lou gagliardi wants to kidnap your children

But she wants someone else to do it for her, so that is ok. 

Unfortunately, the following Twitter conversation will be somewhat disjointed and I will be unable to adequately link to all of the various tweets.  Why?  Because Lou Gagliardi is a spineless coward who, upon realizing what she said, Memory Hole’d the tweets I managed to keep screen captures of. 

Why did she delete these tweets?  Why do you think – because she knows just how reprehensible and disgusting they really are. 

In any case, we are jumping in mid-conversation, with: 

Linoge_WOTC:  According to #guncontrol #extremist @lougagliardi, I’m a terrorist for standing up for my human rights. If that’s not insanity…

lougagliardikidnapper1Lou Gagliardi:  #gunowner #terrorist @linoge_wotc thinks owning military grade weapon is a “human right” If he has children, they should be taken off him

Read that again, just to let it sink in.  Check out the screen capture if you do not believe my reprinting of it.  For the heinous “crime” of standing up for my human rights of self-preservation, self-defense, the ownership of private property, and simply being left alone to live my life in peace, Lou Gagliardi wants some nameless, faceless entity (otherwise known as “the federal government”, no doubt) to unjustly relieve me of my (non-existent) children without due process, a trial, or any other Constitutionally-protected rights observed. 

Wow.  Just.  Plain.  Wow. 

To begin with, as we pro-rights advocates have always maintained, if you cannot respect one Constitutionally-protected right, you cannot respect any of them.  As much as Lou Gagliardi absolutely despises the rights protected by the Second Amendment (which, by the way, does include the right to own “military grade weapons” – after all, the Founding Fathers had no problems with their citizenry owning cannon and warships, for heaven’s sake), she likewise hates the rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, and arguably the Ninth and Tenth as well. 

Moving on, Lou Gagliardi has, to put it simply, been losing her gos-se over my comment that she wants to kidnap the children of people who own AR-15s, and whatever-the-hell else she thinks qualifies as a “military grade weapon” (even though, obviously, AR-15s are not even used by the military).  Unfortunately for her, that is simply the way our representative-style government works.  If you call for the government to do X, and it actually does X, you share in the responsibility of that action being executed.  If you elect a representative who says he does X, and he actually goes and does X, you share in the responsibility of that action being executed.  This is part of the reason I am becoming a more and more staunch independent, and why I am having a harder and harder time voting for any incumbents whatsoever – I refuse to share in the dirt they have on their hands. 

Having armed men do something on your behalf simply does not keep your hands clean; this is actually one of the largest disconnects we rational pro-rights activists have with “gun control” extremists like Lou Gagliardi here.  They absolutely cannot tolerate the notion of private citizens keeping firearms for their own personal defense, but they have absolutely no problems calling… armed citizens who happen to have badges to come and use their firearms to defend them.  Helpful Hint: violence by proxy does not keep your hands clean. 

Addendum to Helpful Hint:  neither does kidnapping by proxy. 

Unfortunately, Lou Gagliardi was not content to simply leave it at that: 

Gun Rights Alert@linoge_wotc They’d have to go through me first. And the kids can take care of themselves, too. @lougagliardi pic.twitter.com/3iy2sncX

lougagliardikidnapper2Lou Gagliardi:  @GunRightsAlert @linoge_wotc this is exactly why they should be taking off of you. thank you for the evidence to prove my point. 

Incomprehensible grammar aside, Lou Gagliardi’s position is pretty clear – if you own “military grade weapon(s)” (which basically means whatever this ignorant imbecile says it means), your children should be forcibly removed from your protection. 

But Lou Gagliardi herself is not going to be doing the kidnapping… oh, no, she could not dream of getting her pretty little hands dirty like that.  Instead, she wants other people – other armed people, ironically enough – to do her dirty work for her… as if that will somehow keep those hands of hers clean. 

Newsflash: it will not. 

Secondary Newsflash:  attempting to forcibly relieve firearm-owning, responsible, willing-to-defend-themselves-and-their-families adults of their children is not going to end well. 

But, after all, that is exactly why Lou Gagliardi wants someone else to execute her totalitarian pipe dreams – she is too much of a coward to go door-to-door herself, and face those armed parents while attempting to unjustly and unethically strip them of their children.  She would rather hide in whatever hovel she calls a home, and demand, plead, scream for men – armed men, despite her hatred of firearms – to go and kidnap law-abiding citizens’ children for no good reason except she does not like something you said. 

And, tell me, what will those armed men do when you say, “No”?  What will those armed men do when you attempt to defend your children – your family – from unjust and illegal attempts at kidnapping them? 

