide have shown, the power of an idea has become increasingly competitive with the power of an armed force.  And on the Internet, Ideas are free.  On the Internet, Ideas are weapons.

On the Internet, Ideas are King.

Elite Squad

Just saw this Brazilian movie, "Elite Squad." An excellent action movie in its own right, this flick has some kind of political message as well, which is kind of uncommon.  Well, I should say it's uncommon because it's not a cheesy message.  It's a "fuck the system" message with a "tough on crime" ingredient to it.  Doesn't make sense?  Heck, I'm really not so sure either.  There's definitely a Nationalistic aspect to it, with a heavily militarized police force at the center stage.  But outside of or even against politics.  You could describe Batman in the same terms (Frank Miller's Batman, of course).  I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't like Extreme Nationalism--which, up there with Socialism, I consider the antithesis of Individualism, the latter The One True Path in my mind--and I am viscerally against the militarization of police forces, but this movie's message confuses the hell out of me, because I like it.  It reveals a thick hypocrisy that we still try to cover up in this country (talking about the old US of A now), with politicians using phony "wars" (on drugs, in this particular case) to dupe citizens into perpetuating their hold on power.  The "Elite Squad" just decided to take that obvious if unwritten mandate to fall like the wrath of God unto the heads of a bunch of douchebags.  And kick some ass and take some names.  And that part I like.  But it makes me guilty about it.  And I dig that too.

Thing of the Week

The Colt Python, a classic .357 Magnum revolver, in manufacture until the late 90s.  Co-star of the AMC TV series "The Walking Dead" as the main character's -- Deputy Rick Grimes -- side arm, the price of a Python in mint condition has been at an all-time high, with some auctions reaching over $2000.  A fine weapon, I can't imagine it not selling out almost instantaneously if Colt ever decided to make it again.  I hope they do.