Wednesday, March 3, 2021

THE DAILY FUDD: E:28: "A fudd set that should appeal to both sides--plus having a 'political' symbolism."

This edition was reproduced in TDF 120 with one paragraph added. That paragraph is added here in red.

------------------------------------------

In the 1970s, the clear focus of gun control advocates was banning handguns. Long guns received little attention beyond what had been done in the 1968 Gun Control Act and the movie, The Deadly Tower about the 1966 University of Texas shooting. Normal criminality--not concerns about "militias," terrorism or insurrection, or the rare mass shooting--seemed to be the genuine focus. Even as late at 1988 and the infamous "Sugarmann Memo," some circles put long gun controls as simply political steps to handgun control.

This is no longer the case. The "Black Rifle Craze" that started in the early 1980s ended up completely flipping that picture. Aside from magazine capacities, most typical-configuration handguns have been left virtually untouched by "assault weapon" legislation (save in some odd technical points in California and Massachusetts). And the 2008 Heller decision established handguns as particularly and specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

This edition of TDF will not focus on issues of objective validity of any of this, but rather point to an interesting play on it for the minimalist RKBA realm.


Today, we hear two conciliatory lines--however grudging or disingenuous they may be--from the anti-gun side toward the baseline, Blackstone-type RKBA. The first is a Heller-based acceptance of pistols. A Boston, Massachusetts police chief once semi-famously stated that he saw no reason for city dwellers to have rifles or shotguns. In doing so he tacitly--and probably reluctantly--accepted a "reason" for these people to have handguns. (Interestingly, a colonial-era fire ordinance in Boston prohibiting keeping "firearms" loaded in homes did not apply to pistols.) A modern handgun is generally superior to the weapon generally viewed as protected in the 1688/89 English Bill of Rights: "a blunderbuss to ward off burglars."

Uncle Festus' views notwithstanding:


The other line is a direct modern descendant of the blunderbuss--the shotgun. Joe Biden as Vice President famously spoke positively--albeit... oddly, shall we say--of shotguns as defensive tools. Other anti-AW figures have referenced shotguns as better alternatives to AR15s and such. And, for a foreign view, it has generally been easier in the Mother Country of the UK to get a shotgun license than for one for a rifle (and certainly a handgun):

"Yaaah." (From Hot Fuzz, truly the pinacle of British moviemaking.)

So, putting these two lines together, we get a focus on what should be THE fudd weapon these gun controllers can get behind: The .45/.410 revolver. Arms like the Magnum Research BFR, Taurus Judge, and Smith and Wesson Governor hold the "best" (from the conciliatory gun control perspective) of both worlds--not a long gun, yet with some shotgun effect. And at least some such arms are legal in every State save California, which views them as short-barreled and rotary shotguns. 

Taurus Judge Public Defender CCW version (see below for link to picture).


A consideration of the tactical elements lends a certain call for liberals to endorse this. Such arms are certainly not the combat weapons hicap 9mm's are. Yet they serve the role of a sidearm.  See here for a critical, yet balanced, review of one: Taurus Judge .410 Revolver Review [Updated 2021] | TheGunZone https://thegunzone.com/taurus-judge-revolver-review/ . While expressly stating it is not the writers' preference, the review does offer this assessment:

If you load the .45 ammo, you’ll have a better chance of hitting targets further away up to mid-range distances. The .410 shot is better suited for very close-range encounters, where you can pull the trigger in the general direction of the threat, and it will likely cause damage.

Home and carjacker defense are probably what this gun is good for in the self-defense realm. This is because at mid to long-range, especially when using shot, the ammo loses a lot of its velocity. So in a sense, it offers some form of safety in that you will only have more chance of damaging a close-range target, with less chance of occurring collateral damage.

And, of course, it looks quite intimidating in its bulky form.


In a sense, such arms address the more sincere concerns of anti-gunners, while almost congruently retaining the baseline Blackstone function of RKBA. Not perfect in either of those, but looked at objectively, it's a functional fit.

(See also TDF 27 for a view of the revolver's sense of American heritage.)

Now, match this arm up with a play on the shotgun line: a regular--and extremely versatile--.410 shotgun or a .410 "firearm" like the Henry Axe, and one has a long gun/sidearm set (outside of California) very much PC, yet still effective at the Blackstone defense level while playing the anti-gunners own rhetoric against them--a case of tactical and political mitigation coming together: 



Addendum from TDF 120:

This is the ULTIMATE minimalist expression of the Second Amendment personal right. KEEPING is fulfilled in the modern blunderbuss, and the American innovation of more general BEARING is fulfilled in the revolver.

Now for the fun part: Such an arms set would fulfill actually three symbolic roles. Being a revolver (and a .45), it points to the heritage maintenance role of RKBA written about in many places in the series and elsewhere. And being a .45, it goes to honoring the 45th POTUS and last legitimate President: Donald J. Trump. On the shotgun end, it would harken back to the early Right to (at least) KEEP Arms of the blunderbuss, while retaining modern tactical meaningfulness.

The picture here is that, while obviously not fulfilling the vision of 2A, there is a play on opposition rhetoric which can serve the baseline RKBA functions AND make a greater statement.

We work to prevent things coming to this, but we have a fallback mitigation if it comes to it.

at