Why the First and Second Amendments, of course.
Though now I'm struck with Bilbo's "riddle" and Gollum's anger at it.
"Not fair! It isn’t fair, my precious, is it, to ask us what it’s got in its nassty little pocketses?"
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Winning up the Slippery Slope.
I had posted on the percentage of the population that lives in Shall Issue or Constitutional Carry states.
No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money reader Rob Vance did even better.
He's got a graph of it over time from 1985 to the present. The conclusions are great too.
Here's a taste:
No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money reader Rob Vance did even better.
He's got a graph of it over time from 1985 to the present. The conclusions are great too.
Here's a taste:
1) In the early 1980s 90% of Americans lived in states that actively suppressed self-defense rights by severely limiting concealed carry of firearms by citizens.
2) By 2010, 2/3’s of Americans lived in states where law abiding citizens could conceal carry if they met minimal standards, and in some states (4 by 2011) needed NO state permission at all to concealed carry. A total of 41 states are now shall-issue or have unrestricted concealed carry status.
3) Few states moved from no issue to may issue. Rather when states made policy changes, they made the jump from no-issue to shall-issue all at once (again, with a couple of exceptions).
Friday, October 7, 2011
Ann Althouse's Magical Thinking.
Law Prof (remember that) Ann Althouse frets about guns in the Wisconsin State Capitol. Specifically, the legalization of carry by the common citizen.
My, you could just replace a couple words and you'd have this.
Hmm, sounds a lot like the concerns the anti's have against CCW. Blood in the Streets! Shootouts over parking spaces! Those evil guns whispering into people's ears.
And, of course, the "magical thinking" that there is something inherently corrupting about a gun that warps's people's minds. We've seen this before.
So why is Althouse only complaining about this location and not that Wisconsinites can legally carry concealed to protests that aren't in governmental buildings?
Why it's like she thinks there's something special, something magical about that location?
Well... she does.
Emphasis added. Got that? Althouse explicitly states that a specific location will have a detrimental "effect" on the mind of the law-abiding ordinary citizen and put them at greater risk of... what going on a shooting spree? Again, her worry is solely on the law-abiding because she admits that "there's nothing to stop a person with criminal intent".
Yes, there were heated protests in the rotunda, but there was also heated protests on the street. What's the difference?
Ah yes, the rotunda's magic. Well then. Remember, she's a law professor, and her argument here is based on " the effect of the rotunda on the human mind".
At least she's not alone about thinking that certain locations just cause bad juju.
Sigivald asks: "Are Capitol security/police immune to the Magical Effect Of The Rotunda?"
I'm sure they have special metal liners for their hats that keep the voices of their guns and the rotunda out of their brains.
And for added deliciousness, the while Capitol environment gets ordinary citizens too hot and bothered to handle their guns, it's just peachy for politicians to legislate inside building.
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is okay with guns in the Capitol and other state buildings.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. How does that square with the image — seared in our brains — of thousands of protesters cramming into the rotunda and winding themselves up into a frenzy of indignation?
My, you could just replace a couple words and you'd have this.
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is okay with guns in public streets
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. How does that square with the image — seared in our brains — of thousands of protesters cramming into streets and winding themselves up into a frenzy of indignation?
Hmm, sounds a lot like the concerns the anti's have against CCW. Blood in the Streets! Shootouts over parking spaces! Those evil guns whispering into people's ears.
And, of course, the "magical thinking" that there is something inherently corrupting about a gun that warps's people's minds. We've seen this before.
So why is Althouse only complaining about this location and not that Wisconsinites can legally carry concealed to protests that aren't in governmental buildings?
Why it's like she thinks there's something special, something magical about that location?
Well... she does.
These days, there's nothing to stop a person with criminal intent from going in with a gun, so Van Hollen is implying that it's in fact a safeguard for ordinary citizens to have guns too. He doesn't come out and say that though. Having seen the effect of the rotunda on the human mind, I worry about ordinary citizens in the Capitol with guns.
