Friday, March 21, 2008
I Have a Few Softcore Neo Liberal Acquaintances...
Living in a mixed area like I do, that's pretty unavoidable.
We all know the types. These are folks with generally open minds, who tend to describe themselves as "liberal", because, of course, liberalism is the font of all Good things like education, clean air, fair work practices, and so on.
A lot of folks who fit this category aren't massively dedicated to the idea that they're on the Left team, nor are they dedicated to the idea that the Right is evil/regressive/etc, but they tend to accumulate the idea that there's something suspicious and authoritarian about the Right, mainly when they aren't paying attention and critically examining the ideas they're taking onboard.
Talking with such folks is often productive. Truly open minded, critical thinkers (as opposed to the poseurs who style themselves as such because they adopt some position that someone told them signified an open, critical mind) are able to understand an inconsistency when its pointed out to them, and generally are able to process the information towards some productive end.
I was having such a conversation with one such person. We were kicking around, in an honest kind of way, the post 9/11 erosions of liberties, trying to get past the smoke and mirrors to lock in on to what degree they'd really eroded, rather than the degree to which they've alleged to have eroded. (Summary: we've taken some hits, not nearly as many as the shrieking class would have us believe, and its likely that when the history of the thing is written in 100 years, it will be recognized that restraint was employed, especially when compared to other epochs, and when considering the nature of the enemy.)
As it would often happen in such discussions, it's awfully hard not to brush up against "so, what is the right role of government, anyway?", especially when referencing the Constitution as the basis for various authorities. My acquaintance knows my liberty orientation. More than once, he'd heard me say, "Where in the Constitution does it say you can do that?". This time, he smelled it coming, and tried to pre-empt me with a complaint, correctly claiming that my Constitutionalist position severely limited the governments ability to bring forth any Good at all. (Hmmph...wouldn't it be interesting if do gooders had to deal with a free market of good doing, rather than bask in the sunlight of unearned money collected at gunpoint for them?)
I had to acknowledge the point, but I felt that if I threw him a bone, I could get something in return.
"Look", I said, "I know I come off all hardassed around that point, but its for a reason. I actually AM willing to talk with y'all about an expanded role of government beyond what the Constitution actually stipulates. *Maybe* it should be a little more than what's given. But I am absolutely NOT willing to talk about an expanded role of government when no one can tell me where and what the limit of governmental power is, and that is exactly the situation we have now. In order for the government to bring forth Good, its limit line had to be folded, spindled, and mutilated, and now, literally no one knows where the line is. We simply cannot have a meaningful conversation about where the line ought to be until we agree that there is a limit to governmental power, that this is spelled out in our Constitution, and that until it actually means something in terms of restraining governmental power, we're just making shit up as we go along.
I am simply not willing to sign a blank check on governmental power, no matter what Goodness its promising to bring forth.
Look, your team complains about Constitutional violation this, my team complains about Constitutional violation that. If that document is to mean anything at all, we can't pick and choose. We have to respect it for what it is, and to the degree to which it no longer works for us, we have to actually change it, and we all know how that works. If we don't change it, if we just blow it off, then whoever has their hand on the tiller gets to beat the snot out of whoever doesn't.
Is that *really* what y'all want? Is the power of government limited, or not?"
I think maybe, just maybe, a lightbulb went on.
Maybe.
The sad thing is, the Blue team has a death grip on extraConstitutionalism, simply because they've got the most to lose should leviathan ever be tamed.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45  
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Quote Of The Day...
Quote:
---------------
"One day you will need people like him, and you will forget that you once thought he was worse than a criminal."
Rabbi Irving Chinn, explaining to some of his congregation why he gave his blessing to as student who chose to pursue a career in gunsmithing rather than rabbinic ordination.
---------------
THR member Ieszu commemorates his mentor's passing.
Quote:
--------------
You may ask why I bring this up on THR. I mean, why would a eulogy belong on a gun-forum???
Let me try and explain as best I could.
I have known Rabbi Chinn since I was in 9th grade. He guided me, taught me about life and shaped my world-view. After college, I studied under him for my own rabbinic ordination. When I passed the required tests, he told me that although I had the knowledge, I did not have the fire for inspiring people, and that another line of work might be better suited for me.
I came back to him a few months later, and mentioned going to gunsmithing school, and I wanted his opinion before I applied.
He gave his blessing, and mentioned that he thought it was an honorable profession, and that he was honored that I sought his opinion and advise.
When my father called him up to ask why I had such a crazy idea in his head, he answered very simply, "King David had sword makers and bow makers. This is merely the technological equivalent... If we have no fault with them back then, how could we have a fault with gunsmiths?"
