Via Brock Townsend:
Via The Last Refuge
For the past two weeks, Reason
, a magazine dedicated to “Free Minds and Free Markets,” has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena
that court sent to Reason.com.The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order
prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.
Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney’s Office to join with it in asking that the gag order – now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint – be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney’s Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.
Courtesy of Brock Townsend and the NRA/ILA…
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
C’mon gun blogger, magazine writers, book authors, let’s bury The State Department with enough complaints and bad press that they stop considering this! – Guffaw
I’m old enough to remember the Watts riots in L.A., Detroit. Rodney King? And a multitude of others. And something has always bothered me:
WHY do these folks feel the need to violently destroy THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS to make a point?
In days of yore, I participated in protests. I remember one at the State Capitol, wherein we stood in the Summer heat (all 250 or so of us) to protest The Clinton so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban’, and our own State legislature considering similar legislation. This was in the 90’s – the temperature was around 100°.
And not one of us engaged in violence, criminal looting or destruction. We had been advised not to come armed, and we didn’t. We carried signs (and American flags), signed petitions, talked amongst ourselves and drank lots of water. And listened politely to speakers like Sheriff Mack. And watched media trucks circle us deciding whether or not we were worth a spot on the 10 o’clock news.
Apparently we weren’t.
Here’s one opinion as to why they foul their own nests:
The borderline-Jacobins at Slate, who believe spanking is child abuse, and personal responsibility is out of fashion, try to explain looting away as a social phenomenon: “Why would anyone burn down the only CVS in their neighborhood?”
The reason, I think, is likely the same reason that poor black Americans in cities across the country burned “their own” neighborhoods in the late 1960s:
They did not experience those places as their own. Then, like now, police brutality was a precipitating cause of the violence, but it was the long-term experience of the indignities of the ghetto that gave shape to the riots. Then, like now, commentators compared the rioters to animals who had run wild and needed discipline. Rioting, to these bystanders, was not proper political protest but the criminal actions of poor people who merely wanted to grab what they could for free. This narrative, which I heard throughout my childhood growing up in Baltimore in the 1980s, put the blame not on the depredations of the ghetto, but on the character of its residents. It completely misapprehends the political economy of our poorest neighborhoods.
In other words: they riot because society has ignored them. Not only is that a specious argument, but it also highlights the fact that Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1968. So which party is responsible for ignoring the downtrodden social class?
Told another way, Abraham Miller at National Review wrote:
Of course, the writer above seems to think the only answer lies with which flavor of government.
What do YOU think?
h/t Brock Townsend
Found @ Theo Spark
I couldn’t have said it better!
Today is the FOURTH ANNIVERSARY of my writing (or submitting
stolen borrowed content) for this blog.
I’ve posted something DAILY, along with a quote, a cartoon, a picture of a beauty, and a You Tube clip, EVERY DAY FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS!
Currently at 285,831 hits; 355 followers!
And, much to my continued surprise and delight, have not only attracted followers, but made friends! Some of whom have communicated with me off-line, and sent money and gifts I
probably don’t deserve. And some with whom I’ve had the privilege of sending lead downrange!
You guys are amazing!
My BLOG MOTHERS™ (including Tam and Brigid) whose own postings spurred me on to blogging, are a great joy! And terrific friends.
A special thank you to Borepatch, Murphy’s Law and Rev. Paul. Without whom, etc.
I plan on continuing to annoy, confound, confuse and disturb for at least another year.
(Or until the powers-that-be decide I need muzzling!)
This weblog remains a work-in-progress. As such, I’ve edited out some of the Usual Suspects who appear to be no longer blogging. If I’ve done so in error or you have a new link, please advise. My apologies.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTINUED FRIENDSHIP AND SUPPORT!
*my very first blog post was so entitled Well, Here We Are…
(and very sharp folks will recognize I should have posted this yesterday!)
Back when I worked @ TMCCC, I befriended a guy I’ll call Batman. Why Batman? Well, he liked the Batman persona, dressed as him for Halloween and even his license plate was DRKNITE.
And he was something like 30 years of age.
He was one of the few ‘company’ friends who came and visited me in the hospital, after the accident. He brought me a stuffed Marvin the Martian. I still have it. I honor his kindness.
Then, Life separated us; he went to Australia, and I did not.
Years later, I discovered he had repatriated, and we became friends on Facebook. And made noises about getting together for lunch, or a drink.
Then, he started posting on FB about the nasty Second Amendment, and how none of us should be able to possess firearms. Obviously, his couple of years as a faux-Aussie took it’s toll.
I tried to dissuade him, first by posting about Our Constitutional freedoms, then, more directly in debate. But to no avail. He kept posting vile ideas about us being forced to give up our Rights. Me giving up mine.
So, I unfriended him. It was all I could do.
Now comes another foreign-influenced man, an actor, Liam Neeson. From Ireland, I believe.
Of late, he been making popular movies regarding his wife (and/or daughter) being kidnapped. And he rescuing them – being some-kind of agent/operative, and all.
