Apparently, it’s not enough for Barack the Bully to have the Washington Post, the New York Times, the L.A. Times Jake Tapper, Annenberg Political (humorously known as “Factcheck.org”) and every other mainstream media outlet in its pocket. No, that’s not good enough; you got to stop the paid ads, too. What good would Pravda or Neues Deutschland have been if they ran paid editorials from dissidents? [That's a pretty crappy analogy, Xrlq. Everyone knows the commie governments of the USSR and the GDR had full control of their economies to an extent Obama can only dream of, so even if some dissident were ballsy enough to submit an ad like that to a state-run newspaper, where was he going to find the money to pay for it in the first place? -Ed. Shut up. -Not Ed.] Enter Robert F. Bauer, the scum attorney serving as General Counsel to another scum attorney currently seeking the Presidency. On Tuesday, Scum Attorney #1 sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of Scum Attorney #2 to a number of TV and radio stations suspected of running a hard-hitting - but absolutely truthful - advertisement by the National Rifle Association (links added by me):

Dear Station Manager:

As General Counsel to Obama for America, I write about an advertisement sponsored by the national Rifle Association (”NRA”) that may be airing on your station. The text of the advertisement, and a thorough explanation of its falsity, is attached.

Looky here. Apart from his inapt use of “thorough” to mean “selective” and “falsity” to mean “inconvenience,” he got the whole first paragraph right! The letter really was sent to station managers, Bauer really is General Counsel to the Obama campaign, the letter really is about an ad sponsored by the NRA, and the text of that ad really was attached to it. By Democrat standards, well done!

This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama’s position on the Second Amendment. In an article published today, the Washington Post fact-checks this advertisement and awards it three “Pinocchios,” meaning: “Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

Translation: one news organization that is every bit as rabid in its opposition to gun rights as Barack Obama is, has said the ad wasn’t true, therefore, it must not have been true, and no other news organization should even consider the possibility that it might be. Of course, let’s not go overboard or anything. We don’t want you to shut down all ads that get three or more Pinocchios, just the ones that make our side look bad.

For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement.

Translation: I’m not stupid enough to say that I’ll kill you if you don’t do as I say. Instead, let’s just say that it would be a real shame if someone were to do it. We all know the current President would never do anything like that, but who’s to say who might be President in the future?

The unarguable falsities in this advertisement include the following:

Of course, as the Journal of Irreproducible Results (now known as Annals of Improbable Research) demonstrated, the -able/ible can refer either to that which cannot be done, or to that which should not be done. In this case, it’s pretty clear which one the B.O. campaign is talking about. Of course the facts of Obama’s record on guns can be argued, at least for now. Just don’t, dammit, or else.

• The NRA advertisement falsely claims that “Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo.” Note that the NRA is claiming that Obama, in the midst of his presidential campaign, supports such a tax. In fact, Senator Obama has no policy to raise taxes on firearms or ammunition. The Washington Post found this article to be based on “very flimsy evidence.”

Of course the ad said nothing about what positions Obama advanced “in the midst of his Presidential campaign.” Bauer simply made that part up, as if to suggest that Obama’s past record is completely irrelevant to what he would do as President.

• The NRA advertisement falsely claims that Senator Obama “voted to ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition.” This claim is based on Senator Obama’s vote for the Kennedy Amendment, which would have expanded the definition of armor-piercing ammunition. As the Washington Post noted, Senator Kennedy - the author of the amendment in question - explained that it “will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles.” Factcheck.org unequivocally labeled the NRA’s claim “false.”

So the author of the bill lied about its scope. What else is new? As for “Factcheck.org,” a humorous reference to Annenberg Political, let’s just say if the names “Annenberg” and “Obama” sets off any bells, it’s purely a coincidence.

• the NRA advertisement falsely claims that Senator Obama “supports a ban on the shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting.” The source of this claim is the debate between Senator Obama and Alan Keyes on October 21, 2004; the full text of Senator Obama’s remark on the subject is attached. In it, Senator Obama voiced his support for the federal assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004. This bill banned only the most vicious types of assault weapons, not the “shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting,” as any hunter who purchased a rifle or shotgun in that ten-year period can attest. And in that same debate exchanged, Senator Obama made clear that he only opposed firearms that were irrelevant for hunting unless the deer were “wearing bullet-proof vests.”

