new rule

Thanks to a certain spineless coward (who is less anonymous than he thinks) taking potshots at myself and my friends behind the veil of history-less usernames and bogus email addresses, I have instituted a new functionality at this site:  if you are a first time commenter and your comment clears the standard spam traps and detectors I have installed, the site will send you a happy little email informing you that if you verify your email address by clicking on some link, your comment will go ahead and be approved without any input from me. 

This serves a two-fold purpose.  First, new commenters will not have to wait for me to get around to approving their comments, assuming they use legitimate email addresses.  Second, if you do not use a valid/reachable email address, the happy little email will bounce, and I will cheerfully, summarily delete your comment

If you have already commented here, this will not affect you.  If you want to comment here but do not want to share your email address with the site engine, email me at “linoge (at) wallsofthecity (dot) net” and we will discuss it. 

I certainly do not demand that people comment under their carbon names and their work email addresses, but the days of cowardly lashing out against people from the safety of total anonymity are over. 

If you want the privilege of bad-talking my associates and me on my property, you are going to have to own your words. Deal with it. 

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

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 … 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]

baldr odinson outs himself

By now, regular readers of my weblog should be familiar with the name “Baldr Odinson” – that spineless, dishonest, cowardly troll who so very much hates it when his own methodologies and tricks are used against him (speaking of, I need to put his poll back up at some point).  Regular readers of the pro-rights community would also be aware that Baldr Odinson condoned, if not outright supported, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s vicious, vindictive, and generally bullyish “outing” of various pro-rights activists, myself included; for example: 

baldrodinsonjasonkilgoreoutingOne pro-gun blogger, Wer’d Beard, is sensitive about his real name being "outed" by CSGV. Poor guy, but I’ll abstain as a fellow blogger.

That tweet used to include a link to the CSGV’s weblog wherein they did the outing, until such time as Weer’d requested Baldr take it down.  One cannot mistake the sentiment in those short sentences, though. 

baldrodinsonjasonkilgore1baldrodinsonjasonkilgore2Well, it would appear as though Baldr Odinson has beaten all of the rest of us to the punch, and gone and “outed” himself on Facebook – say hello to Baldr, everyone… or should I say “Jason Kilgore”? 

Now, normally, I would not go posting the personal information of folks who choose to use a screen name while they make use of the Intertubes – being one of those folks myself, I fully understand the motivations involved.  However, in this particular case, I feel as though it is particularly warranted for a variety of reasons. 

First, as you can see to the left, he “outed” himself, on a public page, on Facebook.  He put his screen name right next to his carbon name, in a place where anyone and everyone could see it.  And, lo and behold, someone did. 

baldrodinsonjasonkilgore3Second, as previously mentioned, he condoned / supported / encouraged / facilitated the CSGV when they were going on their mass “outing” spree a few months ago, and personally leveraged some of the outcomes of that despicable activities for his own gain.  The shoe is now on the other foot. 

Third, he has been using either his screen name or his carbon name to sock-puppet for the other, as seen in the two screen captures to the right (the first is available here, the second is available here).  Trying to make yourself look more popular, more appreciated, more widely-recognized, and more agreed-with by generating additional screen names / accounts / etc. is a time-honored tradition of the Intertubes, but not a particularly honorable one. 

Fourth, he actually gave an interview, to a television station, using his screen name as his identification: 

Really Jason?  Really?  Welcome to being a “public figure” (as your Facebook profile claims, by the by); once you assume that mantle, any semblance of “privacy” goes right out the window.  (Of course, the misspelling is all the more amusing, given the circumstances.) 

Fifth and finally, Jason Kilgore (aka “Baldr Odinson”) decided to get his panties in a wad over the lawful use of the above-left Facebook image.  As you all know, I am a firm believer in individual rights, including the right to intellectual property ownership; however, as I said in comments

He cannot even claim that. He did not take the picture!

That, right there, is the key element.

Baldr was in a public place, acting as a public figure. As such, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy when that photograph was taken. As such, he has no copyright claim, whatsoever, to that picture, despite being the subject of it.

The only person who originally owned the copyright was the person behind the camera that took it. Did Baldr have that person’s permission to put the picture on his Facebook page?