Emphasis added. Got that? Althouse explicitly states that a specific location will have a detrimental "effect" on the mind of the law-abiding ordinary citizen and put them at greater risk of... what going on a shooting spree? Again, her worry is solely on the law-abiding because she admits that "there's nothing to stop a person with criminal intent".
Yes, there were heated protests in the rotunda, but there was also heated protests on the street. What's the difference?
Ah yes, the rotunda's magic. Well then. Remember, she's a law professor, and her argument here is based on " the effect of the rotunda on the human mind".
At least she's not alone about thinking that certain locations just cause bad juju.
Sigivald asks: "Are Capitol security/police immune to the Magical Effect Of The Rotunda?"
I'm sure they have special metal liners for their hats that keep the voices of their guns and the rotunda out of their brains.
And for added deliciousness, the while Capitol environment gets ordinary citizens too hot and bothered to handle their guns, it's just peachy for politicians to legislate inside building.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Extremism but in Moderation.
An old Clip of John Cleese decrying Extremism has been floating around. Basically he talks about how the far right and far left have become more brands for which enemies you want to decry and working against moderation and compromise.
Funny stuff... but a bit of context. Here's the full video, where we find out that it's from 1987 and he's doing a long form advert for the SDP/Liberal Alliance. And right there he's outright and open with how he wants his party (a fusion of Britain's social democrats and social liberals) to be the kingmakers between the other two parties (the Far Left Tories, who are part of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and Center-Left Conservatives ). They would then later become the Liberal Democrats known as the Green Left.
Anyway, my point is not how crazy British politics are, but instead to look at the notion of extremism being bad. Via Glenn Reynolds we have this bit by A. Batron Hinkle. He talks about how politics is dehumanizing the other and compromise is dead. About how the media is stoking the fires of antagonism, by making it an us versus them binary choice. And then we get to the end...
Huh... recall that John Cleese was talking about the need for compromise and moderation?
Yes on a strategic realpoltic level one can compromise even if you know it's wrong. See 3/5 representation, but that doesn't make it right. Just because there are two opinions does not make the middle the moral one.
Anymore than it makes one of the two extremes wrong.
Let's look at woman's suffrage. That was very extreme. Very radical. In fact in some places it is still an extreme and fringe position.
Durring, Cleese's advert he also makes a joke about homophobia on the part of a political party. Homophobia was mainstream in Britain. Alan Turing was bough up on charges for being homosexual and convinced for indecency.
This goes right to the crux of social, political, economic, hell any kind of reform. It was pretty extreme to advocate for Proportional Representation in Britain at the time, but Cleese did it. Was that bad? Why not?
Well, Cleese makes the case that PR is near universal on Continental (Western) Europe and therefore not extreme. That brings us to the question of how do we define what's an Extreme view? Do we cast the net to our country? Continent? Bigger? Smaller?
If we go by the whole world: representative government is the extreme position.
And what about time? Hinkle shows how what was once an extreme view in race relations is now the mainstream (and morally right one).
It would seem that those decrying extremism have a distinct geographic and temporal bias.
Or
It's almost Extremist is short hand for "Person with a view I don't like and want to shut up."
That's not to say that an extreme viewpoint means it has to be the right one.
Nor does it mean that a moderate viewpoint is automatically wrong.
Extreme/Moderate, Right/Wrong are orthogonal.
Funny stuff... but a bit of context. Here's the full video, where we find out that it's from 1987 and he's doing a long form advert for the SDP/Liberal Alliance. And right there he's outright and open with how he wants his party (a fusion of Britain's social democrats and social liberals) to be the kingmakers between the other two parties (the Far Left Tories, who are part of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and Center-Left Conservatives ). They would then later become the Liberal Democrats known as the Green Left.
Anyway, my point is not how crazy British politics are, but instead to look at the notion of extremism being bad. Via Glenn Reynolds we have this bit by A. Batron Hinkle. He talks about how politics is dehumanizing the other and compromise is dead. About how the media is stoking the fires of antagonism, by making it an us versus them binary choice. And then we get to the end...
