In Marvel Comic's Civil War storyline, a conflict develops over the proposal of a Superhuman Registration Act. Tony Stark (Iron Man) supports such a law, on the basis that it is inevitable and if they are part of the process they can temper the bill so that the resulting law won't be as onerous as it otherwise would be. Opposition to the act is led appropriately enough by Captain America. Initially both sides engage in argument and debate, but after the act passes the pro-registration side starts to hunt down and actively combat the anti-registration heroes. It ends with the anti-registration faction surrendering to avoid further bloodshed, and Captain America imprisoned (and eventually assassinated).
Just twixt you and me, any strategy that leads to Captain America being offed by his own government is not a cool one.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Less Bad Is Worse
A few seemingly pro-gunowner groups have supported gunowner control laws, using the justification that the law was going to pass no matter what, but by supporting it they were able to enact changes that lessened its severity. It as inevitable but by supporting it they made a bad law less bad.
I disagree with damn near everything about this practice, and I openly question the motives and sincerity of folks who use such rationalizations, but let's look at the premise:
Law X would be bad, but it has enough support that it will likely pass. So support is given to Law X and some changes are made, transforming it from a severe law to a moderately bad one. Does this help overall?
By taking a severe law and injecting some measure of moderation into it then the immediate results is that it has less of a drastic impact in the short term, but in the long run it makes it harder to repeal. It is easier to convince a legislature to revisit and repeal a law that is a big change that negatively impacts people than it isif the law was only a moderate change. The same is true of court rulings, and most importantly convincing people to disobey such laws.
Let's say Law X would prohibit magazine with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. Due to the extreme nature of such a law it would not be difficult to persuade either a future legislature or a court that the measure goes too far by almost any standard, and encouraging non-compliance wouldn't be difficult. But if Law X were modified to prohibit magazines that held more than 15 rounds it would make compliance less onerous and consequently make it more difficult to convince a legislature or court of its burdensome nature.
In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible. Law X prohibits 15 rounds today, but in 5 years it's reduced to 12, then 10, and finally after a decade or two it's down to the original 6 round limit. Going from unlimited to 6 in on swoop is pretty shocking. Going from unlimited to 15, then to 12, then to 10, then to 6 over the course of some years is less striking. People would gradually become accustomed to it and that would reduce pressure on the government to change such a law.
You know the old saying about gradually turning up the heat to boil a frog. Well imagine a pot full of frogs and when the heat is turned up too fast, some frogs yell to the chef "Hey! Turn it down or we'll jump out of the pot!". That is what the long term effect of "making a bad law less bad" is, and the folks who advocate it, no matter how well meaning, are in the long run hurting the very cause they claim to be aiding.
(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)
I disagree with damn near everything about this practice, and I openly question the motives and sincerity of folks who use such rationalizations, but let's look at the premise:
Law X would be bad, but it has enough support that it will likely pass. So support is given to Law X and some changes are made, transforming it from a severe law to a moderately bad one. Does this help overall?
By taking a severe law and injecting some measure of moderation into it then the immediate results is that it has less of a drastic impact in the short term, but in the long run it makes it harder to repeal. It is easier to convince a legislature to revisit and repeal a law that is a big change that negatively impacts people than it isif the law was only a moderate change. The same is true of court rulings, and most importantly convincing people to disobey such laws.
Let's say Law X would prohibit magazine with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. Due to the extreme nature of such a law it would not be difficult to persuade either a future legislature or a court that the measure goes too far by almost any standard, and encouraging non-compliance wouldn't be difficult. But if Law X were modified to prohibit magazines that held more than 15 rounds it would make compliance less onerous and consequently make it more difficult to convince a legislature or court of its burdensome nature.
In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible. Law X prohibits 15 rounds today, but in 5 years it's reduced to 12, then 10, and finally after a decade or two it's down to the original 6 round limit. Going from unlimited to 6 in on swoop is pretty shocking. Going from unlimited to 15, then to 12, then to 10, then to 6 over the course of some years is less striking. People would gradually become accustomed to it and that would reduce pressure on the government to change such a law.
You know the old saying about gradually turning up the heat to boil a frog. Well imagine a pot full of frogs and when the heat is turned up too fast, some frogs yell to the chef "Hey! Turn it down or we'll jump out of the pot!". That is what the long term effect of "making a bad law less bad" is, and the folks who advocate it, no matter how well meaning, are in the long run hurting the very cause they claim to be aiding.
(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Was The Spent Spun
I'm using numbers from Dean Weingarten's Analysis of I-594's passage.
Polls have shown over 90% support for background checks. The mainstream media was overwhelmingly supportive of I-594. Bloomberg, et al spent over $10 million to get this "universal" background check passed in Washington state.
$600,000 was spent to directly oppose Washington's "universal" background check initiative. The initiative passed with just shy of 60% in favor.
The strategy was to promote a competing measure to I-594. That competing measure was I-591. It was hoped that it would cause voters to vote for it instead of I-594, but if I-594 passed anyway that I-591 would be passed as well and negate I-594. According to ballotpedia's I-591 page, about $1.2 million was spent promoting I-591.
What I'm wondering is if $600,000 was enough to drop theoretical support from 90% (according to more generalized polls - I'm seeing between 60% & 81%, counting undecideds on the high end but not countig them on the low end, for polls specifically about I-594) to a little over 59% (according to election results), then would spending that $1.2 million on direct opposition to I-594 instead of using it to pimp I-591 have caused I-594's defeat?
Perhaps we weren't outspent, but rather we misspent.
Something to ponder if anyone tells you that we tried to fight "universal" background checks in Washington state and lost because Bloomie the Hut has too much money.
(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)
Polls have shown over 90% support for background checks. The mainstream media was overwhelmingly supportive of I-594. Bloomberg, et al spent over $10 million to get this "universal" background check passed in Washington state.
$600,000 was spent to directly oppose Washington's "universal" background check initiative. The initiative passed with just shy of 60% in favor.
The strategy was to promote a competing measure to I-594. That competing measure was I-591. It was hoped that it would cause voters to vote for it instead of I-594, but if I-594 passed anyway that I-591 would be passed as well and negate I-594. According to ballotpedia's I-591 page, about $1.2 million was spent promoting I-591.
What I'm wondering is if $600,000 was enough to drop theoretical support from 90% (according to more generalized polls - I'm seeing between 60% & 81%, counting undecideds on the high end but not countig them on the low end, for polls specifically about I-594) to a little over 59% (according to election results), then would spending that $1.2 million on direct opposition to I-594 instead of using it to pimp I-591 have caused I-594's defeat?
Perhaps we weren't outspent, but rather we misspent.
Something to ponder if anyone tells you that we tried to fight "universal" background checks in Washington state and lost because Bloomie the Hut has too much money.
(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)
Monday, January 12, 2015
Bobbing For Appeasement
Like a 17 year old sci-fi geek who just got the Clockwork Angels Tour on Blu-Ray, I'm a bit rushed.
