Saturday, February 13, 2021

THE DAILY FUDD: E10: "An Originalist fudd-ish argument regarding full-auto and 2A."

"I should be able to have full-auto!" says a local "card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party" radio host. He argues against the current legal restrictions on "machine guns"--a position popular with some in the Second Amendment (2A) community, but politically a non-starter with most of the general population. To the former, it's simply a matter of "rights." To dissenters from this position, it's also a matter of reality and impact (we'll see that word come up often here).

In this issue of THE DAILY FUDD, I will explain the matter.

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

To understand our modern Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), we must look at that right in the whole context of our Anglo Common Law tradition. The truth is, such a right was never construed as extending beyond what we'd call today, "small arms." Not cannon, not catapults or trebuchets, and not bombs or chemicals. The 1688/89 English Bill of Rights' provision on the matter was widely interpreted as simply guaranteeing a peasant a blunderbuss to ward off burglars. Provisions or customs prior to that were little different.



When settlers came from the Mother Country to the Colonies, the blunderbusses were largely exchanged for full-size matchlocks and muskets, as they knew they would be fighting off French and Indians and whoever, and hunting for their food. Also, armed travel became a norm (as reflected in the "bear" point of 2A). But cannon remained the province of government and the leading aristocracy--big land owners, ship owners, small communities fighting off the aforementioned French and Indians and whoever. There was no thought of Farmer Brown being guaranteed a cannon he could put on a hill overlooking the town and then go Festivus on them: "I got a lot of problems with you people!" There was no need to "ban" him from having it, though, as there was no imaginable way he'd ever be able to afford one. That was simply not what RKBA or 2A was about on the private side, insomuch as the Founders even considered the matter.

We can see in the use of language from the time that "arms" could be seen as distinct from what we'd call, "artillery." In the Articles of Confederation, which was the governing document of the United States of America at the time the original Constitution was being conceived and written, the States are said to need to maintain "field pieces"--artillery--as well as "arms and ammunition." Artillery ("field pieces") are distinct from "arms." Thus, that latter term does not necessarily include ALL things that might be called "weapons."

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION: Article 6, Paragraph 4:



The basic distinction between the (small) "arms" of the time and artillery is impact. Small arms are "singular use=singular impact." Oh, sure, a lucky shot might take out a second target, or a shotgun with birdshot might wound a third, but the essence is that one-for-one result (if that much). Artillery, on the other hand, is "singular use=mass impact." A house can be taken out by a single cannonball. A swarm of assaulting troops can be wiped out by a discharge of grapeshot. And a city can be set afire by an explosive shell.

The critic defender of a "right to keep and bear howitzers" would argue, though, that those "field pieces" are not man-portable, and that 2A protects anything a single individual could readily carry--that is, "bear." The flaw here, notwithstanding the legitimate point that "bear" means BEAR in 2A, is things like MANPADS: "Man-Portable Air Defense System"--e.g., Stinger missiles for downing aircraft. Such a system is clearly in the artillery realm, despite its relative portability. Farmer Brown could do much more with a Stinger than that cannon. (Similar arguments could be made regarding weaponized anthrax.)

In addition, there is the practical/political reality: I know there are supposed purists who would hold a Stinger to be 2A-protected. But such folks are self-defeating, as such a policy position forced to the mainstream of pro-private RKBA would result in an overnight repeal of the Amendment.

To use a science fiction analogy: Think of the Star Trek phasers Kirk and Janeway (I was a bit of a "Voyager" fan) ran around with. Those things could do everything from stun a child with no permanent harm to darn your socks with the right setting. And they could take out buildings--just like a Revolutionary War cannon.

Now, compare that to an identical phaser capable for the user of only STUN, maybe KILL, and perhaps a drilling/sawing function so someone could cut their way out of a crashed spaceship. It would have a vastly different (lower) impact level--i.e., "singular use=singular impact." The former held by Kirk and Janeway, though: "Singular use=mass impact." And all despite each being an arm readily "borne" by an individual in the normal course of a day.

Which brings us to fully-automatic fire. Viewed tactically and in terms of impact, full-auto is much more like artillery in the original RKBA concept than (small) "arms." One thing that matchlocks, flintlocks, cap-and-ball, breach-loaders, manual-action repeaters, and even semi-automatic arms have in common that sets them apart from their full-auto cousins is that they all have that "singular use=singular impact" characteristic. Full-auto, on the other hand, with one pull of the trigger can unleash a grapeshot-type effect--"singular use=mass impact."

