You look out over the field; bodies of the savages your ballistae have laid scattered and torn. On your right flank and center the alae and auxilia respectively had moved the enemy back. On the left the resistance was more troublesome and it took artillery to quell the barbari. Your losses were not light, but acceptable, if this situation could be in any part acceptable. These primitive tribes were resisting enlightenment! As the mangled limbs and broken spears fill your gaze you can't help but think, "even these lowly proto-humans must want to be enlightened, mustn't they? Yet they resist; savagely, brutally, stubbornly. So we are forced to kill them in large numbers to gain their compliance. Yet with bodies of their finest warriors in pieces on the field that we now own, they still defy our rule, our enlightenment, our civilization! It's as if they prefer the darkness they live in to the brightness we offer them; if only they submit to our teachings, our superior way of life..." You turn from the field, having the taste of the day's victory soured by the incredulity of it all, and the fact that tomorrow, or next week, you'll be forced to repeat this exercise until these damned Caledonians accept your enlightenment or are destroyed to the last man, woman and child.
This all started around the time of The Great Revolt, almost 50 years after Christ took up his cross, just before Thomas was martyred, when Vesuvius hadn't yet claimed Pompeii, a few decades before the good news of John is said to have been penned.
The place was the northern part of an island. To the invaders it was known as Caledonia, but we know it as Scotland. It was inhabited by several (Ptolemy suggests 18 in his Geography) tribes of Celtic origin, and while not much is definitively known about them, it is not a stretch to say that they disliked the notion of being ruled by foreigners.
The invaders were Romans. They had conquered almost the entirety of the Celtic world, including modern day England. Their attempts at subduing Scotland though proved problematic. They were met with resistance steady and fierce. Due to factors both martial and political, the Romans never managed to subjugate those early inhabitants of Scotland. Whereas the people in England had accepted and eventually embraced Roman ways, the people of Scotland thoroughly rejected them. Their defiance of Roman rule was so savage that eventually the Romans abandoned their conquest of those early Scots and built a wall to protect themselves (and later, another wall).
That was the beginning of the culture war we face today.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Die Hardy
Die Hard is, in fact a Christmas movie. I mean, c'mon "Now I have a machine gun ho-ho-ho" - how can you get any more Christmassy than that? [Narrator: you can't] Don't believe me? Watch the trailer:
I'll also submit that Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a Christmas movie. after all the movie didn't occur on Arbor Day now did it?
But more importantly, Die Hard is not recognized for another thing that it is - a mini-documentary of sorts. For instance
The ethics of journalism.
If you recall how Thornberg blackmailed the Mclane/Gennaro housekeeper to get an interview with minor children to push his narrative then you wouldn't be at all surprised that CNN would threaten to dox a person to keep them from posting memes it didn't like.
The competency of bureaucratic police departments
The deputy chief of police constantly ignores input from folks on the ground, because he firmly advocates a top down system, and often blames others for his own mistakes. If you think this is fictional then ask police administrators (especially in larger departments) what they think should be done to lower the rate of violent crime, then contrast that to what the bulk of their patrolmen say. Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any tales of them passing the buck. It shouldn't take long.
The competency of the FBI.
Their fictional representatives don't seem far off the mark from how the real life FBI screws things up. The Miami shoot-out, Waco, Ruby Ridge, encryption mistakes, flawed forensic analysis; here's a list of 10 FBI fails compiled a few years back, and here's a more recent listing of mistakes made by those fabulous G men. Given what I've seen of Comey and Mueller, the fictional agents could have been even more arrogant and condescending without straining credulity. If Agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation) would have lived, they'd likely have got a lateral transfer then a promotion after the fibbies blamed Mclane for screwing up their well thought out plan.
The progressive reliance on experts.
In a top down system there has to be faith that the masters possess knowledge superior to that of the servants. So the press trotted out an "expert" to inform viewers that the hostages would be experiencing "Helsinki Syndrome" (by which they mean Stockholm Syndrome). The anchor man demonstrated his intense knowledge of geography by almost instantaneously getting the countries of Sweden and Finland confused, and the next scene showed that there was not a whole lot of Stockholming (or Helsiniki-ing) going on. But don't be a science denier, cause experts.
So it's not just a Christmas story, but a reminder that progressives hate you, and when they attain power they'll use it against you (and to cover up their mistakes). Oh, and also, if you attend a Christmas party in a high rise, no matter what keep your shoes on.
I'll also submit that Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a Christmas movie. after all the movie didn't occur on Arbor Day now did it?
But more importantly, Die Hard is not recognized for another thing that it is - a mini-documentary of sorts. For instance
The ethics of journalism.
If you recall how Thornberg blackmailed the Mclane/Gennaro housekeeper to get an interview with minor children to push his narrative then you wouldn't be at all surprised that CNN would threaten to dox a person to keep them from posting memes it didn't like.
The competency of bureaucratic police departments
The deputy chief of police constantly ignores input from folks on the ground, because he firmly advocates a top down system, and often blames others for his own mistakes. If you think this is fictional then ask police administrators (especially in larger departments) what they think should be done to lower the rate of violent crime, then contrast that to what the bulk of their patrolmen say. Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any tales of them passing the buck. It shouldn't take long.
The competency of the FBI.