Seemingly petty though that question may be, it is invaluably important, given Facebook’s rather… demanding… copyright rules, in that they claim ownership of anything and everything that is posted on their domain, regardless of who owned it previously.

Unless Baldr has a notarized power of attorney (or equivalent documentation) from the person who took the picture, or from Facebook themselves, he simply has no standing.

IANAL and all that.

… And as Tango followed up with

That’s not the key. You didn’t reuse his picture. You captured the picture with the surrounding page because what you wrote is specifically about that exact picture and the article associated with it. You wrote an article ABOUT the picture, so reproducing it as such is very very clearly covered under fair use.

So welcome to the club of “outed” webloggers, Jason Kilgore (aka “Baldr Odinson”).  If you had not gone to the effort of Streisanding yourself, maybe this all would have blown over and no one would have been the wiser.  As it is, given your encouragement of the CSGV when the started violating people’s privacy, you are, as I believe the saying goes, not-so-respectfully invited to “suck it”. 

(Oh, and what the hell is with the Heaven’s Gate outfit?) 

make a vote, lose a vote

My requirements for my duly-elected representatives to get my votes are fairly simple: respect and preserve my rights, do your best to minimize government, and stand up for what you believe in. Through their failings in one or more of those categories, Representative John Duncan and Senator Bob Corker both just lost my vote:

"I wish we could balance the budget immediately, but it is not totally up to me," said U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, who voted for the bill. "I certainly do not like the idea of raising the debt ceiling based on cuts, some of which are several years away. But with the current balance of power, this agreement is apparently the best we can do."

You are absolutely right – when spineless gits like you fold rather than stand up for what you apparently believe to be right, this is the best we can do. How many of your co-workers were of similar mindsets and simply gave up, rather than hold fast to doing their absolute damnest to dig our country out of this hole we are blasting away at with atomics? How much of a change do you think you would have made if you had simply bothered to team together, and work towards actual, honest-to-God cuts in spending right now, rather than the pointless promise of vague and nebulous not-really-"cuts" in the future?

You did not have to vote for this bulldren bill, but you chose to anywise, despite knowing that it was not the right answer… and, due to that, I will happily choose to note vote for you in the future.

"In business, I learned that you can never go broke taking a profit, and in Washington, I’ve discovered a similar adage: that you should never say no to spending cuts," Corker said.

Still, "our country’s battle with spending is the struggle of this decade," Corker said, "and this package is a down payment which I view as the beginning of our work and not the end."

1. There were no real "cuts". The projection for the next ten years would be that we would be adding $10,000,000,000,000 (yes, that many zeros) to our national debt – this bill promises (but in no way, shape, or form guarantees) that we will try to reduce that number to somewhere around $7+ trillion.

Uhm, yay?

2. Your "down payment" is crap. The first two years’ "cuts" are $20 billion and $50 billion, and you want us to believe that in the remaining 8 years, you are somehow going to cut an additional $2,050 billion?

Either you are an idiot, or you think we are idiots, and in either case, I see no reason why I should continue to support your representation of me.

And speaking of idiots, it would appear as though Senator Lamar Alexander followed suit:

On debt deal: "Make no mistake. This is a change in behavior—from spend, spend, spend to cut, cut, cut."

No, no it is not. You are still spending – at positively obscene rates – the only thing that has changed is that you have slowed the car running straight for the cliff from 100 miles per hour to a more sedate 95. The cliff is still there, and we are still headed for it, and you are gleefully ghost-riding the thing all the way to the damned edge, so not a damned thing has changed… except now you can pat yourselves on the back and proclaim to the world that you Did Something.

Really, I would appreciate it if you were to stop lying to your constituents and the rest of the American people, Senator Alexander.

All three of these gentlemen have done some good in protecting our Second-Amendment-guaranteed rights, amongst other things, but they have also proven themselves willing to sell future generations down the hole of unrecoverable debt rather than take a stand in the here-and-now. I cannot say as though I have a great deal of respect for anyone who would sell out other folks’ children just to get some political brownie points, and I sure as hell will not vote for them in the future.