--------------
Rest in Peace.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Incrementalismby Egregious Charles
I read this post by Michael Bane defending Alan Gura, and wanted to expand on it a bit. He says
Frankly, I'm a big fan of incrementalism...it's a tactic that has worked great for our enemies! How can we start chipping away at those abusive laws?
and then follows up with some concrete suggestions.
I wanted to expand a bit on incrementalism because our side doesn't take to this tactic easily. We don't take to it easily for two related reasons:
1) Our side, especially our leading members, are motivated by ideology and/or reason more than emotionalism.
2) Our side is braver; we are mocked for wanting to face our fears gun in hand, but the other side does not want to face their fears at all.
Because of these things, we want Alan Gura to stand in front of the Supreme Court and say that the 2nd protects machine guns. The fact that the 2nd does just that is a point I've made before (though I don't think it was here.) But that technique doesn't work in court. How often have we lost to such tactics? Never, and we've lost a lot. What we lose to is our opponents saying we only want the assault rifles, we only want a waiting period, we only want a tax, we only want the police chief to have an opportunity to turn down known crazies. They never ask for what they really want in court, or in a bill, because they know that won't work, it'll fall flat.
Now, many of them don't try to hide what they really want, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." But they don't ask for what they really want, they pick compromises that they can potentially get, over and over, a little more each time. And that works great, and we get tired running around and fighting each little compromise in each little state.
Never mind the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, SCOTUS is not brave enough to wipe out the last 80 years of incrementalism at a sweep. We imagine they are because we would do it in their place, but they are not. Faced with such a choice, they would pretend they believed the ridiculous collective interpretation, and declare for it.
So, if we have any sense, we borrow the winning tactic from our enemies. There are a lot more people dedicated to the right to bear arms than seriously oppose it, and we have a deeper commitment. If we use this tactic, foreign as it is to us, we will be able to use it far better than they simply because of numbers and dedication.
UPDATE: Commenter DJ characterizes how we've been losing thusly: "When someone who favors gun rights compromises with someone who favors gun control, the one who favors gun rights loses something and the one who favors gun control gains something."
That's a good characterization of what has historically gone wrong, but it explains the problem and not the solution. What is missing is that who gains by a political compromise is controlled by who initiates the deal.
For example, in a state where armed CCW permit holders may not enter establishments that serve alcohol. Our side publicly WANTS Vermont-style carry. Our representative ASKS that CCW holders be permitted in establishments that serve alcohol. We COMPROMISE on the CCW holder is allowed but not permitted to drink. Or probably better, our representative ASKS that CCW holders be permitted in establishments that serve alcohol, if they keep BAC under the limit for driving, and that may get through unmodified.
Permalink
Posted By: EgregiousCharles
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Word, From A Guy Who Was There...
Countertop Sez:
--------------------
My prediction, after sitting through the longest Supreme Court oral argument I can think of - we win on an individual right 8-1 or 7-2.
Strict scrutiny, we win 5-4 or 6-3 or 7-2.
DC Gun ban, history.
Federal Machine Gun ban*, history.
--------------------
* Countertop is referencing the 1986 closure of the machine gun registry, not the 1934 NFA.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Quote of the Day...
Quote:
-----------------
I sense a monumental victory coming for us when their side can't come up with an argument better than this.
-Clayton Cramer
-----------------
I also smell epic victory. It started when I first read Gura's brief.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Monday, March 17, 2008
Speaking of Marmosets...
Upon emerging from my dungeon of mad science, my six year old daughter, busily chasing the neighborhood kids around the house, looked me straight in the eye, and yelled,
Quote:
----------------
"There's an evil monkey, and he's trying to take over! Attack!"
----------------
Whereupon she then did immediately lead the charge.
I escaped, barely.
:)
It does a daddy proud.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Heller, LiveBlogged...
Scotusblog will be liveblogging Heller.
The planets did not line up correctly for me to take the day off, which means I'll be tuned in @ work.
{h/t: Dave Markowitz}
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Updated Heller Thought...
In comments, Reader Mike M. writes:
Quote:
---------------
What worries me much more is that SCOTUS will find for an individual right - then rule that DC's ban is a "reasonable" restriction. Which is nonsense, but it is nonsense that might get five votes.
---------------
He's certainly not the only person to express some concern about such a perverse outcome.
If the court sides with the theory that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right you can't actually use", based on some theory that even maximal levels of scrutiny support complete handgun bans, I shall assess the ruling on it's merits, rather than it's dicta.