Their fictional representatives don't seem far off the mark from how the real life FBI screws things up. The Miami shoot-out, Waco, Ruby Ridge, encryption mistakes, flawed forensic analysis; here's a list of 10 FBI fails compiled a few years back, and here's a more recent listing of mistakes made by those fabulous G men. Given what I've seen of Comey and Mueller, the fictional agents could have been even more arrogant and condescending without straining credulity. If Agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation) would have lived, they'd likely have got a lateral transfer then a promotion after the fibbies blamed Mclane for screwing up their well thought out plan.
The progressive reliance on experts.
In a top down system there has to be faith that the masters possess knowledge superior to that of the servants. So the press trotted out an "expert" to inform viewers that the hostages would be experiencing "Helsinki Syndrome" (by which they mean Stockholm Syndrome). The anchor man demonstrated his intense knowledge of geography by almost instantaneously getting the countries of Sweden and Finland confused, and the next scene showed that there was not a whole lot of Stockholming (or Helsiniki-ing) going on. But don't be a science denier, cause experts.
So it's not just a Christmas story, but a reminder that progressives hate you, and when they attain power they'll use it against you (and to cover up their mistakes). Oh, and also, if you attend a Christmas party in a high rise, no matter what keep your shoes on.
Monday, December 24, 2018
Backfilling
I've added some old posts of mine that originally appeared on another site. I've entered them according to their original publication date but for your convenience here are the ones I've added so far.
Mars Bringer Of War
Automatic For The Free People
Cult Of Personality
Absolutism 101: Prior Restraint
Absolutism 201: Principle Vs. Pragmatism
Absolutism 301: Felons
The Nationals And Defense
All That We Are
Mockingbirds And Canaries
Fire On The Mountain
ATFU: Gunowners' Public Enemy Number One
As He Told The Miller's Tale: Problems With u.S. Vs. Miller
Star Wars; The Unreconstructed Strike Back
So Now They Want Us To Make Machineguns
Here's Why U.S. Special Forces Want Russian Machine Guns
The article discusses something that anyone who watched Charlie Wilson's War probably already knew.
"...when U.S. special forces provide some of these groups with weapons, they have to scrounge through the global arms market to buy Russian hardware as well as spare parts."
So they want American companies to produce the weapons to simplify things. But there are some hurdles, such as the would be manufacturer having to acquire the blueprints, drawings, etc themselves and a few other requirements:
"Companies will also have to 'address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons.' In addition, they must be prepared to start up and shut down production as needed, as well as provide varying quantities of weapons."
Sounds like a company would have to, oh, I dunno, have an alternate or concurrent buyer for when the military takes a break in purchasing. Which is exactly what would have already occurred if not for the NFA!
A civilian market would allow a manufacturer to maintain enough production to stay solvent while waiting on the military to decide it wants X thousand more units.
As I expand upon in Automatic For The Free People, the restrictions on automatic weapons, especially the complete prohibition on post-'86 automatic weapons, is damaging to our national defense. The situation with the Special Forces attempts to procure certain automatic weapons reinforces that notion.
The article discusses something that anyone who watched Charlie Wilson's War probably already knew.
"...when U.S. special forces provide some of these groups with weapons, they have to scrounge through the global arms market to buy Russian hardware as well as spare parts."
So they want American companies to produce the weapons to simplify things. But there are some hurdles, such as the would be manufacturer having to acquire the blueprints, drawings, etc themselves and a few other requirements:
"Companies will also have to 'address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons.' In addition, they must be prepared to start up and shut down production as needed, as well as provide varying quantities of weapons."
Sounds like a company would have to, oh, I dunno, have an alternate or concurrent buyer for when the military takes a break in purchasing. Which is exactly what would have already occurred if not for the NFA!
A civilian market would allow a manufacturer to maintain enough production to stay solvent while waiting on the military to decide it wants X thousand more units.
As I expand upon in Automatic For The Free People, the restrictions on automatic weapons, especially the complete prohibition on post-'86 automatic weapons, is damaging to our national defense. The situation with the Special Forces attempts to procure certain automatic weapons reinforces that notion.
Extrasensory Deception
Over at the NYT a progressive has posted a policy recommendation/call-to-action under the guise of a news story. (Well, looking back on that sentence I realize that could be used for anything posted at the NYT on any given day, but still...)
How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings by Andrew Ross Sorkin
The gist is that since some number of mass murderers used credit cards to purchase arms and ammunition then credit card companies should either closely monitor transactions to be able to report any potential dangerous purchases and/or generally refuse transactions involving firearms and ammunition. (Of course they fail to mention the tens of millions of credit card purchases where folks buy guns and ammo but don't cause any harm, or those cases where a poor person puts a firearm on a credit card as it's the only way they can afford to have a means of defending themselves and their family, but that'd require a journalist, not a progressive with a byline.)
They want private companies to prevent folks from acquiring weapons if they think that person may commit a crime with them. May.
Outrageous you say? Orwellian in some sense? Do you wish to protest that Minority Report wasn't that great of a great movie and it'd make even worse policy?
I agree. Now do Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
The premise is identical; deny someone their Right to arms because they might - might - use those arms to some evil end. It's mainly a difference in mechanism, and to some degree timing. With Gun Violence Restraining Orders - let's just call them what they are; Gun Confiscation Orders - the government removes firearms based on the possibility someone may commit a confrontational crime. With this Sorkin proposal private companies would inhibit a person's ability to purchase arms to begin with because they may commit a confrontational crime.