Many in the media are glad to help them do it, by serving up an endless train of alarmist articles about how one side or the other is chock-full of bug-eyed nut jobs pushing hidden agendas and radical ideas: Christian "dominionism" (Rick Perry), anti-colonialist Alinskyite subversion (Barack Obama), Straussian neoconservatism (George W. Bush).
Of course, it might be true that in some instances, a candidate really is the "most extreme ever" along some axis or another. But does this tell us anything important? Not so much.
Suppose that, in 1955, a Southern political candidate had declared segregation obscene, laws against ethnic intermarriage odious and the notion of racial supremacy grotesque. Suppose he organized bus boycotts and lunch-counter sit-ins and marches for civil rights. Suppose he promised to overturn Jim Crow as soon as he took office. If any candidate had done that, he would have been widely denounced as the "most extreme" you-know-what-lover ever.
He also would have been right.
Huh... recall that John Cleese was talking about the need for compromise and moderation?
Yes on a strategic realpoltic level one can compromise even if you know it's wrong. See 3/5 representation, but that doesn't make it right. Just because there are two opinions does not make the middle the moral one.
Anymore than it makes one of the two extremes wrong.
Let's look at woman's suffrage. That was very extreme. Very radical. In fact in some places it is still an extreme and fringe position.
Durring, Cleese's advert he also makes a joke about homophobia on the part of a political party. Homophobia was mainstream in Britain. Alan Turing was bough up on charges for being homosexual and convinced for indecency.
This goes right to the crux of social, political, economic, hell any kind of reform. It was pretty extreme to advocate for Proportional Representation in Britain at the time, but Cleese did it. Was that bad? Why not?
Well, Cleese makes the case that PR is near universal on Continental (Western) Europe and therefore not extreme. That brings us to the question of how do we define what's an Extreme view? Do we cast the net to our country? Continent? Bigger? Smaller?
If we go by the whole world: representative government is the extreme position.
And what about time? Hinkle shows how what was once an extreme view in race relations is now the mainstream (and morally right one).
It would seem that those decrying extremism have a distinct geographic and temporal bias.
Sure X may be mainstream over there but they're just stupid foreigners. Or we have to do X it's all the rage in all those exotic foreign countries, we can't be left out.
Or
Yes yes, people would never do X back in the day, but we're so much more enlightened now it would be extreme to not do X... And in the future people will look back on us and think we're monsters for thinking Y is okay.
It's almost Extremist is short hand for "Person with a view I don't like and want to shut up."
That's not to say that an extreme viewpoint means it has to be the right one.
Nor does it mean that a moderate viewpoint is automatically wrong.
Extreme/Moderate, Right/Wrong are orthogonal.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Speaking at the Pleasure of the State.
A bit back Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell had a fun bit of satire: What other Rights Work Like this?
Where he talks about treating the First Amendment as if it were the Second with a few key edits:
And shortly afterwards (and today) Muggeridge's Law reared it's head proving that reality can always beat satire.
First from England we find that the "UK Labour Party wants journalism licenses, will prohibit “journalism” by people who are “struck off” the register of licensed journalists.
And if that's not enough, today NY State Democratic Senators are dreaming of this:
It's for The Children, don'cha know. Nice to see that the threat of "cyberbullying" is sufficient toeviscerate refine that silly old Freedom of Speech.
What can you expect from places where self defense is outright denied to anyone not wealthy, famous, or government.
And speaking of New York and pushing aside those silly old rights we have Nanny Bloomberg himself.
Guess what he's talking about. There's some clues.
He's talking about "healthy eating". Yes, personal diet falls under the umbrella of "powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce and results only governments can achieve."
There is literally no aspect of a person's life that these slimy meddling bastards would not want to control. There's a reason totalitarianism is called what it is.
For you next assignment muse over the meaning of the phrase "Police State".
And you'll note that these are all lefties. That's mostly due to the media. Both sides have their Totalitarian urges (though it's more explicit on the Left). However, if anyone on the Right said stuff like this (or canceling elections!) the media would pounce on them.
Just take this example Jay G talks about racist associations.
