allow me to introduce you to adam mermer

According to his Facebook page and now-closed Twitter account, Adam Mermer is 42 years old, a present resident of Boston, Massachusetts, and unsurprisingly single.  Predictably, he somewhat vociferously supports the Patriots, though I do not at all understand his liking of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.  He used to work at Burque Jewelers a few years ago (which he apparently inherited from his father – only notable on account of how happy he seems to not work there any more), and, oh, by the way, he wants to murder you. 

I wish I were joking. 

AdamMermerExecutionHow’s this? 

Gun owners are a deadly threat to public safety and their execution should be legal. 

… and …

AdamMermerExecution3Once again.  Gun owners demonstrate that they are a mortal danger to society and their execution is an imperative. 

Do not bother looking for the [email protected] Twitter account – the coward shut it down once he realized people were screencapturing his tweets and recording them for posterity.  Unfortunately, he somewhat neglected to remember to appropriately protect his Facebook account… 

AdamMermerScumOnce again. If you support the arming of the general population, you are scum and deserve no mercy for your threats against public safety and common decency.

Do you defend Constitutionally-protected human rights?  Adam Mermer believes you are “scum” and “threatening” people. 

AdamMermerCapitalPunishmentYet another reason that firearms should ALWAYS be locked away and their possession heavily regulated.

As well as further proof that those who like guns are dangerous psychopaths deserving of swift and harsh punishment.

Preferably the "capital" kind.

Do you like a hobby that Adam Mermer does not like?  Well, you should be punished, and preferably murdered by your government. 

AdamMermerIllegalJust curious.

Doesn’t the notion that we need more guns to protect us from people with guns seem completely stupid?

Ah! That’s because pro gun people are basically retarded psychopaths

Not one single person has provided a logical counter as to why firearms should be allowed in general circulation or why illegal possessors should be allowed to live. Or why ALL firearms shouldn’t be made illegal.

Do you own an inanimate lump of metal illegally?  Adam Mermer thinks you should be murdered.  Of course, he thinks it should be illegal to own all inanimate lumps of metal of a certain configuration, so he wants to murder a lot of people. 

AdamMermerMolonLabeCan someone explain why "Molon Labe" isn’t considered a statement of terrorism and all who exclaim it to be jailed for inciting violence and treason?

It’s stating that they will murder police and soldiers. If that does t deserve placement in front of a firing squad or a seat in an electric chair, nothing does.

Do you express a willingness to defend your property, your rights, and your life from unjust and unconstitutional attacks?  Adam Mermer would like to put you at the head of the line for riding the lightning, even ahead of mass murderers and rapists. 

I confess to being easily amused at times, but it is just fascinating how Adam Mermer so vociferously claims to be anti-death and anti-violence and so forth, but then calls for outright murdering anyone who even so much as holds an opinion different than his own.  Just as some people do want to take your firearms from you – despite no shortage of claims to the contrary – some people really do want to murder you for the simple act of standing up for your rights. 

Why do I carry and own firearms?  People like Adam Mermer are just one of the many reasons. 

that ugly "need" hydra

A few months ago, I happened to have a rather… interesting*… conversation with the warped and benighted mind behind the Twitter account of @1StopCity. A recurring theme in this particular conversation is that unless you have a particular "need" for something or to do something, you have absolutely no right to that thing or to do that thing, or, in his very own words, "Odds against you "needing" a gun negate your right to own one."

Oh, the places you could go with that kind of "logic". Obviously it is inherently and intrinsically incorrect – rights exist independent of any arbitrarily-defined concept of "need", and, furthermore, who is someone else to define what I need? – but let us examine its actual underpinnings for a moment.

In 2001, arguably our worst year for such things, 2926 people were killed due to terrorist’s actions, and at the time, there were 285,081,556 people living in the country. While not entirely accurate, one can therefore say you had about a 0.001026% chance of being killed by a terrorist or terrorist actions in 2001.

However, on the basis of that one-thousandth-of-a-percent chance, over the past 11 years, America has wasted in excess of sixty billion dollars (yes, with a "b") on a program that has never once caught a terrorist, has failed more times than we care to count, and is responsible for sexually assaulting and invading the privacy of millions of travelers a year… all in the names of "safety" and "security".

On the other hand, in 2001, 1,436,611 people were the victims of violent crimes – murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, so, again, while this is not entirely accurate, you can say you had about a 0.5039% chance of being the victim of a violent crime.

In other words, you were, more or less, five hundred times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than of terrorism.

So if the Thousands of Sexual Assaulters are the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread(TM) (and I am, admittedly, assuming 1StopCity would hold to that belief), then the notion of "self-defense" is a Totally Awesome and Earth-Shatteringly Necessary Thing, and, furthermore, the United States Government should subsidize it somewhere on the order of $30,000,000,000,000.

By my calculations, that works out to somewhere around one Glock 17, one middlingly-good AR-15, one tricked out Remington 870, and somewhere around 180,000 rounds of mixed ammunition for all three for every man, woman, and child in the country. I could live with that.

And this is why "gun control" extremists like 1StopCity have failed in the past, are failing today, and will invariably fail in the future – once you take apart their "logic" (and I use that term very loosely) and examine it for what it is, it dissolves like the Wicked Witch of the West swan-diving into the Pacific. Even looking past the disturbing and inherently flawed notion that you have no rights if he decides you do not "need" them, his position falls apart as soon as you consider it in light of actual, honest-to-God facts and figures, much less apply his "reasoning" to other concepts.