All deer wear bullet-proof vests. As for the “vicious” guns banned as “assault” weapons, let’s just say that Obama was not an author of the federal ban in question, which predated his political career. He was, however, a sponsor of a more recent, much broader bill that would have labeled just about anything an “assault” weapon.

Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a “right to command the use of broadcast facilities.” See CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94, 113 (1973).

Last time I checked, federal candidates don’t have that power, either; only sitting Presidents do, and then only if they have “Chavez” or “Hussein” in their names. Caveat elector.

Because you need not air this advertisement, your station bears responsibility for its content when you do grant access. See Felix v. Westinghouse Radio Stations, 186 F.2d 1, 6 (3rd Cir.), cert denied, 314 U.S. 909 (1950).

Arguments like this one are commonly referred to by my powdered-wig-wearing colleagues as merda equi, which is law-Latin for “excrement of, pertaining to, or emanating from, a horse.” All Felix actually says is that if you weren’t required to air an ad, you can’t defend a suit against the ad by arguing that you were. It doesn’t provide an iota of evidence that any station faces liability for running an ad truthfully (or, for that matter, even falsely) attacking a public figure. The plaintiff in Felix wasn’t a candidate or a public figure. He was the guy associated with the candidate being attacked in the ad. For the cases to be remotely analogous, picture the NRA (or any other group, save for the McCain campaign itself) running an ad attacking Obama for his cozy relationship with unrepentant terrorists like William Ayers, only to have Ayers himself turn around and sue them for defamation (which Ayers would be free to do, but for the inconvenient fact that he really is an unrepentant terrorist).

Moreover, you have a duty “to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.” Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.C.2d 623 (1961).

The FCC piece in question is not about political advertisements, which enjoy the broadest protection under the First Amendment, but about commercial advertisements, which have only limited protection today - and had none at all in 1961. For a political campaign to argue that any station has a “duty” to “protect” its viewers from advertisements that portray their candidate in a negative light is nothing short of frivolous.

Failure to prevent the airing of “false and misleading advertising” may be “probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.” Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

Cosmopolitan Broadcasting Corporation lost its license for almost completely turning over its programming to time brokers, who in turn committed a host of FCC violations the courts concluded would not have occurred if Cosmopolitan had maintained control of their station. Boy, Mr. Station Owner, it sure would be a shame if that were to happen to your station, too, only this time for failing to do the very thing that got Cosmopolitan in trouble. Just to be on the safe side, don’t run any ads against Candidate Obama now that you wouldn’t want to have to defend in front of President Obama later.

This advertisement is false, misleading and deceptive.

Translation: Barack Obama is such a congenital flip-flopper that any ad based on his actual voting record in the past, rather than the stuff he’s been saying on the campaign trail post-Heller, is false, misleading and deceptive.

We request that you immediately cease airing this advertisement.

Not a demand, of course, just a polite request, that only happened to be signed by a lawyer because the P.R. guy was busy. And only happened to cite threatening references to other cases because … well, just because.

We would request the courtesy of a reply;

I’m sure the B.O. campaign will be getting plenty of those, not necessarily from the stations that they were trying to intimidate.

and if you have questions, or believe that this ad is somehow fit for airing on your station, we ask that we have an opportunity to discuss this matter further, in person or by conference call.

‘Cuz hey, if threatening you with the loss of your livelihood didn’t do the trick, there’s always a Plan B.

Please contact Kendall Burman, at (312) 819-2433 or kburman@barackobama.com, for more information or to inform us of your decision.

Fair enough, but his letter is from Bauer, why not contact him or, if that fails, the bar he answers to? If Ms. Burman is in a position to defend the frivolous theories advanced by the letter, perhaps she should have signed it herself.

Patterico, Allah, Uncle, Sebastian, Instapundit and Jonathan Adler, Alphecca, Bitter Bitch, Robb Allen, Linoge, David Zincavage and Chad Johnson, Rustmeister, McQ, Curtis Lowe, Mad Rocket Scientist and David Hardy have more.

Everyone except maybe WaPo and Brooks Jackson of Annenberg Political knows that Barack Joyce Foundation Obama is no friend of the Second Amendment. Apparently, he’s not too keen on the First, either.

UPDATE: Details here.