Et tu, Bob? Seems Bob Owens is playing Halifax to Gottlieb's Chamberlain.
To refute his, Gottlieb's and any others' counsel when they speak positively of appeasement, may I present for your edification:
Agin' Background Check Appeasement
The Wrong People
All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance
Bouncing Background Checks
Also, Joe Huffman's thoughts on Background Checks and Neal Knox's tale about The Belgian Corporal.
To try to sum it up (though clicking those links will lead to a much more thorough understanding of the danger and futility of background checks) giving in on background checks will not accomplish anything for us in the medium to long run, as whatever short term gains we receive will be overshadowed by the harm background checks and our acquiescence to them cause us. It will erode the principals upon which we base our opposition to laws that intrude upon our Rights, while furthering the anti's cause. It will not stop the anti's, it will help them. It will not help us, it will hurt us. What we must do is fight, not just an expansion of background checks, but all background checks, even the ones we endure now. Surrendering is not fighting. A wise fellow once said that evil is never stopped by fleeing from it. I'd posit that evil is never stopped by compromising with it.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
Et tu, Bob? Seems Bob Owens is playing Halifax to Gottlieb's Chamberlain.
To refute his, Gottlieb's and any others' counsel when they speak positively of appeasement, may I present for your edification:
Agin' Background Check Appeasement
The Wrong People
All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance
Bouncing Background Checks
Also, Joe Huffman's thoughts on Background Checks and Neal Knox's tale about The Belgian Corporal.
To try to sum it up (though clicking those links will lead to a much more thorough understanding of the danger and futility of background checks) giving in on background checks will not accomplish anything for us in the medium to long run, as whatever short term gains we receive will be overshadowed by the harm background checks and our acquiescence to them cause us. It will erode the principals upon which we base our opposition to laws that intrude upon our Rights, while furthering the anti's cause. It will not stop the anti's, it will help them. It will not help us, it will hurt us. What we must do is fight, not just an expansion of background checks, but all background checks, even the ones we endure now. Surrendering is not fighting. A wise fellow once said that evil is never stopped by fleeing from it. I'd posit that evil is never stopped by compromising with it.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Bouncing Background Checks
If you've read anything I've written in the past week (or ever) you've probably realized that I'm opposed to background checks under any pretext whatsoever. I think supporting any sort of expansion of background checks is an unwise move and definitely not the best option we have as gunowners. So, what should we do instead of appeasement?
The biggest problem we have regarding background checks (and proponents of appeasement continually bring this up to justify their position) is public opinion. Polls and initiatives so far have shown that a majority of people support background checks and/or their expansion. In large part this is because the mythology of background checks (i.e. keeping "the wrong people" from acquiring guns) is appealing to people. Most folks don't delve deeply enough into the subject to realize how ineffective background checks are at their purported goals, or how dangerous background checks are to them, or the potential consequences and co-requisites of background check expansion. This, as always, is the tactic that our opposition relies on; misinformed or ill informed electorates.
So what we should do is simple (which is not to be confused with easy). The solution to ignorance is education, not capitulation.We should inform the electorate. Here are my ideas on how to accomplish this:
The biggest problem we have regarding background checks (and proponents of appeasement continually bring this up to justify their position) is public opinion. Polls and initiatives so far have shown that a majority of people support background checks and/or their expansion. In large part this is because the mythology of background checks (i.e. keeping "the wrong people" from acquiring guns) is appealing to people. Most folks don't delve deeply enough into the subject to realize how ineffective background checks are at their purported goals, or how dangerous background checks are to them, or the potential consequences and co-requisites of background check expansion. This, as always, is the tactic that our opposition relies on; misinformed or ill informed electorates.
So what we should do is simple (which is not to be confused with easy). The solution to ignorance is education, not capitulation.We should inform the electorate. Here are my ideas on how to accomplish this:
Thursday, January 08, 2015
All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance
Let us take a look into a fairly reliable crystal ball I like to call history and see what will happen if we choose appeasement by supporting "universal" background checks in exchange for other concessions...
Let us assume we can get some modest gains in exchange for supporting some sort of "universal" background check. National CCW reciprocity is most likely, and perhaps another bone or two, such as suppressors or short barreled long guns being removed from the NFA, It's possible we could see some sort of "restoration of Rights" process for non-violent offenders. There will of course be a provision that makes a federal database of guns illegal, as well as exemptions for family and spouses. It would likely only apply to sales or long term loans, gifts and trades. The devil being in the details it's no use to speculate about all the possibilities so let's just go with something general for this discussion.
So we support "universal" background checks at the national level. What then?
Let us assume we can get some modest gains in exchange for supporting some sort of "universal" background check. National CCW reciprocity is most likely, and perhaps another bone or two, such as suppressors or short barreled long guns being removed from the NFA, It's possible we could see some sort of "restoration of Rights" process for non-violent offenders. There will of course be a provision that makes a federal database of guns illegal, as well as exemptions for family and spouses. It would likely only apply to sales or long term loans, gifts and trades. The devil being in the details it's no use to speculate about all the possibilities so let's just go with something general for this discussion.
So we support "universal" background checks at the national level. What then?
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
From The Billing Department
I wasn't sure if anything would be filed yet, it being only the first day of the session, but I did find some firearms related bills in the Colorado legislature.
State of the State
That'd of course be My, the State. So how are things in The Centennial State you ask? In the words of Hoyt from John Boy and Billy's The Big Show, not too good.
If you're in Colorado, fear for your wallet and your liberty, and possibly your virtue as well:
The Colorado Legislature is back in session.
If you're in Colorado, fear for your wallet and your liberty, and possibly your virtue as well:
The Colorado Legislature is back in session.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
From My Cold Sled Hands
Dubuque, Iowa is the latest in a number of towns and cities that have banned sledding. Yep. Sledding. The bans appear to be limited to city owned property.
"We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,' said Marie Ware, Dubuque's leisure services manager. 'We can't manage the risk at all of those places."
The risk they speak of is from lawsuits:
"...a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord."
I found some info on the Omaha case mentioned above. A family's two daughters hit some trees at the bottom of a hill while they were sledding. The family's attorneys claim the city is responsible because they knew the trees posed a hazard to sledders. Connelly v. City Of Omaha was decided by the Nebraska supreme court in july of 2012, affirming the appeals courts awards to the plaintiffs although modifying the amount of damages. Judge Narragansett could not be reached for comment.
Back to the original article:
The good news is there is resistance to such efforts:
"We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,' said Marie Ware, Dubuque's leisure services manager. 'We can't manage the risk at all of those places."
The risk they speak of is from lawsuits:
"...a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord."
I found some info on the Omaha case mentioned above. A family's two daughters hit some trees at the bottom of a hill while they were sledding. The family's attorneys claim the city is responsible because they knew the trees posed a hazard to sledders. Connelly v. City Of Omaha was decided by the Nebraska supreme court in july of 2012, affirming the appeals courts awards to the plaintiffs although modifying the amount of damages. Judge Narragansett could not be reached for comment.