I doubt I will be able to avoid concluding that we have entered a final stage of Constitutional degeneracy, in which all bets are off.
In other words, I would classify such a ruling as an abomination, achieved with smoke, mirrors, hand waving, and marmoset shrieking.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Public Service Announcement
{h/t: Dave Markowitz}
Pennsylvania Legislative Alert
Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, Inc.
Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Association
PRIORITY: High
March 15, 2008
Gun Owner Legislative Alert
Issue: House Bill 1845 and Amendments
David,
Pennsylvania House Bill 1845 has quietly passed out of the Appropriations Committee this past week with scheduled action on this bill for Monday, March 17th. HB1845 provides for enhanced penalties for possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer's (serial) number as well as increased penalties for altering or obliterating marks of identification on firearms. The original bill is not controversial but what has happened is that a package of amendments (filed late Wednesday the 12th) are pending that need YOUR attention.
Two of these amendments are pro-gun and ones we NEED TO SUPPORT. The first is Rep. Cappelli’s bill – HB 641 – the Castle Doctrine that has been bottled up in the Judiciary Committee and the Amendment ID# is ‘A05131’. Please ask legislators to support this one! The second Pro-Gun amendment is Rep. Stevenson’s – HB 1029 – this amendment will allow holders of a valid CCW / PA License to Carry a Firearm to bypass (is an exception to) the PA Instant Check when purchasing a firearm and the Amendment ID# is ‘A05706’. Please ask legislators to support this one TOO!
There is an amendment filed by Rep Levdansky that threatens our rights and that is amendment – A06178, which is part of the Philadelphia Legislators anti-gun agenda. This legislation ‘requires’ under penalty of law the MANDATORY REPORTING of lost or stolen guns within 72 hours and criminal penalties with graded offenses. In addition it imposes numerous duties on FFL dealers and employees, with financial and legal responsibility, to provide copies of the warning on lending & loaning firearms AND to fully explain these firearm laws to their customers. (Pa has lost over 9,000 FFL dealers since the mid 1990’s and this amendment will surely chase and/or harass even more FFL’s out of business) Please ask legislators to OPPOSE this amendment A06178!
We ask that you contact your state legislator and as many others as you can to respectfully ask them to take the actions indicated above. IF you need help finding your state legislator you can go to this link – Find YOUR State Legislator – and look in the upper Right Hand Corner of the Website. For contact information for ALL of the PA House of Representatives members please go to the ACSL and look for the alert!
We deeply appreciate your donation of time and ANY effort you can make to help out with this alert and we apologize for the lateness of it. We were not made aware of this situation until the middle of the week and it was necessary to analyze the amendment language for changes and mistakes and to run our concerns past our attorneys.
Deepest Appreciation and Thanks!!
Kim Stolfer
Legislative Committee, Chairman
Allegheny County Sportsmen's League
E-Mail -- activist@fyi.net
Harry Schneider
Legislative Committee, Chairman
Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association
psa@pagunlaws.com
Website -- www.acslpa.org
(412) 221-3346, Home Phone
(412) 257-1099, Home Fax
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Some Thoughts On Heller...
I have a busy week shaping up, and so I wanted to take a few minutes to comment on Heller, which is going to argument on Tuesday.
Most of y'all ought to be up to date on the Heller case.
For RKBA, this is the Big Case that will break the logjam one way or the other.
In some ways, I'd despaired of the Second ever getting its day before a court that seemed content to let the almost 100 years of slow motion hate crime against gun owners and Bill of Rights butt wiping go on without a peep to the contrary. (I'm counting since NYC's 1911 Sullivan act, which was the first mainstream gun control law, not the 1934 NFA, as is the usual case.)
And yet, here we are.
With grotesque rulings such as Kelo in our recent history, there's certainly some cause for trepidation.
The thing is, I'm not feeling that. Mostly, I'm feeling a sort of realistic ease, prompted in no small part by the quality and quantity of the briefs for our side, and the poverty of quality of the briefs for the other side.
Realistic, in the sense that the court is unlikely to give a sweeping ruling that, for example, resolves the incorporation and other tangential issues.
In fact, my prediction is that the court will declare that
1) The right of arms is indeed an individual right. (There will be some explanatory material about how, like life, liberty, and the vote it can be curtailed via due process, for due cause)
2) Outright bans on ordinary handguns and functional longarms will be found to be Infringements.
followed by
3) Deafening silence.
We won't have an answer on incorporation, or any clue as to what might be an Infringement short of an outright ban, but the logjam will be broken. The collective rights myth will be definitively shattered and the legal departments of the NRA-ILA and other interested groups will be kept busy full time finding out the answers to the rest of those questions.
