Gun Control in Washington D.C. - No, This isn't a Repeat

I had previously remarked about the bill moving through Congress that would give full voting rights to Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.). In those comments I also remarked that it was interesting that John McCain was voting against more equal representation of the nations citizens on what appears to be party lines because the seat is expected to be solidly Democratic. People have tried to throw a red herring into this debate by claiming that only states can be represented in Congress. Which is an interesting academic debate from a legal perspective but in reality is a smoke screen for partisan bickering. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually has a principled stance on the nature of the state when it comes to representation in Congress like they do about gun control or abortion. It's a politicians issue and I seriously doubt that framing the issue in this way will get any traction.

To be sure, the Republicans aren't the only ones with partisanship dirt on their hands. The Democrats brought this up because they wanted the extra seat, and threw in the extra seat for Utah as a token gesture. That seat is likely to be just as solidly Republican but Utah was due that seat in 2000 and would be getting it in 2011 anyway after the next census so really, the Democrats aren't giving the Republicans anything of similar value to what they are attempting to give themselves. Still for me this is a freedom and democratic representation issue.

The real fun came in last week when the Republicans dusted off their old roadblock issue, gun control. This article comes from the same ignorant perspective that most MSM coverage of guns has but covers some interesting angles on the nature of gun politics in the Capitol. It pisses me off that in their effort to be as childish and partisan as possible the Republicans are dragging gun control into the mix. Sure it worked, but bringing an unrelated issue into the debate was crass and only indicates that these Republicans don't take a principled stand on anything. It's all politics.

The thing that pisses me off about this is that there is a legitimate reason for the Republicans to bring this up but they don't see it. They don't see it because they don't care about the Second Amendment. All they care about is political power and what they can get away with.

The real issue is the 5-4 decision in Heller. For gun rights Heller is Roe v. Wade. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep a pistol independent of any militia. That is a reasonably narrow interpretation but D.C. interprets the holding even more narrowly to only mean that individuals may keep a loaded single action pistol in their home. Which would mean a definition of "firearm" that is even more restrictive than the now expired Brady Bill and would mean that it is illegal to transport a firearm in any kind of working order. Lots of people on the abortion issue are eyeballing the Supreme Court and not just because of Justice Ginsburg's recent illness. (may she always be healthy and live to be 100) If D.C. can argue for their narrow interpretation successfully or if the balance of The Court shifts, the triumph of gun rights will have been short lived and the jubilation of gun nuts will turn to rage. Federal preemption of further suit by the fascists in D.C. will preserve the rights of law abiding citizens and help close a chapter of wasteful, ineffective, and unconstitutional legislation.

The Security Situation

For those of you dealing with apologists for the foolish security measures of the Bush administration here are two direct examples of why innocent people do have something to fear from draconian security measures such as those that have already been enacted. Not only were these people not doing anything wrong, two of them fought to defend our freedoms.

I am suspicious of this story

They claim the government spying on us was terminated due to an irresponsible lack of keeping up with bills.

Its a Brave New World

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/10/lane.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/28/059.html
In our society being bored or socially aukward is now a mental illness deserving of constant expensive medication. Nevermind that medication has side effects like bleeding from the eyes, at least you wont feel embarassed by your bleeding eyes anymore. All this manipulation of meaning is done by the pharmacuitcal companies that dont want to cure disease anymore, they want to create legal narcotics that we have to buy monthly to boost their profit margins and they discovered that its easier to make an inconvenient part of everyday life, for which there is already a drug, into a mental illness than it is to research a cure for AIDS.

At least in the Brave New World there was promiscuity to look foreward to. The really sad thing is that all the distopian futures written about and feared over the last century and a half are coming true. Not (entirely) through the will of an evil dictatorial government, but because its profitable over the short term to hurt other people and the environment which they inhabit.

This is why capitalism has the capicity to destroy itself, why market forces are not a substitute ofr morality, and why business ethics are not ethical.

Deafening Silence

Like Major General Jalil Khalaf, I find myself wondering, "Where are the intellectuals? Why is everyone silent?" In Basra, General Khalaf's charge, the question has more violence associated with it. However, here in the United States, the question, though perhaps not as serious in consequence on an individual level, is just as serious. Where is the opposition? Why are most of those who oppose the W regime quietly submitting to ever-greater governmental intrusions and controls into the lives of the individual citizen? Why are our legislators not more forcefully opposing the degradation of our freedom? Why is the mainstream news media complicit in the militarization of American society and the reduction of the federal bureaucracy and branches of government into a fascist dictatorship?

If we keep compromising submitting to a bully, he'll keep taking whatever he can until there is nothing meaningful or worthwhile left.