The notion that a judge or a middle management CPA can discern the future and thus proclaim a person's Right to arms null and void is entirely nonsensical.
I see this is a front with dual prongs. On one side the progressives are trying to gain traction with Gun Confiscation Orders while the progressives on the other flank are trying to persuade private companies to deny the acquisition of arms. They'll take both if they can get them, but they'd be happy if just one avenue to deny a person's Rights proves successful.
(Also, since the federal government is currently forbidden from keeping a registry of gun owners [aside from owners of NFA items] having private companies compile lists that the government could then peruse could be a not unintended part of this scheme)
If a person supports Gun Confiscation Orders how can they oppose this? Does anyone really believe an unelected government employee (i.e. a judge) has any special incite or ability to gaze into the heart of a person and accurately predict the future but an employee in the banking industry doesn't? If you believe that government pixie dust is sprinkled on all .gov employees giving them special insight, making them our betters, then would not that hold true for someone in finance, with a firm that's helped you secure your investments and perhaps even make money?
Of course psychic ability is not a feature of either government or finance, and I think most folks (all both of us) that read this wouldn't have faith in anyone to deny the Right to arms because of events that have not yet unfolded. But the premise of both the propositions is the same, therefore I cannot fathom how to strongly oppose one but not the other. "Only government should abuse my Rights!" isn't exactly the best rallying cry to oppose one and support the other.
While it's true that a private concern may do whatever it wishes and thus of course may limit contracts to support or oppose things based on its on beliefs, "get woke, go broke" is as much analysis as it is a taunt. I don't agree with it as it seriously impedes the Right to contract, but some folks will make a public accommodations argument that private companies can't discriminate via transaction (the argument would be akin to "if a company can't refuse to engage in transactions involving hair products for Black folk, or Spanish seasonings, or Asian restaurants, or marital aids for the lgbteieio folks, then it'd be discriminatory to deny firearms transactions because Americans).
The coolest thing to do is oppose both, for the same reason; a person's Right to own or acquire weapons is not subject to review by any entity, corporate or governmental. Prior restraints are unacceptable and if government or a company uses them to the detriment of our Rights, then that government or company should go out of business.
If impeding someone's Right to arms because they may do something evil at some point in the future is wrong then the foundation for either proposal - Gun Confiscation Orders or companies not allowing firearms transactions - is wrong and both proposals should be opposed as vigorously as possible and appropriate.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings by Andrew Ross Sorkin
The gist is that since some number of mass murderers used credit cards to purchase arms and ammunition then credit card companies should either closely monitor transactions to be able to report any potential dangerous purchases and/or generally refuse transactions involving firearms and ammunition. (Of course they fail to mention the tens of millions of credit card purchases where folks buy guns and ammo but don't cause any harm, or those cases where a poor person puts a firearm on a credit card as it's the only way they can afford to have a means of defending themselves and their family, but that'd require a journalist, not a progressive with a byline.)
They want private companies to prevent folks from acquiring weapons if they think that person may commit a crime with them. May.
Outrageous you say? Orwellian in some sense? Do you wish to protest that Minority Report wasn't that great of a great movie and it'd make even worse policy?
I agree. Now do Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
The premise is identical; deny someone their Right to arms because they might - might - use those arms to some evil end. It's mainly a difference in mechanism, and to some degree timing. With Gun Violence Restraining Orders - let's just call them what they are; Gun Confiscation Orders - the government removes firearms based on the possibility someone may commit a confrontational crime. With this Sorkin proposal private companies would inhibit a person's ability to purchase arms to begin with because they may commit a confrontational crime.
The notion that a judge or a middle management CPA can discern the future and thus proclaim a person's Right to arms null and void is entirely nonsensical.
I see this is a front with dual prongs. On one side the progressives are trying to gain traction with Gun Confiscation Orders while the progressives on the other flank are trying to persuade private companies to deny the acquisition of arms. They'll take both if they can get them, but they'd be happy if just one avenue to deny a person's Rights proves successful.
(Also, since the federal government is currently forbidden from keeping a registry of gun owners [aside from owners of NFA items] having private companies compile lists that the government could then peruse could be a not unintended part of this scheme)
If a person supports Gun Confiscation Orders how can they oppose this? Does anyone really believe an unelected government employee (i.e. a judge) has any special incite or ability to gaze into the heart of a person and accurately predict the future but an employee in the banking industry doesn't? If you believe that government pixie dust is sprinkled on all .gov employees giving them special insight, making them our betters, then would not that hold true for someone in finance, with a firm that's helped you secure your investments and perhaps even make money?
Of course psychic ability is not a feature of either government or finance, and I think most folks (all both of us) that read this wouldn't have faith in anyone to deny the Right to arms because of events that have not yet unfolded. But the premise of both the propositions is the same, therefore I cannot fathom how to strongly oppose one but not the other. "Only government should abuse my Rights!" isn't exactly the best rallying cry to oppose one and support the other.