I mentioned before the Star Trek phaser analogy, To put that two-phaser contrast in a more real-world setting: The M14 rifle in military use was selective-fire--that is, capable of semi- or full-auto fire. However, a little secret is that the rifles generally issued to troops were "permanently" set to semi-auto, meaning that the end-user had no real full-auto option. In the event the weapon was to be put into the M14E1/M14A1 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) configuration, that would be altered to give the user the selective-fire option. The former was "singular use=singular impact"; the latter was "singular use=mass impact"--the very intent of a SAW over a standard-issue rifle.

It's the difference between a Glock 17 and a (full-auto) Glock 18. Only one Glock difference (I know--it's called a joke), but a major difference in impact. (Why the Glock 18 Might Be the Most Deadly Gun on Planet Earth | The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-glock-18-might-be-the-most-deadly-gun-planet-earth-25982

(Yes, I know it's a bit sensationalistic, but darn, it looks like the phasers in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, with the jagged beam.) Full Auto Glock With Tracer Rounds Looks Like A Futuristic Light Show - video Dailymotion https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5kfgnn 

No matter how many rounds a weapon can hold, no matter how fast it can be reloaded, and no matter how fast one can manually pull a trigger, there is a reasonably definable and objective line that can be drawn between full-auto and other (lower) firing modes. It's a line that can form a backstop to enable a judge to adjudicate a given "assault weapon" (I use the legal term, though in quotes--AW hereinafter) to be indeed 2A-protected without having to worry about the logic used forcing an extension to actual machine guns (or weaponized anthrax). It's a line in full congruence with the Heller case's explicit exception of "M16s and the like" from 2A protection. (More on Heller in a future installment hopefully.) And it's one readily explained to the general population in a way engendered to persuade them on guaranteeing the one (semi) while not having to change their opposition on the other (full).

Personally, I would support a more general legality for full-auto--a permit scheme with requisite basis provisions. That does not, though, affect whether or how they would fall under strict 2A protection. I have laid out here an originalist argument that upholds in general terms our society's legal restrictions on full-auto while actually strengthening arguments for AWs and the like. And that is the best overall for the efficacy of the general civilian 2A Militia, and RKBA as a key part of our national heritage.

To the purist, I say, "Be objective and realistic." It's that, or we lose it all.

TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index.  https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html

THE DAILY FUDD: [EDITED] E9: "Danish Madsen M47 - A post-WW2 bolt-action military rifle proposal" (and the point of product posts).

"Even in this Atomic Age a conventional [meaning manual-action] military repeating rifle is still in demand for certain uses as an individual weapon of the soldier." 

-- Actual opening line from the weapon manual, and one we will see is actually true (accessible here: Madsen Lightweight Military Rifle – Forgotten Weapons https://www.forgottenweapons.com/madsen-lightweight-military-rifle/

From Wikipedia: Madsen M47 - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_M47




The upshot of this weapon is its standing as a fairly advanced manual-action military design in the then-emerging age of self-loading small arms. Peep sights, muzzle brake, and smooth action--all in a bolt! A major fudd! That means, of course, it's not directly targeted in (most) "assault weapon" ban efforts. Given the failure of the American people to stop the 2020 Election Steal, such arms might soon be the best typical Americans will be able to possess in any numbers. 2A/RKBA purists should prepare themselves for that eventuality--yelling, "Molon Labe!" and "Shall not be infringed!" simply won't change that. (And buried weapons are the next best thing to confiscation for the liberal agenda.) Failure of purists to accept this reality will only make the status of RKBA all the worse.

The video below, along with the "Forgotten Weapons" link above, are quite informative on this seemingly anachronistic arm. But the title, though, is somewhat misleading. The truth is, a number of bolt-action arms have emerged since then as as standard arms for some reserve or specialized units. THE DAILY FUDD will have more on them over the next few days and weeks. The bolt rifle indeed maintains military value.

The more and sooner they can work to secure at least at least a minimalist (a term actually used in the video below) level of armament, the more that can be secured.

Danish Madsen M47 - The last military bolt action rifle - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f56yppDNO6Y




"Nuke'm" Swalwell does what he does best--lies about evidence -- The American people are guilty of allowing this.

From a Facebook post by a great American Patriot, if he does say so himself:


I expect nothing less from "Nuke'm" Swalwell.
Beyond that, I won't comment on the substance of this.
I love my country and love my heritage... But my people in allowing this--before and now--have disqualified themselves from free and responsible government. Trump should have done what they're accusing him of having done--only right. #2A #Federalist46

---

Impeachment blunder: Author of tweet introduced at trial says it was falsified, misinterpreted

Jennifer Lawrence says Rep. Swalwell never called her to check meaning and appears to have altered her tweet with a blue check mark. Pastor backs her up.