If you follow Lou Gagliardi’s demands to their logical conclusion, she wants people – other people, of course (you, federal agents, your children, etc.) – to die simply because she does not like you owning firearms and peacefully expressing that you support the right to continue owning them. 

How disgusting is that

Some folks following me questioned why I was toying with Lou Gagliardi for as long as I did, especially once she sunk into the inescapable morass of endless logical fallacies.  This is why.  It is important for we pro-rights activists to fully grasp some anti-rights cultists’ deep-seated, irrational, visceral, and obscene hatred for us, for our families, for our lives.  Certainly not all “gun control” fetishists believe as Lou Gagliardi does, but this theme of attacking pro-rights activists through their children is becoming distressingly common

Bear that murderous hatred in mind when you question the need to contact your senators and representatives and let them know that your support depends on their support of freedom and our individual rights. 

[Update]  Holy crap on an everloving crutch.  Immediately after writing this post and finally tired of Lou Gagliardi’s incessant lies and harassment, I went to block her Twitter account, only to be confronted with this tweet: 

lougagliardikidnapper3Lou Gagliardihotair.com/archives/2013/01/06/mom-shoots-intruder-saves-kids/ … this mother needs to have her kids taken off of her by children’s bureau for having guns in the house #guncontrol

Take a look at the article she links to – a woman defends her family from a known felon breaking into her house, and yet Lou Gagliardi wants this woman’s children stolen from her?  “Disgusting” does not even begin to cover that position.  [/Update]

tim hutchison tries… and still fails

Politicians are so easy.

Almost a month ago, I wrote a friendly letter to Tim Hutchison, an apparent state representative candidate for the newly-moved 89th District (*.pdf warning) here in Tennessee (it used to be over in Memphis, and is now in Knoxville… that will not be confusing at all!). Unsurprisingly, he never responded to that email, which happened to ask some rather poignant, penetrating questions, and I decided to send that email to him again yesterday, along with put up a post entitled “tim hutchison fails”.

Lo and behold, what should appear in my email inbox yesterday at 2323 than a response from Tim himself! Funny how that works… Anywise, here is his email; I am not going to bother replying to it directly, for reasons that will rapidly become apparent, but I could not resist a good, old-fashioned (if brief) fisking:

Thank you for your contact on my website. I too am sorry I missed you.

So you left me a note card saying you were sorry you missed me, I responded by saying, “I, too, am somewhat sorry you missed me as well,” and you reply with, “I too am sorry I missed you”?

I am really trying to come up with something snarky to say right here, but I honestly cannot devise anything worse than simply pointing out that “conversational” chain…

I am glad we agree on the most important issues.

So far as I can tell, the only things we agree upon are “citizens should be allowed to carry firearms if they so desire”, “the government should be smaller”, and “Tennessee should not have an income tax”.

However, those are just the broad strokes of the issues at play. Something tells me you – a former Sheriff and a Handgun Carry Permit instructor – would not at all be keen on the “Constitutional Carry” notion that is slowly sweeping its way across the country (but that is just a guess based on the actions of other Sheriffs and HCP instructors in the state; you could yet prove me wrong); you use the word “smaller” in relation to the government but I do not think it means what you think it means; and you dodge the question about the Hall Income Tax. So, yes, I arguably do agree with some of your bumper-sticker slogans and plebum-ready pablum, but those catch-phrases are hardly the actual hearts of the “issues”.

Likewise, I can guarantee you that we disagree on the actually important issues. For instance, your “pro-life” stance puts you in squarely in “the government should have control over you life” camp, which is about as polarly opposite from where I am as you can get. Likewise, a government’s role is not to “assist senior citizens” (but I do have to wonder what the average voter’s age is in District 89, now that you mention it…), nor is it to “promote jobs” (in fact, the government should just get the hell out of the way and let actual job-creators do what they would really like to do).

I do not think I will ever understand this fixation on “agreeing” that some people have. It does not matter how many people “agree” that 2+2=5, it still does not. Likewise, it does not matter how many points of congruence our positions might have; the fact that they exist does not mean I actually agree with you or support you.

It is great to live in a country where we can express ourselves and disagree at times,

But you were just telling me that we were agreeing on so much! Make up your mind…

and one where we can own and carry firearms for our protection. I have been a firearms instructor since 1979 and am a Tennessee Handgun Permit Instructor.

Well, thank you for that much, at least.

The neighborhood watch sign is one given to your subdivision while I was Sheriff. The No Solicitation sign was not provided by the Sheriff’s Office.