Back to the original article:
"Most people realize that cities
must restrict potentially dangerous activities to protect people and
guard against costly lawsuits, said Kenneth Bond, a New York lawyer who
represents local governments. In the past, people might have embraced a
Wild West philosophy of individuals being solely responsible for their
actions, but now they expect government to prevent dangers whenever
possible.
'It's a great idea on the frontier, but we don't live on the frontier anymore,' Bond said."
At the part where they mentioned "New York lawyer" I somehow just felt like I was being lied to, and instinctively put one hand on my wallet and the other on my Garand.
That is part of the problem though; progressives from more densely populated states try to use the "old west" rationalization to justify any encroachments on not only individual freedom, but individual responsibility as well. A question though - if it's not a frontier then what are all these carpetbaggers doin' 'round here? Come to edjumacate us hicks on our earth killing sled-risk-takin' ways? To enlighten us about how the collective matters more than the individual? That government is responsible for us in every way imaginable and must protect us from ourselves?
"...[Assistant city attorney Tom] Mumgaard said courts in Nebraska have decided cities must protect people, even if they make poor choices."
Ayup. That's exactly what they came out here to tell us about.
The good news is there is resistance to such efforts:
"In Omaha, the city banned
sledding at a popular hill as a test one winter after losing a lawsuit,
but decided to allow it again after most people ignored the restriction.
'It wasn't practical,' assistant city attorney Tom Mumgaard said. 'People wouldn't abide by the ban."
Gee, imagine that - people ignoring a law. I wonder if this could have any implications for gun owners...?
The Wrong People
“The
law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over
the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting
their hands on a gun.”
That
was from a speech President Obama gave on January 16th of 2013 as he unveiled his plan for new gunowner laws. It
is true that an estimated 1.5 million people were denied permission to exercise
the Right of owning a firearm during that time frame. But pay attention to what
he called them – “the wrong people”.
Monday, January 05, 2015
Agin Background Check Appeasement
It has come to my attention that there are certain segments of the gun owning community that feel conceding on the issue of background checks is a politically and pragmatically wise course of action. The idea is that since gunowners were outspent in Washington state in the fight over passage of I-594 that such losses are inevitable in other states, therefore if we support some form of universal background check we can reduce the damage done by an I-594-like law. The most prominent proponent of such an idea is Alan Gottlieb of SAF and CCRKBA fame, but he is not alone.
To this notion I must not only say “No”, but “Go to hell
no”. Allow me to break it down:
Sunday, January 04, 2015
If You Don't Know Me By Now
I seem to have found myself back on blogger, and having been away for so long I'm not quite certain what all these buttons do. So don't pay too much attention to this post as I'm just experimenting to see what all I can or can't manage. I may or may not try to spruce the place up a bit, but my time is limited and there were a few topics I wanted to touch on so it's possible I'll just try to crank out those and leave the page as it looks now. Or close to it. So, do pardon the mess.
Oh, if you're wondering, I picked the title of this post because the template I went with is a simple red. ;) In case you didn't catch that, I'll post a vid in the extended entry:
Oh, if you're wondering, I picked the title of this post because the template I went with is a simple red. ;) In case you didn't catch that, I'll post a vid in the extended entry:
Friday, April 20, 2007
Automatic For The Free People
The subject of
machine guns has come up a few times of late & I thought it'd be
useful to have a post to point folks to instead of retyping the same
arguments repeatedly. So let's have a brief discussion on what
machine guns are & why they're not only important, but vital to a
free people.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Mars Bringer Of War
It's a piece by
Gustav
Holst from his suite The
Planets. I admit I prefer works from the Classical
& Baroque
periods with an occassional fondness for the Romantic
but there are a few 20th
Century pieces that I enjoy. The Planet suite
is one of them. The opening piece starts off in 5/4 time but shifts
to 5/2 & then later 3/4 (told
ya I liked uncommon time signatures). Its dissonance
& dark haunting melodies have made it one of Holst's most
recognizable works & in it you can almost hear premonitions of
William's
Imperial March from the Star Wars soundtracks.
Wikipedia's media
section on The Planets'
page has the first four movements of the suite (Mars,
Venus, Jupiter & Uranus respectively) in "play in browser"
as well as downloadable formats. If you scroll
down to the 2002-2003 season you'll find The Peabody Institute has
MP3's of The Planets
suite as well. But for your convenience here's the
Toronto
Symphony Orchestra's vid of their performance of Mars, the Bringer of
War (Part 1 & Conclusion) (& on the right side
of the screen you'll see vids of them doing more of The Planets
suite if you care to listen - & I do recommend checking out
Jupiter if nothing else).
What follows
will be about war. One in which we are currently engaged.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Witness Pics
The first target I shot with the new Witness Elite Match in 10mm. This was using American Eagle 180 grain FMJ's which traveled around 1025 fps. The distance to the target was roughly 30 feet.
The second target was shot with handloads. Speer 180 grain TMJ's on top of 8.5 grains of Longshot. They were clocked at around 1180 fps.
Here's another one of the targets hopefully in an easier to see format.
8.9 grains of Longshot pushed those Speer 180 grain TMJ's to around 1240 fps
& this is the first target shot with handloads again.
As I said, er typed it was only around 30 feet because I was mainly trying to chronograph the handloads but the accuracy doesn't seem to be too bad considering I've never been a great pistol shot.
For a more detailed review see Can I Get A Witness Part Two
The first target I shot with the new Witness Elite Match in 10mm. This was using American Eagle 180 grain FMJ's which traveled around 1025 fps. The distance to the target was roughly 30 feet.
The second target was shot with handloads. Speer 180 grain TMJ's on top of 8.5 grains of Longshot. They were clocked at around 1180 fps.
Here's another one of the targets hopefully in an easier to see format.
8.9 grains of Longshot pushed those Speer 180 grain TMJ's to around 1240 fps
& this is the first target shot with handloads again.
As I said, er typed it was only around 30 feet because I was mainly trying to chronograph the handloads but the accuracy doesn't seem to be too bad considering I've never been a great pistol shot.
For a more detailed review see Can I Get A Witness Part Two
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Cult of Personality
Living
Colour. Here's
the video. Not my favorite tune by them (for example
Broken
Hearts, Broken
Hearts [acoustic], What's Your Favorite Color?,
Open
Letter To A Landlord, Funny
Vibe & Love
Rears Its Ugly Head get more play on my music
engine) but it is a good example of what they're capable of, &
generally I dig their sound cause they're a damn good band.
Without going
into too much detail (I am psuedononymous after all) I was someplace
doing non-gun nut things & saw a very pretty woman. I viewed her
from the back & side at an angle & could tell she was very
attractive. She also looked a little lost & I was almost
contemplating walking up to her & striking up a conversation (or
attempting to). Then she turned around & after I noticed her
smile what I saw disgusted me so much I gave up any notion of
communicating with her. It wasn't her face or body or the way she
styled her hair; she had a t-shirt on with a pic of Hitler. & it
was not a satirical thing at all; it seems she admired him.