Of course, this is the same person who, in the same conversation, informed me that "There are no absolutes" so something tells me he would pull the standard anti-rights cultist tactic of wishing those facts away…

(* – "Interesting" because in response to the question, "would majority-approved slavery infringe on people’s rights?", his response was, and I quote, "As no one has any inherent rights, no, their rights wouldn’t be infringed. Would it be horrible? Yes."** This was the culmination of the above "you only have the rights the majority approves" conversation; at that point, I figured the discussion was over – how do you actually hold a conversation with someone with such a radically totalitarian position? – which is just as well, since he ended up blocking me for daring to have the gall to quote his own words back to him. Joe tried to continue the debate, but given that they were coming from such disparate starting points, it did not get far.

** – Speaking more specifically, this concept still befuddles me. If an action does not abridge a person’s rights, why or how could it be "horrible"? How do you determine the "horrible" nature of an action without some way of measuring – or even determining – if harm has been done to a person? After all, if a person has no right to be free of slavery, then slavery does not harm them, does it?)

while you were not looking

While you and I and most of the rest of the world were getting well and truly sloshed to celebrate the passing of a somewhat blah year and celebrate the arrival of a new one we can all screw up all over again, Our Glorious President was busy literally signing our rights away.

I still have not decided what else to say in addition to what I have already said in regards to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, but I do believe it is time to start checking your inventories, training levels, and willpower. We have no idea how the new powers granted by this bill will be abused, but the options are damned near limitless.

quotes of the day – national defense authorization act

I am not going to directly comment on this situation until much later, after I have had time to calm down and fully collect my thoughts, but I figured these quotes would put you all in the right frame of mind.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

45th Congress, Second Session, Chapter 263, Section 15 of the Acts thereof:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person wilfully (sic) violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

18 USC § 1385:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

18 USC § 375:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.


Remember: Voting for John McCain is just more of George Bush’s war on the Constitution, with its indefinite detentions of anybody the government suspects of terrorism…

How’s that Hope & Change workin’ out?

John W. Whitehead:

In short, this defense bill not only decimates the due process of law and habeas corpus for anyone perceived to be an enemy of the United States, but it radically expands the definition of who may be considered the legitimate target of military action. If signed into law by President Obama, this bill will not only ensure that we remain in a perpetual state of war — with this being a war against the American people — but it will also institute de facto martial law in the United States. Although the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act placed strong restrictions on how and when the U.S. military may be used on American soil, the language of this bill supersedes Posse Comitatus, empowering the president to unilaterally impose martial law at any time of his choosing. This legislation signals the end of the rule of law in America.

Commander William Adama:

There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

Erin Palette:

President Obama has now declared that he will sign the NDAA into law — a bill which authorizes the indefinite detention of anyone suspected of being a terrorist. What’s the definition of "terrorist"? Why, it’s anyone who has guns and ammunition, or has more than 7 days of food and water in their home, or who is missing fingers:

So when this passes, you can say goodbye to the 4th Amendment, and probably the 5th, 6th and 8th as well.

Christopher Burg:

Fascism is here ladies and gentlemen. Our “representatives” are voting on declaring our nation a battlefield, which will allow military personell to detain anybody without so much as charges being declared. The mere fact that senators of this country are even entertaining this idea demonstrates how far we’ve fallen from the original ideas of liberty this country was founded on.


I always thought it’d be interesting to watch a civilization collapse first-hand. Now that I am, I’m not so sure. #ndaa #sopa #fail

And on a related note, given the "bipartisan support" for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, I continue to see no difference at all between "Republicans" and "Democrats".

I really do not know what else to say… Once upon a time, I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and now, in the process of holding the funding for the military I served hostage, our Congress is undermining that oath, our Constitution, and our very nation. What the hell is there to say to that?

quote of the day – michael z. williamson

Say something negative about a homosexual, and you will suddenly find yourself being accused of "hate speech".

Criticize Our Glorious President, and you are obviously "racist".

Point out that our government is heading down a fiscally unviable path, and you will be labeled a "terrorist".

What do all of those examples have in common? People are attempting to silence you by means of social ostracization. Why? Because they disagree with what you have to say, and have no better argument to bring to bear against you than calling you names. Make sure you understand that point – you have a difference of opinion with some people, and rather than rationally consider the positions and present a reasoned argument, those people would rather force you into silence through societal pressure.

Force. Granted, force that is purely based on your willingness to accept the titles of "hate speech" or "racist" or "terrorist" and all of the social baggage that come with them, but force nonetheless.

And that blatant use of naked force makes those people exactly the same as the kinds of folks Michael Z. Williamson is talking about here:

Those particular Muslims need to get over it. This is the 21st Century, not the Dark Ages, and they need to accept that large numbers of us have no interest in or outright distaste for their god and prophet (may bees pee on him). People DO have the right to burn the US Flag, crap on their holy book (or any other holy book), call them names and otherwise express positions that are valid, invalid, well-considered or off the cuff.

So regardless of what anyone thinks of West’s statements, I believe they are necessary, and I endorse their presence, without comment on their content.

You have every right to be offended at whatever your little heart desires. Anything. Everything. Whatever. I do not care. I do not, however, have the right, nor should you have the ability, to force me to do anything on the basis of your irrational, emotional response to something I have said. You may not like what I have to say. You may not agree. You may not even listen. But you have no right to stop me from saying it (unless I am doing so on your property, or various other analogues). And I would not have it any other way.

This concept is probably why anti-rights cultists fear and hate us so much… Not only do we have the unmitigated gall to disagree with their authoritarian pipe-dreams, but we also have the willpower and the hardware necessary to keep them from forcibly silencing us. Which, when you get right down to it, was one of the primary reasons the Second Amendment was added to the United States Constitution.