Or, we could have another abomination, like Kelo or McCain-Fiengold, achieved with smoke, mirrors, hand waving, and marmoset shrieking.
Still, I'm not too worried about that.
When 80 million people* Americans with guns unanimously assert that they have the right to have them,, you have to either convince them to give them up (fat chance), or come and take them.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.
Truly, we are unique in the world.
*Sadly, given the shameful example of our British and Australian cousins just handing them over en-masse, I can't use the general term.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Almost Missed My Blogiversary...
5 years.
2,196 posts.
9,017 comments.
709,175 visits.
What a very long, strange, and wonderful trip it's been.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Screeching Inversions...
I've certainly seen enough of them, of late.
Here's the dealio.
Here's the essence of the thing:
------------------------------------
In a healthy society, immaturity is recognized for what it is, and mostly ignored. However, if society has deteriorated to the point that the immature equal or outnumber the mature, and if the immature congregate on one side of an issue or in one party, over time the stream of invective takes on a substance of its own; the constant accusations become evidence in themselves of the presence of corruption among the mature.
Here in America, the constant, irrational accusations by Democrats against Republicans has created the impression, particularly among Democrats but also uncomfortably common among independent voters, that Democrats play fair but Republicans cheat; that Democrats are tolerant, Republicans intolerant; that Democrats care about the poor, while Republicans dismiss them; that Democrats defend the Constitution, while Republicans ignore it; etc.
The accusations, themselves, have become increasingly irrational, to the point that a huge percentage of the populace is convinced that the Bush administration either planned the 9/11 attacks or knew about them in advance and deliberately let them happen, even though there’s not the slightest evidence of either. The list of unsupported, unsupportable accusations against Republicans has grown long: Diebold, Halliburton, “lies about Iraq,” “blood for oil,” “Bush=Hitler,” etc. Democrats have taken to calling for and wishing for the President’s assassination. Michelle Malkin wrote a book about the derangement of the Democrats, and lists relevant posts on her blog under headings like “unhinged,” “moonbats,” “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” and other categories that document a culture of immaturity gone berserk in their hatred of all things Republican.
------------------------------------
I'm certainly not going to argue that the GOP is flawless, but jeez, if you went by the moonbats, you'd think they were signed up for the ol' Cthulhu party foreign and domestic policy of killing everyone and consuming everything.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Site Tech Difficulties...
Folks are noting problems with Firefox in comments, and I've confirmed there's something going on.
I haven't changed anything recently, which tells me the problem is in one of the 3rd party inclusions.
If the problem persists tomorrow, I'll see if I can isolate where it's coming from, and eject the offender.
Thanks for hanging tight.
-The Management. ;)
Update
It appears to be haloscan's javascript. I'll have to turn them off for now.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
I'll Have To Go Scrub My Soul...
Yesterday, I spent ten whole minutes on the phone politely listening to one of Hillary's lobotomites asking me to go register Democrat and vote for her.
Here's the talking points:
* Of the three candidates, only Hillary has the experience.
(Unasked question: just how is it that 1.5 terms as Senator is sufficient experience? Or are you saying that some leadership osmosis occured while in proximity with Bill @ the White House?)
* We have too many serious problems in this country to mess around. Especially health care. Health care is an EMERGENCY! There are 47 million people without healthcare insurance!
(Unspoken thoughts: Bzzzt! Wrong!) And didn't Hillary's last feeble attempt @ Healthcare almost take Bill down, and didn't a miniature model of that plan already go bankrupt in Tennessee? And finally, since when is it the job of the government to hand out free shit?)
* We've also let greedy businesses exploit the common people. You've heard of the sub prime mortgage people taking people's houses? Hillary will stop them from repossessing people's homes, and will freeze mortgage rates for five years!
(Speechless thoughts: What...the....{bleep}? Hillary plans to wield extra constitutional powers greater than FDR, so that she can freeze fundamental aspects of the economy, basically destroying the whole system?)
* As for the war, I know a lot of people don't like that, but Hillary's experience on the armed forced committe tells her it wouldn't be wise to pull everyone home right away. So, she'll uh, {mumble, mumble}
(Yeah, ok, whatever. )
* And finally, you should believe me, because I've got a Ph.D, and I teach science and economics at a university?
(Silent question: please, give me a hint what school you teach Marxist economics at, so I can ensure that no one I care about ever goes within miles of the place....)
So, riddle me this.