Now y'all are
with me right? It'd be a waste of time to approach her when her
"hero" is such a polar opposite of anyone I'd respect. The
correct thing to do would be to simply shun her right?
But it wasn't
Hitler on her t-shirt. It was another mass murderer who was not as
talented at his craft (but was just as brutal) as Hitler. The face on
the shirt belonged to Che
Guevara.
Paul Berman
penned an article entitled The
Cult of Che; Don't Applaud the Motorcycle Diaries.
Now why on earth would young people who seem reasonably intelligent
wear a shirt featuring "The Butcher of la Cabaña"? Well
it's something like the principle expressed in one of my favorite
Reagan quotes:
What they see in
that two-bit wanna-be thug isn't the petty tyrant who used force to
impose his vision on his (& other) people. What they see is a man
of vision who saw the oppression of capitalism & risked all to
fight against it. They see the Time article which grants him the
martyr status he always wanted. (you can find it here cause I'll be
damned if I hotlink that piece of journalistic tripe
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mao.html )
They remember
this:
"At the
risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is
guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a
genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
& not this:
"The great
lesson of the guerrillas' invincibility is taking hold among the
masses of the dispossessed. The galvanization of the national spirit;
the preparation for more difficult tasks, for resistance to more
violent repression. Hate as a factor in the struggle, intransigent
hatred for the enemy that takes one beyond the natural limitations of
a human being and converts one into an effective, violent, selective,
cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be like that; a people
without hate cannot triumph over a brutal enemy."
Or this:
"I ended
the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of
the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal. He gasped for a
little while and was dead. Upon proceeding to remove his belongings I
couldn't get off the watch tied by a chain to his belt, and then he
told me in a steady voice farther away than fear: 'Yank it off, boy,
what does it matter.' I did so and his possessions were now mine."
* Diary entry from Sierra Maestra on the shooting of fellow Eutimio
Guerra which he suspected of passing on information (1957)
(All Guevara
quotes are from the
Wikipedia entry)
Guevara would
have been as bad as Hitler or Stalin or Mao if he'd been any
good at what he was trying to do. But he was a punk. A brutal punk to
be sure but he failed. When he was killed ("murdered" as
The Times article puts it) he was trying to get his revolution on in
Bolivia. Now according to the Berman article linked above he hadn't
been able to recruit any of those Bolivian peasants he was allegedly
fighting for.
"...It
always seemed odd to me that people wanted to associate themselves
with someone they knew so little about. In reality, supporting Che
was just about making a statement - of sticking it to companies,
America and the West.
Making Che
Guevara into someone worthy of admiration is the most successful
thing the 'Left' has managed to do in the past fifty years. This is
the man who had no shame in murdering innocent civilians, was a major
human rights violator, and put gays (who were 'deviants'), religious
minorities and other undesirables into concentration camps. Some
hero."
But I've seen
the following attributed to Guevara (though I cannot find any source
or citation):
"I fight
not out of hate but out of love"
Bullshit. The
only love he fought for one that of his own power & ambition.
"Is a
Che t-shirt on the Christmas wish list of someone you love? If you
love truth, justice and basic human rights don't fulfill that
request. Give your loved one a quick history lesson instead...a
complete Che Guevara portrait would include an executioner's
soundtrack. As a biographer wrote: '... Che, as supreme prosecutor,
took to his task with a singular determination, and the old walls of
the fort rang out nightly with the fusillades of the firing squads'."
Anthony Daniels
in an article called The
Real Che relates the following:
"With
few exceptions, the devotees of the cult of Guevara know little about
him or what he actually stood for. This has always been the case. In
1968, only a year after Guevara’s death, a professor of
international relations at San Francisco State University, John
Gerassi, published a collection of Guevara’s speeches and essays,
in whose introduction he relates the impact news of the death of
Guevara had upon his students:
On October 9,
1967, the first news of Ernesto Che Guevara’s alleged death reached
the United States… . I was approached by a nineteen-year-old coed.
She had tears in her eyes and a 'Make Love Not War' button on her
breast. 'You don’t really believe it, do you?' she asked. 'I mean,
he couldn’t really be dead, could he?' … [T]here were many
liberals and many pacifists [in the class], in addition to the
radicals. And yet to all … the news of Che’s possible death was
very upsetting and very personal. Che had obviously caught their
imagination. They respected and admired him. They knew very little
about his life… . But they knew enough to know that he was an
idealist… . Thus it became apparent to me, as we talked that day,
that these liberal and pacifist students felt, incredibly, as if Che
had died for them."
& Mr.
Daniels makes a very valid point about the
film The Motorcycle Diaries:
"...It
is as if someone were to make a film about Adolf Hitler by portraying
him as a vegetarian who loved animals and was against unemployment.
This would be true, but again would be rather beside the point."
The fog of time
and the strength of anti-anti-Communism have obscured the real Che.
Who was he? He was an Argentinian revolutionary who served as
Castro's primary thug. He was especially infamous for presiding over
summary executions at La Cabaña, the fortress that was his abattoir.
He liked to administer the coup de grâce, the bullet to the back of
the neck. And he loved to parade people past El Paredón, the
reddened wall against which so many innocents were killed.
Furthermore, he established the labor-camp system in which countless
citizens — dissidents, democrats, artists, homosexuals — would
suffer and die. This is the Cuban gulag. A Cuban-American writer,
Humberto Fontova, described Guevara as 'a combination of Beria and
Himmler.' Anthony Daniels once quipped, 'The difference between
[Guevara] and Pol Pot was that [the former] never studied in Paris'."
Sean
O'Hagan in a piece called Just
A Pretty Face? quotes Christopher Hitchens:
"Che's
iconic status was assured because he failed...His story was one of
defeat and isolation, and that's why it is so seductive. Had he
lived, the myth of Che would have long since died."
So more or less
what probably explains the fascination with Guevara is simple
ignorance. The kids with the Guevara t-shirts simply don't know who
the hell he was. they only know what they think he was - a
romantically tragic figure who lived & died for his ideals. &
that'd be all well & good but his ideas included constructing
labor camps for artists & writers who didn't get this whole
revolution thing, not to mention putting bullets into people who were
not under arms or posing a threat - they just simply disagreed with
him.
I have some
ideas & principles that'd I'd fight for. Some of them I'd kill
over & some of them I'd die for. But not one of those involves
imposing my will on anyone else (except the one about imposing my
will to live on anyone who tries to kill me, but that's a semantic
point). & generally it is good to have ideas or principles that
mean more to you than your own well being does. But it's the
substance of those ideas that matter.