Military Industrial Complex

Despite there being no threat of a nuke from Iran, Bush wishes to rush ahead with the European Missile Shield. Not to mention, it pisses Russia off. Through all this the old media never mentions the miliary industrial complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex

10 U.S. Flags not enough to make Romney a Christian

Its really easy to make the argument about tolerance Romney is making when you are in a minority religion, or are being discriminated against like Romney is. I wonder if he, or the conservative evangaliticals he is courting with this speech, would apply the same tolerance to Islam or Rastafarianism, or Wicca. Their behavior in the past does not fill me with confidence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_21;_ylt=AvNPAFj7ljheBLdNDxDl0MIE1vAI

We are Imbued With Certain Natural Rights From Our Creator

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123496.html
Its nice to see a judge that has respect for Ron Paul, even though he uses terms that make me uncomfortable. I get the feeling that if Ron Paul started comparing himself to Barry Goldwater, about half of his support would vanish. Its also nice to see a judge with an honest opinion of the President refer to average Americans as sheeple.

Here, the government is asking firemen to spy on you. What could possibly go wrong? For one, lots more lawsuits.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gek2oSZ_67sh2ukVvXaCGCXzpypwD8T3IFL81

Something that is rarely pointed out, the case that established the state secrets defence was actually an example of government lies. Years later when the requested documents were made public it was revealed that infact, there was no secret mission, and there was no spy equipment. It was just some guys on a normal plane on a normal training run. The government just wanted to avoid liability for a wrongfull death.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_go_co/state_secrets_4;_ylt=AjLTg3ieO32EurPT9pvqFOoE1vAI

Another Big Fuckin Suprise

This is one of those things that is actually news of the situation being worse than previously known. However, noone will take any notice because everyone already assumed it was this bad. Basically, ATT was tapping EVERY FUCKING CALL, EMAIL, OR BIT OF INFORMATION you transmited over their lines.

Thats really fucking important!

The question being tossed around in the courts and the legislature is weather the government can tap calls involving foreigners because its pretty fucking clear that tapping the calls of a US citizen is illegal. But thats exactly what they have been doing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004001159_spying08.html?betterheadline

We are The Future

The information will be free, despite your best efforts to restrain, control, and oppress us. The balance has been shifted, and we are of equal strengths now. Scissors cutting paper, we can and are slowly tearing away at your ugly underside, muckracking and bringing your worst excesses into the light of day. The heavy hand of government is placed squarely on the back of our necks, like in the DMCA, but we can invent new media almost faster than you can catch up to it. Humanity will be integrated as a whole in a way that Gutenberg could never have comprehended. Despite your best efforts to divide us into disparate parts, unequal to your inertitude, always fighting each other.

You cannot control us, you will listen to us, the information is free.

The Unmasking of the Dark Side

Cheney admits he is Vader

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_darth_vader_7;_ylt=Am5CHgdI.jBR89dBofBFY5AE1vAI

You Were Wrong to Taze That Guy, Bro

According to Chap. 776.05 (1) of Florida Statute, an officer is empowered to use force "Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest." Just in case you may be wondering how this rule and the rest of this section of Florida Law is applied practically by the cops on the street, there are policies governing the proper use of tazers by Florida Law Enforcement Officials, in such places as Orange County, Miami, and Leon County. According to all of these policies, officers must use an increasing use of force matrix to address the threat, starting with a physical presence (Level 1) up to use of firearms (Level 6). In the middle, at Level 4 is deployment of ECD or tazer.

Without having seen an actual copy of the report issued by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, I would have to say that this entire affair is a bit of a white wash. From the number of officers and the lack of meaningful escalation on the part of the six or seven deputies that were surrounding Mr. Meyer at the time of the incident, it is reasonable to assume that the aforementioned deputies were not familiar with the proper techniques in deploying tazer and should be held criminally and civilly liable for the harm to Mr. Meyer's person and reputation. For instance, the aforementioned policy of Miami, "A single act of non-compliance shall not justify the use of a tazer weapon." Furthermore, the use of a tazer is only authorized if the subject is continuing to resist, not like Mr. Meyer who expressed a willingness to cooperate with law enforcement officials at the time of his arrest. ( See the Sept. 20 posting, Tazers: Tool or Crutch? )

In the case of Graham vs. Conner. 490 US 386 (1989), the court determined that reasonable use of force is governed by the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. To summarize, when considering the reasonableness of a particular instance of the use of force the court should make allowances for the implicit use of force suggested by the arrest powers of law enforcement officials and their need to react to tense and uncertain situations. However, the court should primarily address the following: the severity of the crime, the danger posed by the suspect to himself and others, and any attempt to resist arrest or flight. In the particular case of Mr. Meyer, it is apparent that asking a question of an elected official does not, in and of itself, constitute grounds to deploy a tazer against a suspect. The officers on the scene, by virtue of their numbers, should have been able to restrain Mr. Meyer without having to resort to an escalated use of force. Also, at no time did Mr. Meyer ever do anything to flee the scene or resist the arresting officers. Which brings us back to the remaining justification, the danger presented by the subject to himself and others. Is this really the justification of the use of force on Mr. Meyer?

Was his question so dangerous that it required deployment of a tazer in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? Anyone who values not living in a fascist police state should care about this case and its ramifications for the rest of us.