Sunday, September 14, 2014

Cracked: Bless Their Heart Edition.

Sometimes I talk about how subversive Cracked is.

This is not one of those times.

No take a gander at this.

Come for the massive misrepresentation of Gammergate
(They are aware that it can be both sexist 4chan people *and* corrupt pay-for-play game reports right)?

Stay for the delusional scoffing at gun rights people.


Guys, if you Google long enough you can find a conspiracy theory proving anything -- from vaccines causing autism (CDC cover up!) to the government trying to take your guns (it's Obama and ACORN!).


Conspiracy?   Uh...  the president gave multiple speeches that he wanted an Assault Weapons ban... he lobbied congress to get a bill doing that passed.

How is that a conspiracy?  Or is it not "take your guns" if he simply makes it illegal to buy the most popular rifle in the country?

Oh and you gotta love a guy that writing a "chill out and don't do conspiracy theories"  unironically cites Aljazeera.

No conspiracies there,  good thing he wasn't writing an article about Jews.

Now the Aljazeera piece (which is also about Palestinians helping in Ferguson)  as to why the Tea Party is hypocritical because it didn't send armed militia to Ferguson.  Which is exactly what the cracked article crows about.

Oh and the NRA is at the fault... you know that shooting where the only person with a gun was the cop.

Heckuva job Cracked!

And then there's this.

Ask a fanatical gun nut if, for all their paranoia, they've ever had their weapons physically taken away from them by the government. Those guys sure are silly and deluded, huh?

So there you go. It's only a *real* gun ban if the state rolls around taking them house to house.

Oh the government passes a law making it illegal to buy or trade a very popular type of weapon? You know like the President openly lobbied for.  Well that doesn't *count*.

And apparently,  just because New York and Connecticut went ahead and passed their second Assault Weapons bans, and enacted registration schemes...  

One can't criticize even those laws...  unless you live in those states.

By this man's logic....  
Say Alabama decided to enact an abortion ban.  And they do it by banning women getting their *first* abortions.  If you've had an abortion before the law was enacted then you're grandfathered and can have as many as you like.
Again following this man's logic, first, do you live in Alabama? Oh you don't  then shut-up because you haven't personally experienced it.  And you're just a paranoid.
Oh, you do live there? Well have you personally had your attempt to get an abortion physically blocked by the government?   You haven't. Sorry according to Cracked, it doesn't count.

Oh you have? The cops threw you out of the clinic? Well it's not a *real* ban.   I mean the state isn't going door to door and closing abortion clinics.  Nor are they rounding up women who have had abortions.   They're merely making it illegal for women who have not had one from getting one.


Any sane person would say the law in this hypothetical case would be a blatant abortion ban.
But change it to guns and all of a sudden people hem and haw and go "well, it's not *really* a ban".

Saturday, August 23, 2014

The Gear's a symptom....

On the whole militarization of the police.
The way I see it the equipment is a symptom of a greater problem of the attitude of how procedures are carried out (warrant service, arrest, ect).
To be blunt, that a cop has a gun on his hip (or slung over his shoulder) is the *least* scary thing about them. In a free society just about anyone can do *that*.

The difference is that Joan Q Public doesn't have police powers. She's got no legal way to break into someone's house, take their stuff, and kidnap the people inside (In other words, serve a warrant, come in with force, take evidence, and put suspects into custody).

It's like how one can propose that cops have "badge cams" when on duty and not want non-police CCW's to have them. Again the difference isn't the gun, but that police are employees of the state who are authorized to use force.

And to go back to the well of Peelian policing. Take a note that all the rules are about how the police interact with the public and the level of force they use, and not the kind of gear they've got.

That isn't to say that the police buying (or being granted) lots of equipment that they can't afford to keep, that eats a budget that could have been spent on training or other more useful stuff, isn't a problem. The use it or loose it dictum does come into play. But again, it's symptomatic of a larger problem.
As for which police gear is kosher, I'd say put it on parity of what the public can own. As the police are civilian, and that'd be a simple enough rule of thumb.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Yeah... Police Militarization is totally a "Red State" problem.

Some maps,  from the NYT of all places.   Again, this shows that blaming this on "conservatives" (or liberals) is a myopic view.   The problem is far too widespread for that.

Course liberal gun controllers also have to deal with the whole "Only the Police should have guns" and the proliferation of "military rifles" in states where they banned commoners from having 'em.

I'd like to stress that this gear is symptomatic of a greater problem.  That is the abandonment of Peelian Principals.

It's less the gear the police have and more their acting like an occupying army and thinking warrant service has to be framed like a tactical assault.

The problem with this gear is that it's expensive to maintain, is handed out cheaply,  and thus can become a big budget drain and threaten to be a white elephant.  So there's the temptation to use it.  And why not use it? Afterall aren't the police the front line in the War on Terror and the War on Drugs?

One can readily see how problems crop up.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Mr A knows who's to blame for the Militarization of Police.

Well.... it hasn't been quite a month since my last post... Yay?

So doubtless you've heard about the Ferguson riots and the over militarized police response. If not,  use your search engine of choice to read up on it.

What's fascinating is how this has mainstreamed the whole "Hey the Police are acting more and more like an occupying army and that's not good."