If you'd kill
someone over your desire to have the coolest shoes on the block I'm
going to judge you as being morally bankrupt. If you'd die to keep a
neighbor of a different ethnicity from being herded into a cattle car
by an oppressive government then I'd have some admiration &
respect for you.
Guevara - I
cannot stress this enough - the boy was a punk. A mark ass ig'nent
thug-wannabe scraggly headed punk. He wasn't any different than the
guy Capone had running around the neighborhood collecting protection
money. The only thing to be regretted about his death is that it
didn't come much sooner in his life.
His ideals &
goals, if realized, would have enslaved everyone under his dominion.
Marxian beliefs when realized afford the greatest tool of the tyrant
that modern day man has known. In order to exercise enough power to
control an economy to that degree you necessarily have the power to
control the individuals within that economy & most people do not
have the will power to resist using that control. Sure, they
rationalize it; it's just to hasten the ideal state, etc... but they
use it just the same. & to the same ends. Those ends are
invariably the limitation & in some cases the extinction of
personal freedom. Whether it's the main goal or just an unintended
consequence is irrelevant.
He is seen
possibly as a rebel fighting for the Rights of the people, but in
actuality he was a rebel who disrespected the Rights of those he
claiemd to be fighting for. Such is the way with most Marxists.
But Guevara
lives on the chests of young men & women across this country.
There's an anti-Guevara movement (which I understand is especially
strong among Cuban born Americans) but it pales next to the cult of
Che that seems to spring up anew every year from the colleges.
I must point out
this
anti-Guevara site complete with anti-Guevara
t-shirts. & here's an
amusing story from Babalu Blog about wearing an anti-guvara t-shirt
in Miami. Here's a site with more
anti-Guevara t-shirts.
But perhaps my
fav anti-Guevara merchandise can be found here.You'll
see it at the top. It says: "My American revolutionary kicked
your commie revolutionary's ass!" I’d buy it & wear it
the next time I’m in Boulder, but I’d hate to be filmed for an
episode of “When Pacifists Attack”.
So next time you
see someone, especially a youngster, wearing a Guevara t-shirt, try
to take some time & explain who Guevara really was. It's better
to believe that these kids simply are ignorent of history. The
alternative is to believe that they know who Guevara was & want
us (as in us capitalist Americans) to die as badly as he did, which
would really ruin my faith in the american fast food system.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Absolutism 301: Felons
You want axe murderers to be able to
walk into a store & just buy a gun?"
If you've ever
argued against the federal or state laws creating classes of persons
prohibited from owning arms then you've heard that sentence (or one
very similar) before.
The flippant
answer is of course you're more concerned with him walking into a
store that may have axes.
The serious
answer is you're more concerned with him walking into a store.
Before I dive in
here are the links to the previous installments attempting to explain
the Absolutist reasoning:
The Federal
restrictions on people owning a firearm are found in 18
USC 922. Start at (b) for the restrictions on
whom a dealer may sell to (which covers the age restrictions) then to
(d) for the prohibition on those indicted for or convicted of a crime
(among other things), then to (g) for the restrictions on possession
of firearms of the person whom those above mentioned conditions
apply. (i) & (j) covers possession of stolen firearms. (n)
prohibits those under indictment (for crimes that carry a penalty of
more than 1 year) from legally buying or receiving firearms. (x)
deals with juvenile possession of handguns & handgun specific
ammunition. (y) defines & lists exemptions for aliens.
18
USC 921 deals with definitions. (a) (14); (a)
(15) & (a) (20) are of particular relevance.
In fact, here's
(a) (20) in its entirety:
"(20)
The term ''crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year'' does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms."
exceeding one year'' does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms."
(a) (32) &
(a) (33) define the domestic violence misdemeanors & restraining
orders used a a basis for disqualification.
18
USC 925 (c) establishes the procedure for
getting a reprieve from disabilities on the federal level. It should
be noted however that since the early 90's congress has refused to
fund this activity, hence no relief from a firearms disability has
been granted under 18 USC 925 (c) in over a decade.
& just so ya
know, 18
USC 931 prohibits violent felons from
possessing body armor.
18
USC 924 deals with penalties for violating
anything found in 18 USC Chapter 44 (which encompasses all firearms
laws except the National Firearms Act which is found in 26
USC Chapter 53).
So now that
that's all on the table let's surmise:
If you've been
convicted of a crime that can land you a sentence of one year or more
(or in some cases 2 years & excluding certain trade &/or
business law violations) or a misdemeanor relating to domestic
violence, or if you're being indicted for a crime whose punishment
can exceed one year (or in some cases 2 years & excluding certain
trade &/or business law violations) or if you're subject to a
restraining order pertaining to domestic violence then you cannot
legally purchase or receive a firearm in the united States. With the
exception of the indictment mentioned above if any of the conditions
of the preceding long-ass sentence apply then you cannot legally
possess a firearm or ammunition in the united States.
To give you an
idea of what kind of criminal activity creates such a disability
under 18 USC Chapter 44 we have only to look at 18
USC Chapter 61 Section 1301:
"Whoever
brings into the United States for the purpose of
disposing of the same, or knowingly deposits with any express
company or other common carrier for carriage, or carries in
interstate or foreign commerce any paper, certificate, or
instrument purporting to be or to represent a ticket, chance,
share, or interest in or dependent upon the event of a lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in
whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any advertisement of, or
list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of, any such lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme; or, being engaged in the
business of procuring for a person in 1 State such a ticket,
chance, share, or interest in a lottery, gift, (FOOTNOTE 1)
enterprise or similar scheme conducted by another State (unless
that business is permitted under an agreement between the States in
question or appropriate authorities of those States), knowingly
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce information to be used
for the purpose of procuring such a ticket, chance, share, or
interest; or knowingly takes or receives any such paper,
certificate, instrument, advertisement, or list so brought,
deposited, or transported, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
disposing of the same, or knowingly deposits with any express
company or other common carrier for carriage, or carries in
interstate or foreign commerce any paper, certificate, or
instrument purporting to be or to represent a ticket, chance,
share, or interest in or dependent upon the event of a lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in
whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any advertisement of, or
list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of, any such lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme; or, being engaged in the
business of procuring for a person in 1 State such a ticket,
chance, share, or interest in a lottery, gift, (FOOTNOTE 1)
enterprise or similar scheme conducted by another State (unless
that business is permitted under an agreement between the States in
question or appropriate authorities of those States), knowingly
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce information to be used
for the purpose of procuring such a ticket, chance, share, or
interest; or knowingly takes or receives any such paper,
certificate, instrument, advertisement, or list so brought,
deposited, or transported, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Now I'm no
lawyer (I make an honest living) but if I read 18 USC 1301 correctly
then if you get caught & convicted for mailing your cousin that
newspaper ad for the Islamabad lottery where the grand prize is 2
chickens & a ferret then you can no longer legally own a firearm
in the united States.
I know I've been
sleeping better at night after I read that.