While it's true that a private concern may do whatever it wishes and thus of course may limit contracts to support or oppose things based on its on beliefs, "get woke, go broke" is as much analysis as it is a taunt. I don't agree with it as it seriously impedes the Right to contract, but some folks will make a public accommodations argument that private companies can't discriminate via transaction (the argument would be akin to "if a company can't refuse to engage in transactions involving hair products for Black folk, or Spanish seasonings, or Asian restaurants, or marital aids for the lgbteieio folks, then it'd be discriminatory to deny firearms transactions because Americans).
The coolest thing to do is oppose both, for the same reason; a person's Right to own or acquire weapons is not subject to review by any entity, corporate or governmental. Prior restraints are unacceptable and if government or a company uses them to the detriment of our Rights, then that government or company should go out of business.
If impeding someone's Right to arms because they may do something evil at some point in the future is wrong then the foundation for either proposal - Gun Confiscation Orders or companies not allowing firearms transactions - is wrong and both proposals should be opposed as vigorously as possible and appropriate.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Lotophagi
It's that time of year again. One day I may get around to actually posting an essay or twelve, but for now here's the annual collection of vids mingled with with well wishes and good happiness stuff.
Saturday, November 03, 2018
Rocky Mountain Bye
To give an idea of what I think Colorado's statewide election next week will entail I offer the following two words: I moved.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Age Based Gunowner Restrictions
Florida recently enacted a gunowner-control law that included an age restriction. It also banned bump stocks (which I've posted about here, here and here), established a 3 day waiting period, instituted a variant of Gun Violence Restraining Orders (which I've written about here) and expands confiscation powers under the Baker Act which deals with involuntary psychiatric evaluation (this Politifact piece has some interesting information about gun owners and the Baker act). The NRA has filed suit over the age restriction. I do not know what the particulars are of their filing, but I see a clear statutory basis to establish that a state may not restrict firearms to those 21 or over.
Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the u.S. Constitution, has the power to, among other things, call up the militia.
10 U.S.Code § 246 defines the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (with noted exceptions).
Looking at this chart if the number of people 21 and over is subtracted from the number of people 18 and over that leaves roughly 14 million people between the ages of 18 and 20. Out of roughly (again doing simple math from the same chart) 100 million folks between the ages of 18 and 45, 14% is a noticeable number.
By barring ownership of long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, a state would deprive the u.S. government of a decent chunk of its militia.
(Also, by barring ownership of long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, the u.S. government would deprive a state of a decent chunk of its militia.)
As long as the federal government has defined, by statute, that 17 to 20 year olds are included as a component of the unorganized militia, then a state may not restrict possession or purchase of long guns. Since militia are expected to provide their own equipment, including personal weapons, then such a state law would interfere with Congress' ability to summon the militia in times of peril. (Washington, D.C. did just that prior to the War of 1812, with disastrous consequences.)
(I also would turn around and file suit against the Feds, arguing that the federal laws preventing purchase of long arms by 17 year olds, and preventing purchase of handguns by those between the ages of 17 to 20, hamper a state's ability to call up the militia in a crisis.)
So if I were in the NRA's place, I'd toss that in there, not only because it is persuasive, but to get the anti-gunners off my back about ignoring the militia component of the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights.
Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the u.S. Constitution, has the power to, among other things, call up the militia.
10 U.S.Code § 246 defines the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (with noted exceptions).
Looking at this chart if the number of people 21 and over is subtracted from the number of people 18 and over that leaves roughly 14 million people between the ages of 18 and 20. Out of roughly (again doing simple math from the same chart) 100 million folks between the ages of 18 and 45, 14% is a noticeable number.
By barring ownership of long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, a state would deprive the u.S. government of a decent chunk of its militia.
(Also, by barring ownership of long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, the u.S. government would deprive a state of a decent chunk of its militia.)
As long as the federal government has defined, by statute, that 17 to 20 year olds are included as a component of the unorganized militia, then a state may not restrict possession or purchase of long guns. Since militia are expected to provide their own equipment, including personal weapons, then such a state law would interfere with Congress' ability to summon the militia in times of peril. (Washington, D.C. did just that prior to the War of 1812, with disastrous consequences.)
(I also would turn around and file suit against the Feds, arguing that the federal laws preventing purchase of long arms by 17 year olds, and preventing purchase of handguns by those between the ages of 17 to 20, hamper a state's ability to call up the militia in a crisis.)
So if I were in the NRA's place, I'd toss that in there, not only because it is persuasive, but to get the anti-gunners off my back about ignoring the militia component of the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights.
Sunday, March 11, 2018
I Am The NRA
Longtime readers (all both us us) may find the title of this post somewhat surprising. No need to check the date; it's not the first day of the 4th month. I still have many problems with the NRA. Their goals don't seem to line up with mine (they act like possessing weapons is a privilege rather than a Right) and their strategy is way too conciliatory. They seem to be all Chamberlain and no Churchill. When they should be on offense they play defense and when they should play defense they preemptively surrender. The power structure within the administration is way too top down for my tastes and I think current management should've stepped down a while back. (Although I do admit they've done a decent job regarding training and organizing shooting competitions.) Because of those consideration I haven't been an NRA member since I was a teenager (which was about the same time that mastodons roamed the earth). When the NRA stops supporting gunowner control laws and starts promoting the Right to arms instead of trying to slowly turn it into a privilege I'd be happy to join them. Sadly that day isn't today.