And of course whenever something enters the mainstream that conservatives and libertarians have been debating and warning for years many liberals have to pretend that conservatives and libertarians haven't been talking about it.

Enter Washington Post blogger Paul Waldma who makes such claims. Now I'll leave you with a link to David Kopel at Volokh

Of course, I'm not here.  I'm here to put up the latest bit from Mr. A.
(Hey it was this or his rant against the Israelis and how mean they are and that Egypt's Gaza border doesn't count.)

I was having a conversation with some friends talking about the police militarization.  These folks are very differing politically, but know that I personally am a large 2nd amend advocate and have been harping on the militarization of police for years.

And in saunters Mr. A who drops this bomb:
Those police are Conservative America in a nutshell
Big mouths, lots of gear, not much between the ears
I blink and give a drawn out...  Riiiiiight.  And he follows up with 
It's conservative towns that have these cops, that pay them, buy their tacticool gear.
And I ask "Liberal towns don't? Can we talk about cities? What about the armed helicopters that the NYPD has?  Does the LAPD need to have everyone armed up in SWAT gear?  How about Boulder or Burlington or any other city in the country?"

He then goes on about how cops are inherently conservative. Huh, an upper class liberal seeing LEO as untermenschen.

I then followup by pointing out "Heck, isn't the idea that 'Only the police should have guns' especially military guns pretty liberal?  Aren't liberal gun control laws the ones that specifically exempt cops?"

To which he demurred and then started talking about his job offeres.

It really does show that so much of gun control has a "stop hitting yourself" vibe.

Example: silencers are banned,  then people complain about the noise gun-ranges make.

Police are going all tacticool with military gear,  then very people that want it make it so that *only* the police can have such gear blame gun owners for the police having such gear.

And of course David Frum is on board with it going on about how 
the police wouldn't be all militarized and abusive in their powers if it weren't for all those armed proles.


Edit:  That's not to say that there isn't a "Law and Order" Conservative streak.  Tough on crime sells.  But for a liberal to think the militarization of police is only a conservative problem is to be in total denial.


Sunday, July 20, 2014

Oh look another "X wants to reclaim the constitution"

So I've been seeing this article floating around and now it's in the WaPo.

How liberals can reclaim the Constitution

(I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is written by a guy hawking his book  on "Living Originalism")


What's fascinating is that it's just advice on Liberals to simply claim the constitution.   It boils down to "Hey remember civil rights and women's suffrage!"  And "The constitution is more than just the actual text and what judges say!"

So...  in other words.  Ignore that the amendment process was key in civil rights and women's suffrage  and keep pretending that the Constitution means "Laws we want are not just acceptable but mandatory!"

Basically this guy is going "Nu-uh! That the Constitution can change to mean whatever we want it to mean IS the real origininalism!"

Which is...  different from the status quo... how?


Though this is a huge admission of defeat: "Second, to better understand how the Constitution actually grows and develops, liberal scholars have turned away from the courts and judicial review — now the focus of conservative obsession — and toward the work of ordinary citizens and political movements."

It's not a wise idea to cede the courts and judicial review.

Course the article is full of paranoia about "Oligarchy" (but is oddly silent on how to *deal* with that problem) , and it weaves a conspiracy theory that somehow it was Conservatives who *tricked* liberals into abandoning Constitutional fealty.

And the guy ends by using examples of passed amendments to show how legitimate "Living Constitution" is.
I wonder if he's aware that Originalists don't actually thing amendments aren't legitimate.

I know he *is* aware that the biggest point of the Living Constitution view is that you don't *need* Amendments. That's um... kind of the whole point.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

It's not just Diversity of *thought* that is eliminated due to these policies...



FUNNY, BUT ALL THESE LEFTY ENCLAVES THAT PRIZE DIVERSITY TEND TO WIND UP AS LILY-WHITE AS A HOWARD DEAN MEETUP: Feeling “Invisible,” Black Residents Leave Austin.


Related: Education is Producing a Nationwide Gentrification Effect. “The larger the share of a city’s workforce that’s made up of college graduates, the more expensive it is to live there.” And yet education is pushed as a cure for economic inequality.
Via Glenn Reynolds.

It's no stranger than how states with bigger "Blue State" policies have more inequality.  Course you can have a fun time looking at the causality in that codependent relationship.

Friday, July 18, 2014

There's a reason the Democratic Party doesn't normally put these party planks *next* to each other.

So ABC has their own List Post.  5 Things Liberals Really want out of the Obama Presidency

And the only thing surprising is that parts 4 and 5 are next to each other:

4. Gun Violence Prevention5. Voting Rights

And by four they mean "expanded background checks"  which really means a private sale ban.   And by 5 they mean "invalidate Section IV of the Voting Rights Act" which really means "Voter ID is racist!"

Okay, so if Voter ID is racist due to the disproportionate impact ID requirement on poor and minorities...

How are expanded background checks for guns not racist? They're literally proposing a law to make it impossible to legally buy a gun without presenting ID.

While at the exact same time saying a less stringent requirement is unacceptable because it's racist.

I suppose their argument is  "voter fraud never killed anyone", what but that's really saying is "Racist laws are okay if they keep those people from getting guns."


See, this is why the Democratic Party normally has a bit of daylight between these two issues.