I was originally planning a nuclear fisking on that garbage Hack“Fact” Check put out on Obama and guns, but others have beaten me to the punch in a well-deserved fisk-for-all, so instead I’ll focus on one particular aspect of their piece, the supposed refutation of the NRA’s accurate claim that Obama supports banning the use of firearms for home self-defense. Annenberg Political Fact Check (let’s call them “Annenberg Political” for short) non-explains their decision to label this true claim “false” thusly (links in original):

The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however.

That has got to be the most disingenuous use of the word “however” I’ve seen in any screed not written by Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan. No one ever claimed that SB 2165 itself criminalized the use of firearms for self-defense. The whole point of the NRA’s position - and mine, for that matter, and that of even most Democrats in the Illinois Senate at the time - is that Barack Obama’s opposition to SB 2165 effectively ratified the acts of rogue municipalities like Wilmette which criminalized self-defense with firearms by prohibiting them altogether.

Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.

Rather, it had nothing to do with registration (more on that in a sec) but anytime you see the word “loophole” on a web site purporting to deal only in facts, run. There is no objective definition of “loophole,” at least not when the alleged “loophole” was created deliberately rather than unintentionally. Inadvertent loopholes arise every now and then, but when the Legislature acts on purpose, the best that can be said about “loopholes” is that one man’s “loophole” is another’s reasonable limitation on an otherwise oppressive law. If Illinois’s baby step toward preemption is a “loophole,” what on earth would Annenberg Political call the much more comprehensive preemption laws in most other states (including such rootin’ tootin’ gun owners’ paradises as … er … California)?

It states that in any Illinois municipality where gun registration is required it shall be an “affirmative defense” if the person accused of violating the registration requirement can show that the weapon was used “in an act of self-defense or defense of another … when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.”

Annenberg Political made that up. The actual law, codified at 720 ILCS 5/24-10, says nothing about registration, which should come as no surprise seeing as its catalyst was the persecution of Hale DeMar, who was not charged with possessing an unregistered handgun (Wilmette had no procedure for registration), but for having a handgun, period. Here’s what the real, unvarnished, unannenbergized statute says:

It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

Unlike the would-be fact-checkers at Annenberg Political, the Illinois General Assembly forgot to even mention registration. No matter; Annenberg Political forges ahead, making up in smarm what they lack in substance:

Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.

Again, Hale DeMar had no opportunity to register his firearm. No Illinois ordinance of which I’m aware would have provided that opportunity; Wilmette certainly didn’t. This leaves only two possibilities:

1. Annenberg Political is run by a group of lazy hacks who have never heard of Hale DeMar or even bothered to read 720 ILCS 5/24-10 before weighing in on its supposed content.
2. Annenberg Political is run by a group of liars who have no intention of checking facts.

The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.

There went the first possibility.

Today I went through the drive-thru at a local McDonald’s to get some “food” for Mrs. X. Mrs. X hates mustard and onions, and doesn’t care too much for cheese on hamburgers, either, so I ordered “Combo #3 with ketchup only, no onions, cheese or mustard.” I got to the window, paid my money and returned home, only to find out the hard way that while Mrs. X’s Coke and fries were remarkably onion-, cheese- and mustard-free, the same could not be said of her Quarter Pounder. I called the number on the receipt (which merely states “1 QTR CHEESE MEAL,” and doesn’t say whether or not it contains dreaded mustard), asking to speak to the manager on duty. I got put on hold indefinitely, and got cut off twice before finally getting through to anyone. When I finally did get through to a manager, the following conversation ensued:

Me: Hello, I was just at your restaurant and ordered a Quarter Pounder combo without cheese, onions or mustard. When I got home, I found that the burger had all the items I had requested NOT to be there.
Manager: I’m sorry for the mix up, sir, but all fast food sales are final.
Me: Excuse me? I ordered one product, and your employee gave me something else. I think I should get my money back, or a free meal to replace this one, something.
Manager: Sorry, no can do. All sales are final.
Me: That’s unreasonable. You are the one who screwed up here, not me. Why should I bear the costs of your failures?
Manager: All fast food sales are final. Corporate policy. You don’t really expect us to re-stock your partially eaten cheeseburger and sell it to someone else, do you? Eeeewwww! Besides, just think of the liability issues. How do we know you didn’t blow your nose in your cheeseburger or pee in your Coke? That latter practice is common in China, according to my 8-year-old.
Me: I don’t care what you want to do with the food, or if you even want to take it back at all. I just want my money back. I can dispose of the food myself.
Manager: What, and give you something for free? I don’t think so. Besides, I couldn’t give you free stuff even if I wanted to. Federal law, dontcha know. So there.
Me (losing patience): No, it’s not! There is no federal law requiring you to act like a jerk. You’re doing that all by your own widdle selfy-welfy.
Manager (in indignant tone): Sir, I don’t appreciate being called a McJerk. Just because I’m acting like one doesn’t make it OK for you to McCall me one. I have McFeelings, too, you know.
Me: Cut the McCrap. The easiest way to not be called a McJerk is to make things right with your McCustomer rather than deliberately McAlienate him. Now go do the right McThing and refund my McMoney already, and I’ll get the McFuck out of here.
Manager: Nagadoit. Naga, naga, nagannadoit. It was your fault anyway, dumbass. Everyone knows what an onion or mustard looks like. If you didn’t want those ingredients you shouldn’t have bought a burger that contained them.
Me: But I couldn’t see what you put in the burger. By the time it was presented to me for sale, it was all wrapped up to go in a bag, together with the other items I had ordered.
Manager: Christ on a crutch, man up already. If you had demanded full inspection at POS, of course we would have allowed it. You didn’t, so caveat emptor, baby!
Me: Here’s my caveat, bitch: if you don’t straighten this out quick, you won’t have to worry about me “empting” from your establishment again.
Manager: Oh, now you got me shaking in my boots! Over a million billion gazillion served, but we might not get to serve Xrlq anymore! Say it ain’t so!
Me: Look, I don’t care how big or small your establishment is. Your clerk is the one who gave me the wrong thing, not me. Yeah, maybe I could have checked his work, but why on earth should I have to? Getting my order right is his job, not mine.
Manager (rolling eyes): Oh really? Who do you think we are, Friggin’ Morton’s or something? What part of McFucking Donald’s don’t you understand? We’re famous for our low prices, not for our brilliant burger flippers. Everyone knows the average McDs manager is a junior high grad on a good day, and that everyone else who works there is dumber than a bag of retards. Didn’t you?
Me: Well, to be honest, yes, but I still think it’s the merchant’s job to give the customer what he asked for, and not to quietly slip him something else, instead.
Manager: Look, it’s not our job to get anything right. It’s your job to check all our work and fix all of our mistakes before you leave the store. Man up and admit your mistake, or better yet, maybe you should find newr wife who actually likes onions, cheese and mustard.
Me: I’ll pass on the new wife, thank you, but as for admitting mistakes, I think it’s clear that my only mistake in this transaction was in dealing with dumbasses like you in the first place. I won’t be repeating that mistake, so enjoy the unearned $3.30 plus tax you just squeezed out of me. Don’t spend it all in one place.
Manager: Buh-bye.

OK, I lied. Actually, I got the manager on the first call, and we had a 2 minute conversation in which she apologized profusely, took down my name and Mrs. X’s, and advised us that the next time either of us were in the area we could stop by and get the meal we were supposed to have gotten today. Imagine that!

A number of commenters have latched on to the “crunchy frog” warning that can be found at every gun store noting that all ammunition sales are final. The implication is that final means final, so how could I be such a dumbass as to think there’s an implicit exception for “sales” in which they gave me a different product than the one I had requested. And I suppose that if I read the signs literally, that would be the result. However, as a lawyer (albeit emphatically NOT a trial lawyer) I know damned well that even statutes can’t always be read hyper-literally, and signs on the wall sure as hell can’t be. A certain amount of common sense has to come into play, as well, or at a minimum, one should be able to assume that a sign is intended to mean something that conforms to the law.

Express warranties are covered by North Carolina General Statute § 25‑2‑313, of which Subsection (1)(b) of that statute provides:

Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.

Wal-Mart’s idiot clerk told me that ammo he was giving me was .357 Magnum, just as I had requested. That was part of the basis of the bargain. I sure as hell wasn’t going to buy anything else in its place. Therefore, he created a warranty that the ammo he sold me would, in fact, be .357 Magnum ammo. It wasn’t.

Ah, you say, but he didn’t call his statement a “warranty,” or give me a pretty little card that says “30-day warranty,” blah blah blah, so his statement must not really have been a warranty, right? Um … no. That’s where subsection (2) comes in:

It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.