However, the NRA has come under attack in recent weeks. Correction - not attack, but onslaught. Companies are disassociating themselves with the NRA, there's a hue and cry in the mainstream media attempting to pressure politicians to cut ties with the NRA, and celebrities both new and long standing have been doing their best to vilify the NRA. (Here's a good overview on the situation.)
Only when they say NRA they don't mean NRA - they mean me. They mean gun owners in general. They mean folks who have concluded the 2nd article in the bill of Rights means government shouldn't interfere with people possessing weapons. Just as the wrong people was often a euphemism for black folk, the NRA in this context doesn't just mean NRA members (as is "the gun lobby" and a few similar terms); it means anyone who doesn't support some degree of gunowner control laws.
However, the NRA has come under attack in recent weeks. Correction - not attack, but onslaught. Companies are disassociating themselves with the NRA, there's a hue and cry in the mainstream media attempting to pressure politicians to cut ties with the NRA, and celebrities both new and long standing have been doing their best to vilify the NRA. (Here's a good overview on the situation.)
Only when they say NRA they don't mean NRA - they mean me. They mean gun owners in general. They mean folks who have concluded the 2nd article in the bill of Rights means government shouldn't interfere with people possessing weapons. Just as the wrong people was often a euphemism for black folk, the NRA in this context doesn't just mean NRA members (as is "the gun lobby" and a few similar terms); it means anyone who doesn't support some degree of gunowner control laws.
Wednesday, March 07, 2018
March Sixth Two Thousand Eighteen
Sunday, February 25, 2018
It's Not About The Gun It's About The Good
I notice that a lot of progressives are having trouble internalizing a concept; what matters is the substance, not appearance. For example, if a person has double bit axe & a flannel shirt that does not make him a lumberjack; if a person has a 28 oz. waffle headed Eastwing & faded jeans that does not make him a framing carpenter; if a person possesses a ten gallon Stetson and a horse that does not make him a cowboy, and if a person possesses a doctor's stethoscope and a pastel shirt that does not make her an RN (right Miss Behar?)
Case in point:
"A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"
Simple enough, right? Not to progressives. Ya see, it has the word "gun" in it, which therefore becomes the fixation. Trips them right up, every time.
The thought (I use the term loosely) is that because Brave Sir Deputy failed to stop the mass murderer at the Parkland high school then voila! It is now proven that a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun.
I present to you this dribble from one Elliot Hannon over at Slate:
"The problem is that there was a good guy with a gun at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that day" (emphasis in original)
This is very easy to clear up, and I shall in a moment.
Case in point:
"A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"
Simple enough, right? Not to progressives. Ya see, it has the word "gun" in it, which therefore becomes the fixation. Trips them right up, every time.
The thought (I use the term loosely) is that because Brave Sir Deputy failed to stop the mass murderer at the Parkland high school then voila! It is now proven that a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun.
I present to you this dribble from one Elliot Hannon over at Slate:
"The problem is that there was a good guy with a gun at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that day" (emphasis in original)
This is very easy to clear up, and I shall in a moment.
Pardon My French, But GVRO Hell No
David French writes glowingly of Gun Violence Restraining Orders. In a fantastically doublespeakish introduction, French claims that GVRO's "...make us all safer while empowering the individual and protecting liberty."
(Hugh Hewitt has also been talking about a principal or some other school administrator being able to call NICS and place a "no buy" type of hold on someone. Most of my objections to GVRO's fall along similar lines so I won't deal with that proposal directly here.)
The concept is thus: Person A (family member, spouse, roommate, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.) calls the cops and makes a claim that Person B is too dangerous to have firearms. The cops along with Person A (in theory) go in front of a judge and the judge decides whether or not to grant this GVRO. Person B may be allowed to defend himself against the claims at the initial hearing, but an ex parte hearing is also an option for a temporary GVRO, with a 72 hour or so duration. If it is issued then the cops take away Person B's firearms. There should be an expiration date with either type of GVRO so that the claim must be reviewed and the GVRO either continued or rescinded.
That's the basics of it. French's piece is fisk-worthy of itself, but I lack the time to really dissect his arguments bit by bit.
I will say I think this is a great idea - if the republicans are tired of being a majority party. Otherwise it's problematic in all of its' aspects.
(Hugh Hewitt has also been talking about a principal or some other school administrator being able to call NICS and place a "no buy" type of hold on someone. Most of my objections to GVRO's fall along similar lines so I won't deal with that proposal directly here.)
The concept is thus: Person A (family member, spouse, roommate, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.) calls the cops and makes a claim that Person B is too dangerous to have firearms. The cops along with Person A (in theory) go in front of a judge and the judge decides whether or not to grant this GVRO. Person B may be allowed to defend himself against the claims at the initial hearing, but an ex parte hearing is also an option for a temporary GVRO, with a 72 hour or so duration. If it is issued then the cops take away Person B's firearms. There should be an expiration date with either type of GVRO so that the claim must be reviewed and the GVRO either continued or rescinded.
That's the basics of it. French's piece is fisk-worthy of itself, but I lack the time to really dissect his arguments bit by bit.
I will say I think this is a great idea - if the republicans are tired of being a majority party. Otherwise it's problematic in all of its' aspects.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Literary And Literally
In Poul Anderson's War Of The Gods there's a tale about a king's hoardkeeper. Allow me to summarize (but do indulge in Anderson's book as it's a decent read):
Glum was an old man, and had been a warrior in his youth. He was appointed hoardkeeper under Haddings father, stayed in the post through the next king, and so Hadding decided to keep him on when he ascended the throne. He was housed in rooms at the front of the king's storehouse, and was given food, drink, clothes, and a servant and was treated with honor.