How is it that a supposedly informed and intelligent person can spend ten whole minutes on the phone with me, and not come up with ONE point aligned with reality, that is consistent with the role of government in our society, and the powers of a president?
Like I said, now I have to go scrub my soul...
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Sunday, March 09, 2008
David Young's Commentaries on Heller's Amicus briefs...
Can be found here.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Death of a Hard Drive...
There goes another one....
Folks might have noticed my online participation's been lower than usual last couple of days, thanks to the death of my main HD. Fortunately, being a geek, I have automated backups, and only lost a few days worth of stuff.
Anywho, if anyone's sent me any critical email in the last week or so, please resend.
My system (which is more complex than your average bear's) should be rebuilt in a couple of days, and then I'll be back.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Initial Thoughts...
Having finished Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, I'm still letting my thinking ruminate and germinate.
For now, though, I should like to discuss one small aspect of the whole thing. I need to tell you this small thing, so that I can tell you another perhaps not so small thing.
One of the many insights I've gained from reading that book is that in the past pages of this blog, I have described our opponents, the Left, as being some combination of socialist or communist, and from Jonah Goldberg I learn that this appellation is somewhat imprecise. In the broad sense, it works, but if one more closely examines the pedigrees of thought between and among the fungible groups of people who comprise and move between the groups we call socialists, communists, and fascists, one finds shades of meaning and historical outlook that leaves one vulnerable to attack on the basis that some detail of any chosen description/classification could be attributed, falsely or otherwise, against the other.
In fact, to call these groups "communist" or "socialist" or "fascist" is to miss the very thing that makes them objectionable and unconscionable. After all, there is nothing inherently evil or wrong in advocating failed economic and social ideas. Stupid and maladaptive, perhaps, but not evil. Where these people and groups go wrong is that they are all totalitarians, and that is where the evil lies in wait.
Here is the first impression gelled by this book. The American Left (to the extent that Leftism is consistent with an authentically American outlook) is a totalitarian movement dedicated to the bringing forth of unlimited Good, through governmental mechanisms.
These aren't people who seek evil. They are people who seek Good, albeit through dubious means. They are people who blind themselves to the truth that the power for unlimited good is cannot be distinguished, even in principle, from the power for unlimited evil. As such, they do not understand that we oppose them for their means, not their ends, and many believe that we oppose the Good they seek to bring forth, and cannot understand why anyone (other than a reactionary degenerate seeking to preserve a position of oppression based privilege) would oppose such Goodness.
This premise, government as a source of unlimited Good, directly contravenes one of the few axioms upon which America is predicated: that since it is impossible to create a government capable of doing unlimited good without creating a government capable of doing unlimited evil, we shall not make a government so capable, because it will inevitably degenerate into the unlimited evil case.
The rationale for organizing a society in that way is straightforward, and compelling. There is a zero sum dial that ranges between individual freedom and collective power. We bias the setting of this dial towards the individual's freedom, for the simple fact of the matter that the evil an individual can do is insignificant compared to the evil that a society, organized by the power of government, can do.
In short, as a society, we understand that we accept the occasional mall shooting, because the worst suffering the most dedicated individual madman can inflict is some dozens dead and wounded, which is entirely preferable to the multiple dozens of millions of dead the Totalitarians have killed, elsewhere on our planet*.
This is the single most bitter lesson of the 20th century, and it seems that some cannot get it through their thick skulls and blind eyes.
I told you that, so that I can tell you this.
There is a significant portion of our society that believes that our current era of diminished Liberties and Constitutional Degeneracy begins with the election of 2000, and that our divided society will be "healed" through a unification narrative that isn't functionally distinguishable from Leftist Totalitarian victory.
The thing is, that narrative would be a lie, and as a lie, any unity based on it cannot, and will not stand.
I'd once said that:
Quote:
---------
Unless and until the Left comes to grips with their own contributions to the degeneracy of the Constitution, constructive and meaningful discussion simply is not possible.
----------
If meaningful discussion isn't possible, then any thought that there might be any kind of national unity or healing without the Left coming to grips with their own very special contribution to our current state of affairs isn't even distantly plausible.
Unfortunately, as much as I'd hope that books such as Mr. Goldberg's might contribute to the Left discovering their history, my experience with the denizens of the Left suggest that too many are too ideologically blinkered, too ignorant of history (especially their own), and too intoxicated with the thought of bringing forth Unlimited Good to be coaxed back to earth.
And so, the long, cold, and astoundingly civil (as these things go) war continues.
* The Totalitarian Left kills 120 million of its own people in the 20th, and yet, somehow, America is what's wrong with the world.
Yeah, right.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
|
|