It's been said
that importing an orchid can get you into the prohibited class
regarding firearms. That seems
to be the case. It's apparently
enough probable cause for a search warrant
(more on that incident can be found here
& here).
So bringing a flower into the country can cause you to legally lose
the most effective means of self defense available.
Again, my
slumber is sounder knowing those vile flower-mongers will never wield
projectile weapons again.
I could go on
but honestly it's time consuming & logically exhausting searching
the u.S. Code. It's almost like the damned thing was written by
lawyers, for lawyers. The point is that it's not merely axe-murderers
who are prohibited from legally owning a firearm in the u.S. & I
think most people would agree that the category encompasses too many
folks who really aren't a danger to society. Of course there are the
strict law & order types who assert that any violation of the law
shows a lack of judgment & therefore just grounds for
disqualification from owning weapons. I'll try to get to those folks
in a bit.
What sticks with
most folks though is the question that started this post. "You
want axe murderers to be able to walk into a store & just buy a
gun?"
The obvious
answer is of course no. But the problem I have is not the result (axe
murderers not able to get a firearm) but the method of achieving it.
The problem wouldn't be that he or she could legally purchase a gun
after serving time for murdering someone with an axe; the problem
would be that he or she is not still serving time for murdering
someone.
All murders are
not equal. I'll grant that. There could be some circumstances where a
lighter punishment than life in prison is warranted. But I cannot
fathom why we would be okay with letting someone out of prison in the
first place that cannot be trusted with a firearm. If a person is
released then in theory his debt to society has been paid & we
should assume he's capable of possessing dangerous objects without
going on a murder spree.
After all no law
prohibits a convicted axe murderer from buying a car upon his
release. Bleach & other assorted dangerous chemicals are not off
limits. Hell, a convicted axe murderer can, on the day of his or her
release walk into any hardware store & buy a friggin' axe! Yet
somehow we're worried about it being okay for him or her to buy a
firearm?
Laws prohibiting
persons from possessing weapons do not prevent crimes; they encourage
them. How? By creating a defenseless caste of people. The axe
murderer wouldn't have any qualms about stealing a pistol or buying
one from the black market if he intended to modernize his particular
crime fetish. But the 65 year old man who got off with 3 years
probation instead of the 5 years federal time for importing a
verboten flower? Odds are he'd not think about obtaining a firearm.
If anyone knew this & had criminal intent then our 65 year old
flower fiend would be ripe pickins for a robber.
But let's
suppose our 65 year old felon who liked forbidden flowers too much
for the feds liking realized that he needed some sort of defense for
his home. He procures a single barrel shotgun just in case someone
breaks in. Well if someone breaks in & he uses it or if the cops
otherwise find out then he's a felon in possession & in danger of
jail time yet again. All for wanting to defend what's left of his
life.
Yes; if we drop
the prohibition on felons (as defined by federal law) possessing arms
then there will be some very bad people who legally have guns. Axe
murderers, rapists, child molesters, bank robbers & the like. But
honestly, if they were not reformed do you really think a law that
carries a few years jail time to back it up would make a dent in
their plans to commit a capital crime such as murder?
I’m not
saying that since some people will disobey the law then we should do
away with it. What I’m saying is that since the law does not
prevent folks with harmful intent from doing harm but it does prevent
those without harmful intent from preventing harm by protecting
themselves effectively then we should scrap the damned law & try
a different approach.
"But
it'd be one more charge to throw against them & keep them in jail
longer." Well if that's the case then we should make it
illegal to wear shirts. That way anyone caught wearing a shirt after
he's committed some other horrible crime can have the book thrown at
him. Course the problem would be that we all wear shirts & then
it becomes a discretionary issue of who gets jailed. Much the same
way the laws against owning & carrying arms are used, since I’d
wager the majority of “weapons offenses†that lead to
jail time are not committed by violent predatory criminals. But
that’s what you get when you play that game; the ones you
least seek to harm are harmed most while those you wish to be
contained just aren’t bothered by the law.
The problem
isn't not having enough to charge someone with; the problem is not
having stiff enough penalties for the malum
in se crimes. The answer is in reforming the
sentencing guidelines as well as putting judges on the bench who
realize containment, not rehabilitation is the key goal for those who
are a legitimate danger to society.
OJ. Let's talk
about OJ. Everyone knows he did it right? Well everyone except
a jury of his peers. But let's say OJ wants a gun. He can buy one
right now (well assuming California, in its infinite wisdom, hasn't
banned the model he wants) despite everyone knowing he killed
two people.
Now tell me are
you more concerned about OJ legally buying a gun or about our
fictitious (but based on real models) 65 year old flower felon buying
a hogleg nice & legal like?
Most of you
would be bothered more by OJ packing than a flower fence carrying a
gun. But the way our laws are set up the exact opposite is the case;
the feds are more concerned about any felon than they are about a
person people just know murdered two others in an act of rage.
For the record
neither one of them packing would bother me. That's the beauty of
possessing arms - other armed people are my equals & do not have
an automatic advantage. But even if I was unarmed for some
unthinkable reason, the 65 year old man doesn't seem to have any
harmful intent while OJ really doesn't need a gun to kill.
That's the harm
of prior restraint laws - they punish the innocent far worse than the
guilty. Someone intent on climbing through your window then killing &
raping you (in that order) isn't bothered in the least by obtaining
arms. Someone who had too much pot on him or who didn't do his taxes
or who had ammunition in Illinois without his papers being in order
or who imported the wrong kind of flower would be much more inclined
to obey the law even when it disarmed them.
It would not be
a crime free utopia if felons & other prohibited persons weren't
proscribed in their possession of arms. But it would give a few
people who had no harmful intent an option in case they were ever the
victims of a violent confrontational crime.
The current law
& any variation which prohibited people who are otherwise free in
society from having arms prevent very few real criminals from being
equipped enough to do their nasty work while preventing otherwise
decent folks from protecting themselves.
Now let's look
at a few cases from SCOTUS on the subject:
Barret held that
a felon who did not cross state lines still was subject to the
prohibited persons provisions of the GCA because the firearm (&/or
ammunition) had crossed state lines & thus triggered the
Interstate Commerce Clause's power. This is seemingly contradictory
to a 1943 case, TOT
v. U.S., 319 U.S. 463 & was mentioned
in the dissent of justices Stewart & Rehnquist. Also mentioned by
the majority opinion was UNITED
STATES v. BASS, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) which
found that a nexus between possession & interstate commerce must
be proven in order to convict under the felon in possession law, but
in Barret it was explained away as dictum.
So the current
case law holds that it’s proper for congress to prohibit
felons from possessing arms even if they are not engaged in
interstate commerce or involved in any harmful activity.
There is a very
compelling argument to be made that the Interstate Commerce Clause
does not justify such congressional action as prohibiting a certain
class of person from owning arms. I do believe there's an even better
argument that the 2nd amendment explicitly prohibits them from
performing such actions. But the courts aren’t exactly well
known for their constitutional literacy or flawless reasoning.