One day King Hadding visited the storehouse to take some of his treasure, intending them as gifts for some of his allies and servants. After Glum opened the door to the storeroom (as only he had a key) Hadding discovered thieves had been in and did some plundering. Glum protested his innocence and Hadding discovered the thieves had tunneled in some time in the preceding month or so. He agreed that Glum had been no thief, but charged he was negligent, in that he should have checked on the treasures himself from time to time, or not been so drunk as to not hear the noise of thieves tunneling into the building he dwelt in.
Hadding had Glum before his court and related what had happened, concluding with the charge that Glum was negligent, having allowed thieves to make off with things under his care. He pronounced that Glum should die and asked Glum if he had anything to say. Glum admitted he was negligent, said that he was too old to do the job properly and the king should have appointed a younger man to the post, but the king could do with him as he wished; just leave his honor intact. Hadding, in concession, agreed and ordered that Glum die on the gallows (which was a more honorable death than the other options) to which Glum consented that it was good.
Robert A. Heinlein has told a story on numerous occasions of an accident that occurred when he was a child. If you'll pardon me I'll paraphrase it:
A lady and her husband were walking through town. when crossing over a railroad track the lady's foot got stuck. The husband started trying to free her with no luck. Then a man - presumed a hobo - happened along and joined the husband in his efforts. A train was approaching and they worked steadily trying to free the lady's foot. They were still engaged at that task when the train hit all three of them. The lady and the hobo were killed instantly, and the husband lived just long enough to tell what happened. The lady was stuck; she had no choice in the matter. The husband did have a choice and he chose to do what a husband should do. The hobo - if indeed that's all he was - had a choice as well. He could have jumped aside at any moment and no blame or shame would have been incurred. Yet he stayed, helping with his last mortal efforts a lady whom he did not know; a couple whom may not have accepted him socially or sat down with him for lunch. He stayed and whatever fear he felt was quelled by something inside him that told him saving a lady whom he had no bond with or connection to was worth his very life. This is how a man dies, and this is how a man lives.
Heinlein does a much better job of telling the story, but I think I got all the important points. Now contrast those two tales with this:
Four Sheriff's Deputies Hid During Florida School Shooting
Glum was an old man, and had been a warrior in his youth. He was appointed hoardkeeper under Haddings father, stayed in the post through the next king, and so Hadding decided to keep him on when he ascended the throne. He was housed in rooms at the front of the king's storehouse, and was given food, drink, clothes, and a servant and was treated with honor.
One day King Hadding visited the storehouse to take some of his treasure, intending them as gifts for some of his allies and servants. After Glum opened the door to the storeroom (as only he had a key) Hadding discovered thieves had been in and did some plundering. Glum protested his innocence and Hadding discovered the thieves had tunneled in some time in the preceding month or so. He agreed that Glum had been no thief, but charged he was negligent, in that he should have checked on the treasures himself from time to time, or not been so drunk as to not hear the noise of thieves tunneling into the building he dwelt in.
Hadding had Glum before his court and related what had happened, concluding with the charge that Glum was negligent, having allowed thieves to make off with things under his care. He pronounced that Glum should die and asked Glum if he had anything to say. Glum admitted he was negligent, said that he was too old to do the job properly and the king should have appointed a younger man to the post, but the king could do with him as he wished; just leave his honor intact. Hadding, in concession, agreed and ordered that Glum die on the gallows (which was a more honorable death than the other options) to which Glum consented that it was good.
Robert A. Heinlein has told a story on numerous occasions of an accident that occurred when he was a child. If you'll pardon me I'll paraphrase it:
A lady and her husband were walking through town. when crossing over a railroad track the lady's foot got stuck. The husband started trying to free her with no luck. Then a man - presumed a hobo - happened along and joined the husband in his efforts. A train was approaching and they worked steadily trying to free the lady's foot. They were still engaged at that task when the train hit all three of them. The lady and the hobo were killed instantly, and the husband lived just long enough to tell what happened. The lady was stuck; she had no choice in the matter. The husband did have a choice and he chose to do what a husband should do. The hobo - if indeed that's all he was - had a choice as well. He could have jumped aside at any moment and no blame or shame would have been incurred. Yet he stayed, helping with his last mortal efforts a lady whom he did not know; a couple whom may not have accepted him socially or sat down with him for lunch. He stayed and whatever fear he felt was quelled by something inside him that told him saving a lady whom he had no bond with or connection to was worth his very life. This is how a man dies, and this is how a man lives.
Heinlein does a much better job of telling the story, but I think I got all the important points. Now contrast those two tales with this:
Four Sheriff's Deputies Hid During Florida School Shooting
Friday, February 23, 2018
CNN's Town Hell
I'm going to - well I guess I can't say live blog since I'm watching a recording - watch the CNN Townhall on the Parkland, Fla. mass murder (so you don't have to) and type about it as it goes.
Regular font will be what I'm seeing happening, my thoughts will be in italics.
Regular font will be what I'm seeing happening, my thoughts will be in italics.