Updated: February 11, 2021 - 3:06pm   

The author of a tweet introduced by Democrats at the Senate impeachment trial said Thursday her statement "we are bringing the Calvary" was a clear reference to a prayer vigil organized by churchgoers supporting Trump and not a call for military-like violence at the Capitol riot as portrayed by Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence also said she believes the California Democrat and House impeachment manager falsified her tweet, adding a blue check mark to the version he introduced at the trial suggesting she was a verified Twitter user with more clout when in fact her Twitter account never had a blue check and has never been verified.

THE DAILY FUDD: E8: "The Daily Fudd's Advisable Firepower for Patriots Today."

 

THE DAILY FUDD'S ADVISABLE FIREPOWER FOR PATRIOTS TODAY:

(IT'S REALLY NOT THAT MUCH. Some arms may serve double-duty or more here, so this can actually be much less than it sounds like.)

1. Carry piece of common caliber, barring legal exigencies.

2. 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO handgun (or possibly long gun) specifically capable of handling +P ammunition (at least in small doses), if feasible, due to its absolute standing as the most prevalent handgun caliber in North America and the world.

3. Not-so-"sporting" long gun of common caliber, physicality permitting, in event of a "social work" situation.

4. .45-caliber firearm of some sort as representative of our 45th POTUS and MAGA/KAG movement. (See "MULTI-DUTY.")

5. Revolver of common caliber (the last thing likely to be banned.)

6. IDEAL: 5.56mm (ideally using AR STANAG mags) or 7.62mm NATO (ideally .308-recognized) long gun (of whatever action) of basically military grade IF reasonable in your case. (.30-06 and 7.62x39mm ComBloc AK/SKS are understandable, but not really best. .30 Carbine is a big stretch. But 5.45mm ComBloc is a total no-go!)

Be sure to have "low-cap" magazines--maximum capacity of ten rounds or less--for all non-AW arms in event of heavy AW ban. AND ALWAYS STICK TO COMMON CALIBERS!

MULTI-DUTY: A 9mm revolver could cover 1, 2, and 5 (though its slow reloading is an issue for CCW use.) A .410 shotgun CAN act as stand-in on 4, given existence of .45/.410 combos. This is especially of note for places of odd or restrictive legal exigencies, and given the .410s wide-ranging utility. 3 and 6 obviously can be the same, and a .410 or .45 long gun per 4 could cover all three if 5.56/7.62 is not reasonable in your case.

So a 9mm revolver and .410 shotgun could technically cover all. A .410 alone could be the UTTER minimum. That said, a better carry piece, an actual .45, AND ideally a military-grade full-power long gun are MUCH preferable. *DO THE BEST YOU CAN.*


Wednesday, February 10, 2021

THE DAILY FUDD: E7: "The .45 (Long) Colt round."

It's the iconic fudd caliber, identified with Old West revolvers (about as fudd as one can get within the realm of meaningful firearms), even if not actually the most popular. And of course, it is reflective of our 45th President.

With the American people having betrayed their heritage in tolerating the non-unmentionable Election Steal, the efforts of the RKBA/2A community SHOULD be on maintaining meaningful firearms ownership as an element of our heritage, even if it means doing so in a minimalist way. More on that as this series continues. And with that, an iconic REVOLVER cartridge like this .45 revolver round can be a very practical symbol.

Why Doesn't the .45 Colt Get More Love? - The Truth About Guns https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/doesnt-45-colt-get-love/




This will relate to a more topic-centered piece in the next day or so.

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Monday, February 8, 2021

THE DAILY FUDD: E5: "Proposed 28A to secure baseline RKBA."

Keep in mind, you're not really "giving up" something you're destined to lose anyway.





Private sector action--i.e., "freedom"--is freedom's biggest threat -- Lawsuits targeting Rightwing media.

Normally I don't push Leftwing/enemy articles, but in this case the bias of the article is part of the point. Note that CGNS rejects many of the factual conclusions, but simply is using the article to explain the current anti-Patriot situation: 1A is dead, and the corpse has fallen to the Left.


Lawsuits Take the Lead in Fight Against Disinformation (msn.com) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawsuits-take-the-lead-in-fight-against-disinformation/ar-BB1ds5oi?ocid=notificationsvc