Or this little story about an oddly quiet story that killed infinitly more people than Watergate (numbers are fun!).
And another set of excuses.
Where he talks about treating the First Amendment as if it were the Second with a few key edits:
Many states already have agreements to recognize newspaper licenses from other jurisdictions. Virginia, for example, honors licenses from 27 other states that have similarly robust standards; Maryland, which strictly regulates what newspapers may be sold, and the District, which essentially prohibits it, do not recognize out-of-state licenses. These are legitimate choices that would be overridden by a federal legislature that too easily bends to the will of the news lobby. Nevada, a strong press-rights state, rescinded its agreement with Utah because Utah does not require training in acceptable viewpoints. Why should Congress to overrule that judgment?
And shortly afterwards (and today) Muggeridge's Law reared it's head proving that reality can always beat satire.
First from England we find that the "UK Labour Party wants journalism licenses, will prohibit “journalism” by people who are “struck off” the register of licensed journalists.
And if that's not enough, today NY State Democratic Senators are dreaming of this:
PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED.
It's for The Children, don'cha know. Nice to see that the threat of "cyberbullying" is sufficient to
What can you expect from places where self defense is outright denied to anyone not wealthy, famous, or government.
And speaking of New York and pushing aside those silly old rights we have Nanny Bloomberg himself.
There are powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce and results only governments can achieve. To halt the worldwide epidemic of non-communicable diseases, governments at all levels must make healthy solutions the default social option. That is ultimately government’s highest duty.
Guess what he's talking about. There's some clues.
He's talking about "healthy eating". Yes, personal diet falls under the umbrella of "powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce and results only governments can achieve."
There is literally no aspect of a person's life that these slimy meddling bastards would not want to control. There's a reason totalitarianism is called what it is.
For you next assignment muse over the meaning of the phrase "Police State".
And you'll note that these are all lefties. That's mostly due to the media. Both sides have their Totalitarian urges (though it's more explicit on the Left). However, if anyone on the Right said stuff like this (or canceling elections!) the media would pounce on them.
Just take this example Jay G talks about racist associations.
Or this little story about an oddly quiet story that killed infinitly more people than Watergate (numbers are fun!).
And another set of excuses.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Product Review: Surefire Ear Pro
If you need some ear protection I'd recommend against the Sonic Defenders by Surefire Ear Pro. They're plug in the ear ear protection that... well... doesn't stay in the ear.
These little buggers had the standard three ridges that went into the ear canal, but backign them were plastic sections that would sit in the outer ear. But the things could not hold and would work themselves out.
Even when they stayed in, they gave extremely sub-par protection. After less than 5 rounds I had given up on keeping them in. And on the walk back to the bench one fell right out, and I couldn't find it.
So, that's a clear sign right there.
And that's another lesson, always bring spare stuff in your range bag.
These little buggers had the standard three ridges that went into the ear canal, but backign them were plastic sections that would sit in the outer ear. But the things could not hold and would work themselves out.
Even when they stayed in, they gave extremely sub-par protection. After less than 5 rounds I had given up on keeping them in. And on the walk back to the bench one fell right out, and I couldn't find it.
So, that's a clear sign right there.
And that's another lesson, always bring spare stuff in your range bag.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Fall
Ah, productive day.
Got food. Tested out my various 45's (good news the 1911's and PM45 work just peachy. The AR45 still has a bolt dry out issue after a 100 rounds). Then set the grill and vacuumed.
And then came the nice part of relaxing on a fall evening n the patio while the burgers cook (using my brine trick), out with a good dog and a fine cigar.
It is important to sit back and enjoy things.
And now to see if the burgers are done.
Got food. Tested out my various 45's (good news the 1911's and PM45 work just peachy. The AR45 still has a bolt dry out issue after a 100 rounds). Then set the grill and vacuumed.
And then came the nice part of relaxing on a fall evening n the patio while the burgers cook (using my brine trick), out with a good dog and a fine cigar.
It is important to sit back and enjoy things.
And now to see if the burgers are done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)