The problem is
one of conditioning. Even gun owners usually say they don't want
those danged convicted axe murderers buying guns all legal like. It's
simply hard to convince folks that any prior restraint is morally
wrong when they've been conditioned to accept it for so long.
Likewise politicians, who usually have the moral fiber of a desperate
crackhead, don't want to be on the record for "arming axe
murderers".
Pragmatically
the law does more harm than good. No person who wishes to cause harm
is really going to be hindered by it. Black market firearms are all
around. But say for some reason it is harder to gain a firearm, there
are many other items that can be used to cause harm & even death.
Some are even more deadly than a firearm.
Who is hurt by
the law are not the axe murderers, but the flower felon & others
whose offense was not genuinely indicative of a predisposition to
inflict unjustifiable harm. They are denied arms for their own
defense because of a standard set by congress which congress arguably
lacks the authority to impose.
It's just damned
hard to beat a sound byte that says "candidate x wants to arm
axe murderers".
Now to the law &
order argument. As I mentioned above there are some folks who feel
that any felony is indicative of a lack of judgment &/or respect
for out laws & therefore it’s just to prohibit such
persons from possessing arms.
A love for law &
order doesn’t usually motivate such sentiments, but fear. The
idea that a person would knowingly & willfully disregard some law
scares the hell out of people. It doesn’t matter if the law is
a prohibition on murdering children or a prohibition on importing
orchids. It scares them that such a person might wield power; enough
power to defy them, or what they feel is right..
â€Do you
really think a person who wrote bad checks & got convicted for it
has good enough judgment to own a firearm?â€
That’s
another argument I’ve heard. The most effective
counter-argument (imho) is this:
I cannot say
they exhibited great judgment in writing numerous bad checks, but I
can say I worry more about the judgment of those who would decide who
gets to be armed & who doesn’t. Their crimes are in the
past & do not harm me. The power for someone to judge whether or
not I may exercise a Right does harm me, as well as society.
There are people
I know of that shouldn’t be trusted with dull shiny objects.
We all know such folks. But the problem is not in that one person
being denied, but that someone would have such power to deny a
person. Look at any place where there’s a discretionary permit
system in place for firearms possession or carrying. You won’t
have to look hard to see abuses of the system, or denials for folks
who genuinely mean no harm & would do no harm except in
justifiable self defense.
I’m a
fairly stable person. I do have a nasty tendency to tell people what
I think, even if what I think is that person is an ass. I also tend
to run my mouth & not comply when I think a dictate is unjust.
Because of those two things it’s very conceivable that someone
who does not know me would deny my arms if it was within their
discretion to do so. Despite my having been a very safe gun owner for
decades.
Further look at
what’s happened already. In 1938 we ceded to the feds
(actually that socialist bastard just took it) power to prohibit
violent felons from legally buying arms. In 1968 that changed to mere
felons. In the late 1990’s that changed to include certain
misdemeanors & restraining orders. Does anyone wish to bet that
the next attempt will be for simple misdemeanors? How about
“excessive†traffic violations? After all, if you
can’t be trusted to operate a car safely how can you be
trusted with a firearm?
By giving the
government (or anyone for that matter) enough power to disarm someone
who is otherwise free in society we make it easier for said
government to disarm us. I mean you & me. That bothers me much
more than any lack of trust in any person or persons who are among us
in society. I’d much rather risk having the person whom I
wouldn’t trust with dull shiny objects being armed as well as
the recently paroled axe murderer than letting someone else
(especially someone in government) get to decide who is worthy of
being able to defend themselves effectively. In the former state I at
least have a fighting chance as I’m armed as well. In the
latter I might piss off the examiner & be defenseless by law even
though the axe murderer won’t be inclined to obey such a
proscription if he wishes to continue his bad habit.
Making a mistake
with the law is not a true indicator of violent or negligent
dispositions. Now robbing a liquor store & shooting the clerk is
a good indicator that such a person isn’t ready to meld with
the masses. But by attempting to disarm the ones we shouldn’t
let out in the first damn place we only disarm those without harmful
intent.
It’s a
hard sell, & not in the least because we’ve had this sort
of law around for 70+ years in some form or another, but it has been
& will be a chink in our armor if we continue to accept the idea
that some folks are more free than others. Eventually that same
precedent will be used to disarm someone you know whom you’re
also positive had no harmful intentions or negligent leanings. Even
worse it may one day be used against you.
Instead of
backing laws that disarm felons we should back laws that keep the
violent predatory types separate from society while allowing everyone
who we deem safe enough to be free to actually be free.
So the
Absolutist position on felons & firearms can be summed up thusly;
if a person cannot be trusted with arms, he cannot be trusted in
society. Any law that attempts to make exceptions to that, especially
if based upon prior restraint, is not a good law in principle or
practice.
If a person
walks among us freely, then he should be able to defend his life from
unjustified attack. If we deem him unsafe to defend himself then we
should not release him into society.
Again though we
have generations of condition & misapplied reasoning to counter.
It's not an easy task, but one we must undertake. After all, the
freedoms we preserve may very well turn out to be our own.
Friday, February 17, 2006
ATFU: Gun Owners' Public Enemy Number One
Of
Arms & the Law linked to this
story about the ATFU hearings in Congress. I think it
deserves a fisking.
Shall we?
Saturday, September 10, 2005
All That We Are
"Milton
Peterson was adamant that he would not leave. The retired 57-year-old
said his wife had died earlier this year and that the house was full
of too many important things of her's for him to leave. His six
grown-up children had already left. They had wanted him to leave as
well, but he had refused. He had never been outside Louisiana and he
had lived in his house for 37 years. He was ready to lock himself
behind the iron bars of his house and wait for the police to come for
him. 'I don't know people in Chicago or New York,' he said. 'Why
would I want to go there? What do I know about those places?"
From an article
called New
Orleans: Police go door-to-door to clear out last residents
That is
why folks, at least some folks do not want to leave. That is why some
folks will resist leaving however best they can.
In the movie Gods & Generals there's something rather fitting.
It's a dialogue between General Lee & one of his aids. His aid
points out that Fredericksburg, Va. is where Washington was rumored
to have cut down the cherry tree & thrown the silver dollar
across the Potomac. Lee responds thusly:
"That may
be so Mr. Taylor but it has an even greater significance to me. This
is where I met my wife. That's something these yankees do not
understand will never understand.
You see these rivers & valleys & streams... fields, even towns... they're just markings on a map to those people in the war office in Washington. To us, oh my goodness they're... birthplaces & burial grounds, they're... battlefields where our ancestors fought. Places where you & I we learned to walk, to talk & to pray. Places where we made friendships &... oh yes fell in love. & they're the incarnation of all our memories... Mr. Taylor, & all that we are...all that we are."