I’d almost like to sue Wal-Mart just to see if they had the chutzpah to say that their clerk was merely stating a personal opinion that this was a box of .357 Magnum rather than .357 Sig or anything else. Alas, it would cost me a lot more than $23.97 to bring a suit like that.

Then, of course, there’s the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Apart from asking for .357 Magnum ammo, which should have been enough in itself, I also made it clear to the clerk that the .357 and the .38 ammo I was purchasing were intended for use with the same gun. Every .357 magnum revolver can accept .38 ammo, but AFAIK no gun in existence can accept both .38 and .375 Sig, a caliber used for semiautomatics. So even if I hadn’t made it clear enough which type of .357 ammo I wanted, and had simply left it up to him as a merchant to choose the appropriate caliber for me, NCGS § 25‑2‑315 would still provide that:

Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

The next section, NCGS § 25‑2‑316, is a little trickier. Generally, Subsection (2) provides that

Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof.”

Note that it doesn’t say that a generic statement about sales being final cancels any warranties whatsoever, including the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Rather, it would have to say something more specific to warranties, e.g., that there aren’t any. However, depending on how pervasive Wal-Mart’s “we don’t even warrant that the product is what we told you it is, let alone that it can be used for the purpose you told us about” rule may be in the industry, it is possible that Subsection (3)(c) would cancel out the warranty of fitness anyway:

Notwithstanding subsection … an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.

“Usage of trade” is legalese for “if everyone acts like pricks in concert, it’s all good.” I seriously hope that the entire industry isn’t as lame as Wal-Mart is in this regard, but perhaps I’ve just gotten lucky everywhere else. Note, however, that this exclusion applies only to implied warranties such as fitness for a purpose, and not to express warranties like the express warranty that the goods will conform to the description that made part of the basis of the bargain as described above.

In other words, either there really is some funky federal “Wal-Mart Asshole Protection Act” to override the Uniform Commercial Code for ammo sales, or Wal-Mart’s policy of refusing to accept returns as a result of their own screw-ups is not just unreasonable, but illegal.

On Sunday, I made the mistake of picking up some ammo at Wal-Mart on the way to the range. The ammo is in a glass cabinet behind the cash register, so I had to rely on the clerk to pick it out for me, so I asked for a large box of .38 range ammo, a smaller box of .357 ammo for the same gun, and a small box of .22 ammo. The clerk grabbed three boxes of ammo that looked right from a distance (and two of them were right), rang them up along with the other items I had in the shopping cart, and sent me on my merry way.

About an hour later, at the range, I pulled out the .357 ammo, only to find that the clerk had given me a box of .357 Sig ammo, which is even shorter than .38. So I set that box aside, and stopped by another Wal-Mart to return it. I was told that ammo sales were generally final, which I said I understood but this case was different since the product I had been given was not in fact the one I had requested to buy. The clerk called a manager to see if they could make an exception, and the manager said yes, but only at the actual store where the ammo was purchased. So I left the store, and called the original store twice from the road, only to get transferred by an operator to nowhere both times.

The next day, Monday, I showed up at the original store with the .357 Sig ammo and my receipt in hand, looking to return it and get either my money back, store credit, or a box of the .357 ammo I thought I had purchased originally. I was told by the clerk and the acting manager that all ammo sales are final, period. Apparently, Wal-Mart managers subscribe to the Ron Paul theory of assholes, which is that if you act like an asshole most of the time, you’re an asshole, but if you consistently act like the same kind of asshole all of the time, you’re principled. I politely explained again that whatever the hell reason that “screw you, pay us” policy may have in general, it does not make sense where the “sale” was in fact a screw-up on their part rather than mine. His response? “Sorry, Charlie,” only he wasn’t really sorry, and my name isn’t really Charlie.

Enjoy your ill-gotten $23.97, Wal-Mart. It’s the last $23.97 you’re getting from me.

UPDATE (9/11): Apparently some people don’t know when to leave bad enough alone. Another assistant manager from the same store just called to harangue me about the complaint I had filed with the corporate office online. At first he acted concerned, asking me to tell him what had happened, etc., so I did. Then he responded by reiterating the “screw you, pay us” policy. He also briefly attempted to blame it on OSHA, claiming that OSHA wouldn’t even let Wal-Mart take back their ammo if they wanted to. I said I seriously doubted that, but knew for a fact that OSHA doesn’t prohibit any company from refunding a customer’s money if they make a mistake. To which he responded that they weren’t required to by law. I said that just because you have a legal right to act like a jerk doesn’t mean you should act like a jerk, and in any event, I’m not a big fan of doing business with jerks. Then he got huffy and told me he didn’t appreciate me being called a jerk just because he hires incompetent clerks who sell me something I didn’t buy and refuses to give me my money back afterward.