Then this news story appears:
Speaking at the ‘Taken 3′ press conference in Dubai on Monday, the Irish-born star of ‘Schindler’s List’, who once again plays Bryan Mills in the final film of the trilogy, responded to a question about the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last week, which he linked to gun violence in the US.
“There are too many fucking guns out there, especially in America,” said the 62-year-old. “I think the population is, like, 320 million? There are over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a fucking disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.’”
Reported by the Washington Post, Neeson added that there is a distinction between the violence of the movies and reality.
He said: “A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it’s fantasy. It’s in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn’t mean they’re all going to go out and go, ‘Yeah, let’s get a gun!’”
Now, I’m all about the First Amendment, too, but, just like with Batman, I can take action. We were not friends on Facebook (so I couldn’t unfriend him) but I can not support him by refusing to see-rent-buy his movies.
It was all I could do.
Fortunately, some others stand with me:
PARA USA, the company that rented the guns used by Neeson in “Taken 3″ (2014), his latest action film, has responded to the movie star’s recent anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment remarks by stating publicly that they will no longer be providing the weapons for his cinematic fantasy roles.
There is strength in numbers. people!
Listen up, Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, Stephen King and your ilk. I’m not against YOUR rights – why are you against mine?
h/t Never Yet Melted, HuffPo
The lovely and skilled Tamara reminded me, with this post:
That was educational…
Just got back from a trip with some friends to visit the Indiana State Museum. They have a great temporary exhibit there on Prohibition (you know, the thirteen year period in this country that created modern organized crime and from which we learned absolutely nothing?)
Check this out:
That’s the actual phone in question from Olmstead v. United States, the case where the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that listening in on a dude’s phone lines without a warrant to catch the guy incriminating himself somehow didn’t violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments.
Well, not exactly…
There have been (largely un or under reported) stories regarding the ‘whys’ of the Iraq War. That’s because much of the media (not ALL Biff!) had an agenda.
Then, the NEW YORK TIMES (sacre’ bleu!) actually reported a few weeks ago about the WsMd* that had not been moved to Syria. Or used against us or the Kurds.
Funny how the folks who clamored against President Bush and mocked him and call;ed him a cowboy and a liar aren’t saying much now. (Not that he didn’t introduce many measures like the PATRIOT ACT and it’s illegitimate legislative children to protect us!) At least that would have been a legitimate reason to protest.
And the current President has continued and amplified the PATRIOT ACT. So much for campaign promises…
And let’s not forget the UN voted FOR our incursion on 17 other points, WsMD*, aside! Why didn’t they protest THE UN?
*WsMD – I simply refuse to say WMDs! To my ear it’s as ‘mother-in-laws’, it’s incorrect!
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to ban your guns.
We have Episcopal Church in Michigan passes gun resolution as evidence to the contrary. The resolution says:
RESOLVED: that the 180th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan, in response to the impact on Michigan communities of deaths from gun violence, join with other faith communities calling for the following steps to be taken by Federal and State lawmakers:
1. Requiring and enforcing universal background checks on all gun sales;
2. A clear ban on all future sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting);
3. Making gun trafficking a Federal crime;…
The Episcopal Church supports the U.S. Constitution’s protections of the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; but, we also stand for public policies to ban gun violence and assault weapons.
You have to marvel at the naiveté and/or stupid exhibited here.
You can’t support the Second Amendment then make the demands for background checks anymore than you could require background checks for sales of First Amendment materials. One would guess they support the First Amendment and would claim protection if gun owners were to demand they be punished for hate speech because of their vocal support of restrictions to gun ownership. (Joe Huffman)
You should go and read everything Joe has to say on the matter (at the link).
Funny, the big brouhaha Dallas, Texas churches getting involved in politics, and their mayor trying to subpoena what was being said from the pulpit, and (of course) no action being taken publicly about mosques being involved in politics.
Or the above.
Must be a crisis of conscience for many church members who happen to own evil firearms, though.
Five weeks ago, Campus Reform went to Harvard and asked the students if ISIS or the U.S. poses a bigger threat to world peace. The answers that were given were entertaining enough to create a viral video that has since received about half a million hits.
In addition, the video received air time on Fox News.
Somewhat skeptical of the video, a few students at Harvard decided to go around and ask their fellow classmates some questions of their own. The questions focused on ISIS and the Pledge of Allegiance.
When one student was asked if ISIS or the U.S. posed a bigger threat to world peace. He said:
“I guess I’ll have to say America. I think ISIS as a group… I believe as Ben Affleck said, could fit into a baseball stadium, so they don’t have the potential to put countries into war as America would.”
Also, the response to being asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which anyone applying for U.S. citizenship must to be able to recite, was even more concerning…
Disgusting. And shameful.
To disagree with a political philosophy is an American Right, a tradition. But, to do so in complete ignorance is SHAMEFUL. Of course, look what we see every day on the ‘news’, the Internet.
Of course, sometimes there it’s an agenda.
I was surprised to hear people must apply for citizenship, anymore. I thought it was just granted – like a fief.
h/t Facebook, IJReview