You see these rivers & valleys & streams... fields, even towns... they're just markings on a map to those people in the war office in Washington. To us, oh my goodness they're... birthplaces & burial grounds, they're... battlefields where our ancestors fought. Places where you & I we learned to walk, to talk & to pray. Places where we made friendships &... oh yes fell in love. & they're the incarnation of all our memories... Mr. Taylor, & all that we are...all that we are."
Typed words
cannot do justice to Duvall's delivery of those lines.
The cops in New
Orleans - you'd think they'd understand. You'd imagine they'd have
some sympathy. They apparently do not. They look upon people wanting
to stay in their own damn homes as a problem to be solved.
They are no better than any foreign invader who comes to subjugate a
people & sack its lands.
" ...defend
the constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic..."
heh. Foreign & domestic indeed. We've all heard that, even if
just as a throw away line in a movie. Do we really understand it
though?
If an army came
up from Mexico or Canada & attempted to do these things we'd be
pissed; & rightly so. But what does it speak of the nation that
the outcry over gun confiscation & forced evictions is only
coming from a small community of folks who are typically derided as
"gun nuts" or "right wing nutjobs" or
"anarchists"? Is it truly any different that it's being
done by domestic agents instead of foreign ones?
Yet how many
folks have heard any outcry in the MSM? Hell, did anyone hear any
conservative talk show hosts raising any sort of fuss about
this? It's anecdotal but I have not.
I have seen
lawyers & lawyerly minded folk trying to explain how this might
be legal &/or constitutional; how the courts are not "equipped"
to second guess an official in this sort of situation. I've seen gun
nuts counsel that bloodshed would be bad for us & our best hope
is to take it to the courts.
Does any of that
stop a thug with a badge from pointing a gun in your face? Does that
prevent a lowly sunuvabitch from tackling an old lady? Will that stop
them when they come across someone who will not lay down his arms?
No; the courts
offer little refuge. I would ask those same folks if they advise
people to plead before a judge when a burglar breaks into their home?
They will undoubtedly say no.
& the "rule
of law" crowd - the rule of law is a concept where the rulers
are bound by the same laws as the people they rule. In other words if
a government does something contrary to law then it's the government
who has abandoned the rule of law, not the people who seek to lessen
or stop the damage caused by such illegal activity.
Law enforcement
apologists for years claimed that should gun confiscations be ordered
you'd see a lot of cops refusing to comply or walking off the job.
The only cops I know of walking off the job were when looters ruled
the streets. They didn't do it in solidarity with the looters, let
alone sympathy for the gun owners. Their reasons are their own. But
has anyone heard of one cop since then who has thrown his badge down
in disgust at the orders he was told to execute?
This is
troubling. I am not surprised by the feds going in to steal folks'
guns. But the locals? the local cops? In NYC I would not be
surprised, but in a city of the South? In New Orleans? Granted New
Orleans has a corrupt police force, perhaps the most corrupt in the
nation, but is that rot so deep that concepts of home & freedom &
property are alien to them? Has New Orleans or America fostered a
society so removed that the words Duvall uttered in General Lee's
name have no meaning? Do they not understand or care that an old man
wants to stay on his own damn property, where his life was lived &
the evidence of it provides some comfort?
I'm reminded by
the words of that Louisianan that they call Bocephus:
"...if
you ain't into that we don't give a damn..."
I'd like to know
how the culture can be so removed from itself that the local cops
have no moral dilemma in stealing guns & kicking people out of
their own damn houses. But in the present it doesn't matter why;
it matters what.
There's an old
SCOTUS case that says (more or less; excuse the paraphrase) that
dispassionate reflection in the presence of an uplifted knife is not
a realistic expectation. Knowing the why is nice, but that
does not mean you should not focus on the what until there is
time to do so.
We can focus on
the why. The people whose homes are being invaded & their
guns stolen from them cannot afford to do so. The why can be
helpful for us as we try to concentrate on preventing this kind of
thing from happening elsewhere. It's a diagnostic tool that we should
employ.
But right now I
simply don't care. I don't find any of the justifications I've heard
or thought of so far as being remotely defensible. Why do they want
to steal guns from the people? I really don't give a damn; not about
them (the gun grabbing public servants) or their reasoning. I care
about the folks who are being victimized by them. I care about the
rule of law that they are disregarding. I care about the
constitutions which they are disrespecting. & finally I care
about myself because I know it wouldn't take much for me to be one of
those people wondering why the nice officer is beating down my door.
"...[they]
do not understand will never understand." As for what
happens to public servants who rob & scatter people by force I do
not care will never care what becomes of them. The only thing they
understand is force. I hope the good people of New Orleans realize
this. I hope you do as well.
Friday, August 26, 2005
...So Long As 100 Of Us Can Remain Alive...
On Tuesday, August the 23rd of 2005 Sir William Wallace was honored in a ceremony in the place where he was executed by the English in 1305.
Sir William Wallace was further honored by a few polls over the years:
"Opinion polls in recent years suggest between a quarter and a half of Scotland's 5 million people want the same independence from London which Wallace fought for seven centuries ago."
The man who honored Wallace in the ceremony went further to show his respect:
"Our country is still ruled from somewhere else,' he said, referring to the British parliament. 'It's time the leaders in Scotland woke up and listened to what the people want."
That quote was from David Ross, historian, author, musician & International Convener of the Society of William Wallace. I also recommend looking at his site WalkforWallace.com.
700 years ago Wallace was tortured, executed, butchered & scattered because he dared stand up to a foreign king who claimed dominion over his home. Today Scotland is still subject to the foreign land that Wallace fought against. It would seem to me that honoring Wallace would have to entail at least some sympathy for Scottish independence.
Now if the Scots wish to live subject to British Parliament then that's their decision. I'm not a Scot & I would not presume to tell them what to do with their country. But if you're wondering whether I'd support those Scots who wish to live absent the British Parliament my answer would have to be aye.
On Tuesday, August the 23rd of 2005 Sir William Wallace was honored in a ceremony in the place where he was executed by the English in 1305.
Sir William Wallace was further honored by a few polls over the years:
"Opinion polls in recent years suggest between a quarter and a half of Scotland's 5 million people want the same independence from London which Wallace fought for seven centuries ago."
The man who honored Wallace in the ceremony went further to show his respect:
"Our country is still ruled from somewhere else,' he said, referring to the British parliament. 'It's time the leaders in Scotland woke up and listened to what the people want."
That quote was from David Ross, historian, author, musician & International Convener of the Society of William Wallace. I also recommend looking at his site WalkforWallace.com.
700 years ago Wallace was tortured, executed, butchered & scattered because he dared stand up to a foreign king who claimed dominion over his home. Today Scotland is still subject to the foreign land that Wallace fought against. It would seem to me that honoring Wallace would have to entail at least some sympathy for Scottish independence.
Now if the Scots wish to live subject to British Parliament then that's their decision. I'm not a Scot & I would not presume to tell them what to do with their country. But if you're wondering whether I'd support those Scots who wish to live absent the British Parliament my answer would have to be aye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)