UPDATE: 9/13: Compare and contrast.

This time, I trust that the scare quotes will alert my more irony-challenged readers to the fact that I’m taking issue with the idea that it’s OK to lie just because your opponents supposedly do, and not adopting that view myself. But perhaps I’m too trusting, we’ll soon see.

Sebastian asks if it was OK for an NRA mole to infiltrate the Brady Center to Prevent Lawful Gun Ownership. While admitting to be uncomfortable with the tactics involved, Sebastian notes:

The Brady Campaign is dedicated to the elimination of one of the original ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. In essence, they are a group out to undermine the Constitution of the United States, which is the very basis of our Republic. To accomplish that, they’ve willingly mislead [sic] the public about the nature of guns, and of gun owners, and willingly distorted and misrepresented facts and statistics. They have done the media equivalent of tar and feather us. Given that, is there really any tactic that’s too sleazy and too underhanded to use in order to defeat them?

I say not only yes, but hell yes. Just because Lyndon Johnson committed dirty tricks against Republicans, that didn’t make it OK for “Tricky” Dick[y] Nixon to return the favor. Just because tobacco companies have lied for decades about the supposed lack of a connection between smoking and lung cancer, that doesn’t make it OK for anti-smoking crusaders to make up equally outlandish lies about second-hand smoke today. And just because opponents of the right to bear arms resort to sleazy tactics to demonize gun rights supporters, that doesn’t make it OK for gun rights supporters to respond in kind. We have the moral high ground. Let’s keep it.

That said, I’m not convinced that the mole incident was that big of a deal. The NRA is an open book, and counts at least one anti-gun activist (Michael Moore) among its membership. They don’t say anything privately to members that they wouldn’t want reprinted on the front page of the New York Times. Do the anti-gunners see this differently? Do they privately admit to each other things that would damage their movement if known by society at large? If they do, why shouldn’t their deceit be exposed? And if they don’t, then what do they have to fear?

Not sure what “Google-Fu” is and frankly, I’m not sure I want to know, either. However, I thought the Googlebots might be interested in knowing that am a carry permit holder in three states. More specifically, I hold a Concealed Firearm Permit from the State of Utah, which counts me as a carry permit holder in roughly half the states, while a few only count you as a carry permit holder if you are a carry permit holder in your state of domicile. That’s where the Virginia and North Carolina permits come in, the former establishing me as a carry permit holder while residing in the Old Dominion, the latter, here in the Tar Heel state. Isn’t that special?

What kind of idiot tries to clean a loaded gun? Or use a .44 on a mouse?

Heller may have determined the legal effect of the Second Amendment, but to the surprise of none, it did not end any controversy as to what that amendment should mean. To the best of my knowledge, six basic views remain:

1. GOA View: What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you fascist pigs understand, goddammit?
2. NRA View (Standard/Heller Model): A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
3. Stevens View: Same as the Standard Model, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is really, really small. But it is buried in there somewhere, honest. Look closely, it’s hiding next to Waldo.
4. Breyer View: Same as the Standard Model, but as long as there is one legal product on the market that goes “bang,” the right in question hasn’t been infringed.
5. ACLU View: It’s a collective right, dammit! And by “collective right” we mean, of course, that the only right you have as an individual is the right to live on a collective. What did you think we were, some union of Americans interested in civil liberties or something? Geez.
6. Linguist View: A well-regulated militia being unnecessary to the security of a free state, infringe away.

Any others I missed?

UPDATE: Some commenters offer alternative views which, IMO, are really just variations on the above. The Obama view, for example, has morphed from #5 (when he served on the board of the Joyce Foundation and personally completed the 1996 questionnaire he has since blamed on an aide) to either #3 or #4 (when he started claiming to have always believed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, but continued to maintain that DC’s handgun ban was constitutional) to #2 (the day Heller was decided, when he claimed to have always maintained that DC’s handgun ban was unconstitutional, as was the Chicago ordinance he had actively supported while serving in the Illinois Legislature).