Then either you or my Neighborhood Association president are lying to me, since she told me a year ago, “We are an officially registered Neighborhood Association and have gone through the Neighborhood Watch program (this is where our No Soliciting sign on the first signpost came from). You are therefore allowed to inform solicitors that there is a No Soliciting Policy in our neighborhood. If they do not leave, we are to call the Sheriffs Dept at 215-2444 to report it.”

Honestly, I trust her over you, especially since she was the one who procured the signs to begin with.

The notice is one of request for solicitors.

Pretty sure I was aware of that (the giveaway might have been the “Solicitation” part of the “No Solicitation” sign), but thanks.

All the streets there are public. A private development has the right to keep solicitors out.

That is nice, but it does not change the fact that my private property is just that – private property. That sign may not be able to do a darned thing to keep anyone from traversing public roads (and, trust me, come winter, I am thankful they are public roads), but it stands in the place of a “NoTrespassing” sign placed in the yard of every home in the neighborhood. So, sure, solicitors and anyone else who wants to can waddle their way up and down the streets of our neighborhood, shove stuff in our mailboxes, and even try to talk to us from those streets, but the second they step foot on our private property, they are in violation of that sign, and we are apparently empowered to call the Sheriff’s Department to have nice men in uniforms with guns come and remove those folks from our property.

Way to split hairs.

A solicitor by definition in Knox County Charter Article II, section 12-26 is: A solicitor is any person, firm or corporation who goes dwelling to dwelling, business to business, place to place or from street to street, taking or attempting to take orders for any goods, wares or merchandise, or personal property of any nature whatever for future delivery.In other words selling merchandise.

Ah, finally, after all that hemming and hawing, we actually get to the nuts and bolts of the law. Was that so very hard? I will certainly grant that you do not meet the Knox County legal definition of a “solicitor” if you are going door-to-door to foster votes from folks, but I still maintain the action constitutes “solicitation” in the original definition of the word.

Going door to door is simply to introduce myself.

Yes, you – a political candidate running for office – have absolutely no other ulterior motives that would come into play when going door-to-door in neighborhoods. And it is totally normal for a complete stranger to go door-to-door in multiple neighborhoods “introducing himself”.

I think I should be offended at how gullible/naive you think I am.

I have to date completed 67 neighborhoods and it is important to me to see what the citizens have to say and what their concerns are.

So just because you have done 67 neighborhoods, that makes it ok? And there is absolutely no other ways that you could interact with your potential constituents and see what their positions on the issues are, is there?

So the upshot of all of this is that you believe you are above the rules and you do not care about your would-be constituents’ wishes if those wishes were to impinge on your ability to campaign and pander? Yeah, you are exactly the kind of person I want representing me on any level of government. [/snark]

Again, thank you for your contact.

Wait, that is it? What about my question regarding whether or not you will let your “pro-life” stance affect your belief in a “smaller government”? How about your diametrically opposed positions that the government should be smaller but also should support the elderly? What about my inquiry regarding your position on the Hall Income Tax, the existence of which belies the notion that “Tennessee has no income tax”?

Or were those questions just too hard to answer?

On the one hand, I suppose I should be thankful Tim responded at all. On the other hand, if these are the best answers I could get out of my local (potential) representative regarding some very serious issues in his campaign planks, is it any wonder why our country is in the condition we find it in today?

However, I can only reiterate what I said yesterday – Tim is not the problem; Tim is only a symptom of the problem. The real problem is American citizens who would vote for a supposed “representative” who does not give a damn about the wishes and desires of his constituents aside from the all-consuming goal of “get elected”; when you keep putting people like that in positions of power, you should not be surprised that you end up with petty authoritarians gobbling up all the power they can get their grubby little mitts on.

the quicker sender-awayer

It probably goes without saying that I inherited a fair amount of my perverse sense of humor from my parents; for example, when the Jehovah’s Witnesses / Church of Latter-Day Saints / etc. would come knocking at our door, my parents would listen very politely to the folks’ opening spiel, and then inform them that we were druidic fire-worshipers, and we were not sure that the Eternal Flame would be particularly understanding if we were to turn our backs on it.

The looks on those poor evangelicals’ faces were… well… you can imagine.

A couple weekends back, we had a young man and lady from one Christian sect or another (they never had the chance to identify which, but the male was carrying what appeared to be a Bible) come knocking on our door at about 1000 on Saturday morning – a perfectly respectable time of the day, I will grant, but we had slept in that day, and were in no particular rush to get dressed and get on with whatever pressing matters we had.

So I answered the door in my bathrobe.

I have to admit, the reaction was nowhere near as funny as the whole “druidic fire-worshiper” thing, but it certainly got rid of them faster…

(Note: I have no particular animus against door-to-door evangelicals, I just have no real desire to listen to them.)