Muh Narrative
There was an earlobe malfunction at the FBI's tip line that caused swift inaction when someone saw something and said something. Earlier the FBI investigated a tip from a youtuber but were stumped when confronted with someone that clandestinely used his legal name on teh internetz. (also see End The 9/11 Syndrome At The FBI: Terrible Things Happen, And There's Little Accountability, and What Do We Do About The Biased And Incompetent FBI?, and last but not least Fire The FBI Chief)
To paraphrase a tweet I saw a few days ago :
A loose group of bored kids in their mom's basement used flight data from web cams to track down a flag hidden someplace in the u.S. in their spare time.
Paid professionals at the FBI couldn't track down someone that threatened to shoot up a school even though he signed his real name.
The local school board had reason to believe the student was troubled and dangerous. A few years back the school board implemented a policy to downplay the seriousness of student incidents because the arrest statistics from previous years were not helpful to their identity politics.
The Broward County Sheriff's office (Headed by gunowner control advocate Sheriff Scott Israel, for now) had received from 18 to 39 calls since 2010 concerning the murderer's address (depending on the source). The Deputy that was the school resource officer bravely stayed outside when the murders were going on inside. (He was suspended, but then retired.) ( Aside: why did they ask him to turn in his weapon? Clearly there was no danger of him actually using the thing.) Brave Sir Deputy also refused to share info with Social services about a visit to the murderer's home back in '16. Two other deputies were suspended amidst concerns that they did not follow protocol during some of the contacts they had with the murderer prior to the murders. (Also, no need to worry; Brave Sir Deputy is receiving a protective detail while he eases into his retirement.)
So of course, the media responsibly pushes for more gunowner control, as lax firearms laws is the only thing that could've led to this mass murder.
Not being content at demonstrating why Socrates won't return their calls, the fine folks in authorized media decided to use teenagers as human shields in their attempt to push for more restriction on Rights, because ratings. CNN is arguably the worst offender, but if you've looked around the last week or so you'll note that other MSM groups have followed their lead. The teenage survivors efforts at promoting gunowner control are organized enough that to some it smacks of astroturf. In short, the MSM is using these kids to push the MSM's agenda, and it's detrimental to those kids.
Miss Althouse asks what effect the coverage is likely to have on anyone thinking of becoming a mass murderer. I'd venture that "encouragement" is an understated response to her query.
CNN held what they called a Town Hall, because Show Trial, Anti-Gunowner PSA, or 2x53 Minute Hate seemed too obvious as titles, or perhaps too honest. Amidst calling a pro-gunowner lady a murderer, booing a story of a rape survivor wishing she'd had a gun, cheering at the thought of a complete semi-auto ban, and generally equating gun owners and the NRA as child murderers, they might have provoked a result opposite what they intended (though in an unsurprise move, the event mattered, according to the Atlantic). Oh did I mention the Antigunowner witch hunt was moderated by the ever neutral journalist Jake Tapper? I guess that makes things even since CNN never mentioned Tapper used to work for Handgun Control, Inc as a spokesman. There's also some debate over whether or not CNN scripted the questions for the ritual sacrifice. Sheriff Israel, whose deputy courageously sought cover outside while the murderer was murdering inside, accused the NRA (read that as "every gunowner everywhere, except cops) of not caring about the children. But as with the Atlantic piece linked above, the MSM is declaring a victory in the alleged televised conversation, getting heady with the notion of this being a path forward in the Children's March for Gunowner Control.
Sadly their efforts are gaining some momentum, which I'll try cover in another post.
Edited: 2-24-18 1:30 MST fixed a few typos, added 3 word to a sentence that somehow got deleted without my notice.
To paraphrase a tweet I saw a few days ago :
A loose group of bored kids in their mom's basement used flight data from web cams to track down a flag hidden someplace in the u.S. in their spare time.
Paid professionals at the FBI couldn't track down someone that threatened to shoot up a school even though he signed his real name.
The local school board had reason to believe the student was troubled and dangerous. A few years back the school board implemented a policy to downplay the seriousness of student incidents because the arrest statistics from previous years were not helpful to their identity politics.
The Broward County Sheriff's office (Headed by gunowner control advocate Sheriff Scott Israel, for now) had received from 18 to 39 calls since 2010 concerning the murderer's address (depending on the source). The Deputy that was the school resource officer bravely stayed outside when the murders were going on inside. (He was suspended, but then retired.) ( Aside: why did they ask him to turn in his weapon? Clearly there was no danger of him actually using the thing.) Brave Sir Deputy also refused to share info with Social services about a visit to the murderer's home back in '16. Two other deputies were suspended amidst concerns that they did not follow protocol during some of the contacts they had with the murderer prior to the murders. (Also, no need to worry; Brave Sir Deputy is receiving a protective detail while he eases into his retirement.)
So of course, the media responsibly pushes for more gunowner control, as lax firearms laws is the only thing that could've led to this mass murder.
Not being content at demonstrating why Socrates won't return their calls, the fine folks in authorized media decided to use teenagers as human shields in their attempt to push for more restriction on Rights, because ratings. CNN is arguably the worst offender, but if you've looked around the last week or so you'll note that other MSM groups have followed their lead. The teenage survivors efforts at promoting gunowner control are organized enough that to some it smacks of astroturf. In short, the MSM is using these kids to push the MSM's agenda, and it's detrimental to those kids.
Miss Althouse asks what effect the coverage is likely to have on anyone thinking of becoming a mass murderer. I'd venture that "encouragement" is an understated response to her query.
CNN held what they called a Town Hall, because Show Trial, Anti-Gunowner PSA, or 2x53 Minute Hate seemed too obvious as titles, or perhaps too honest. Amidst calling a pro-gunowner lady a murderer, booing a story of a rape survivor wishing she'd had a gun, cheering at the thought of a complete semi-auto ban, and generally equating gun owners and the NRA as child murderers, they might have provoked a result opposite what they intended (though in an unsurprise move, the event mattered, according to the Atlantic). Oh did I mention the Antigunowner witch hunt was moderated by the ever neutral journalist Jake Tapper? I guess that makes things even since CNN never mentioned Tapper used to work for Handgun Control, Inc as a spokesman. There's also some debate over whether or not CNN scripted the questions for the ritual sacrifice. Sheriff Israel, whose deputy courageously sought cover outside while the murderer was murdering inside, accused the NRA (read that as "every gunowner everywhere, except cops) of not caring about the children. But as with the Atlantic piece linked above, the MSM is declaring a victory in the alleged televised conversation, getting heady with the notion of this being a path forward in the Children's March for Gunowner Control.
Sadly their efforts are gaining some momentum, which I'll try cover in another post.
Edited: 2-24-18 1:30 MST fixed a few typos, added 3 word to a sentence that somehow got deleted without my notice.
What Do You Call Fuddites On Skis?
The u.S. Olympic Biathlon team, sadly enough.
Over at National Progressive Radio I found this piece from early February on the plight of the poor, underfunded u.S. Biathlon team. If you got a little miffed at miss Dunklee's comments towards the end of the article, get ready to hold their beers:
One of America's Best Marksmen on Gun Control: "There's just no reason for assault rifles to be in the hands of ordinary citizens"
The quote in the headline was from Lowell Bailey, who is the u.S.'s first world cup champion. Here's the full quote:
Over at National Progressive Radio I found this piece from early February on the plight of the poor, underfunded u.S. Biathlon team. If you got a little miffed at miss Dunklee's comments towards the end of the article, get ready to hold their beers:
One of America's Best Marksmen on Gun Control: "There's just no reason for assault rifles to be in the hands of ordinary citizens"
The quote in the headline was from Lowell Bailey, who is the u.S.'s first world cup champion. Here's the full quote:
“We’re
a sport that uses a .22-caliber rifle,' Bailey said. 'A .22-caliber
rifle that shoots a single round is a much different thing than an
AR-15. In my opinion, there’s just no reason for assault rifles to be in
the hands of ordinary citizens.'
Bailey said he does not own an AR-15 and has no desire to get one.
'I
have no interest in owning a weapon that can kill another human being –
that’s designed to kill another human being,' he said. 'And to do it in
an expeditious way. Why is that allowed? It’s maddening.”
Not content with turning his back on fellow gun owners, Bailey asks us to hold his beer while we're still holding his beer:
“There
was a time in our country when the means to defend yourself against an
oppressive government was an appropriate justification,' Bailey said. 'That time has passed.'
He
paused for a second before continuing: 'That’s a debate. But I think
there needs to be a respectful dialogue, an open dialogue without
special interests involved. It’s time our politicians sat down and made
some tough choices. What’s more important? Owning an AR-15 or having
innocent school children get killed?” (emphasis added, stupidity as in original)
I'll go ahead and point out the obvious - if a person wants a respectful dialogue then perhaps they shouldn't imply that you owning a rifle causes the death of youngins. It tends to insinuate that the person one wants to have a conversation with is a child murderer, which is usually not taken well. It also leads to the conclusion that the asker not only failed in basic logic, but his parents were remiss in the use of a hickory switch to instill basic manners.
Any sympathy I had for their funding plight has evaporated, along with any desire to watch them or support them in any way.
Bumpers
I'll omit yet another trillion word rant on the importance of preserving principle, or not being afraid to fight even if there's a chance of losing, or by making bad laws "better" it hurts us in the long run. Instead, I'll simply pose a question.
If you were a lawyer and wanted to win a case - any case - which of the following would you choose:
A challenge to a regulation that narrowly banned bump stocks, arguing it's unconstitutional
A challenge to a law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks that also criminalized lightened strikers, firing pins, and hammers; extra strength trigger springs, hammers springs and recoil springs; any lubricant with more viscosity than the heavy preservative grease slathered on at the factory by the manufacturer.
Related:
Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!
And Another Things
If you were a lawyer and wanted to win a case - any case - which of the following would you choose:
A challenge to a regulation that narrowly banned bump stocks, arguing it's unconstitutional
A challenge to a law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks that also criminalized lightened strikers, firing pins, and hammers; extra strength trigger springs, hammers springs and recoil springs; any lubricant with more viscosity than the heavy preservative grease slathered on at the factory by the manufacturer.
Related:
Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!
And Another Things
Thursday, February 22, 2018
I Kant Even
Another Youtuber (name of Roaming Millennial) has a nice little piece on the concept of Rights, and does a decent job of providing a secular justification for Natural Rights. It's worth the 10-ish minutes or so, so give it a watch when ya can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)