THE DAILY FUDD: E76: "State nullification of fed gun control: Neat, but not halfway there--Federalist 46 and the FINAL answer."

In short, refusal to cooperate on enforcement of UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws (even if we can reach a baseline agreement on that) is fine, but unless accompanied by kinetic action against federal enforcers, it leaves people in still a precarious situation. Most of these laws and policies provide no means of stopping federal actors, and it leaves the government situation--i.e., the Harris-Biden insurrection--in place and operating.

The answer, of course, is Federalist 46. These various "nullifications" and whatnot are fine (provided they focus on the egregious things), but only the vision of the Founders, especially that of James Madison--fourth POTUS and "Father of the Constitution"--can make the changes needed and truly restrain what needs to be restrained.

The truth is, ALL governments and government forms based on popular representations, as America's is--it's "democracy," but some don't like that term--are subject to shifting winds of politics, social conditions, changing values and morals, etc., etc., etc. Written documents only REALLY mean what the people of a given time say they mean, and only have the authority those people give them. In truth, they are--as one noted statesman of the previous century put it--"scraps of paper." Even the Decalogue stands little better--it was written on tablets of stone, but people break it all the time. Only more autocratic systems--like serious monarchies--have serious stability and can mean what they mean.

Our constitutional system marked an improvement of the previous Articles of Confederation. They created a workable central government while including guarantees to the States and the People. But alas, it was written on paper. And the "freedom" it affords has served to facilitate the decline of fundamental bases of our society. When a people CAN move away--generally LEFT politically--they WILL move away. Such is the human nature that libertarians ignore, or even deny. As some point, the situation in that regard reaches the point that the People--the "popular representation" force--cannot fix it or turn back. "Tolerance" has become "facilitation" and "enablement," and ultimately a means of "enforcement." (We call this PC and "civil rights.")

In our heritage, the Founders were not blind to this. John Adams, second POTUS, was a man of faith, and he expressed the situation in those terms. He noted that when a people lost these traditional bearings, the constitutional system he had helped establish--that is, "freedom" itself to a degree, at least--would be unworkable.

To say that has no resemblance to today is nonsensical. The very fact that if I were to list a slew of the departures from that state--no matter how secular a modulation one might put on it--would lead to most readers dissenting more than once from it--"Well, I don't think THAT'S so bad," or "Hey, I kinda like that one!"--shows the depths we have moved.

A CAVEAT TO THIS: Indeed, not everything of the past was objectively good. And people cannot ignore that. That is the reality of our human existence. And it admittedly makes politics for the Patriot/Right more difficult, because while most of our problems would be solved by going BACK, sometimes the more progress elements have a point. I've often noted that everyone on the conservative/Right has at least one place where they break Left politically. (For me, it's animal welfare.) 

The reality today is that our Constitution in unsuitable. Our changes in demographics, values, and character mean that the popular representation political system will act with the decline of humans in a free setting to pull us more away--Left--from our heritage, as well as become more and more unworkable when viewed from any rational perspective. Ultimately, per Adams' vision, we WILL need to change to something with more bite to it in our system if we are to survive as the people we were at the Founding.

That we will change is perhaps the only certainty in this. Either the current trend--empowered by the 2020 Election Steal and the refusal to stop it by the American people--will ultimately make the departure official (per the experiences of Rhodesia and South Africa), or Patriots (and Patriots of all stripes) will stand and pull us back in operative terms to the basic--albeit more learned and carefully reformed--foundation that was America and Western civilization.

But until then... 

YAY FOR THIS NULLIFICATION! Let's build on it: FEDERALIST 46!

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

MUSIC VIDEO: "It's a Good Day to Die (Extended)" -- from "Starship Troopers 3."

Starship Troopers 3: Flawed and more mocking than 1, but likeable similar to how John Ashcroft liked "The Simpsons" because the family always had supper together. Plus the cute blonde with the legs is redeeming. (2 does not count--even the fanfic cult-following doesn't consider it canon.)

And yes, I remember that the singer-Sky Marshall turns out [SPOILER OMITTED].

Double Throwback Thursday (a half hour late): From 2016 post, which was from 2009 email: Toshiba ad of exec actually thinking ahead.

https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2016/06/i-dont-know-his-politics-but-this-man.html

This is the Toshiba ad where the executive decides NOT to ship a new computer model immediately, but rather to wait until the "impact-smart hard drive" can be included.  The fellow thinks through the consequences beyond the profit margin and the effect on the company itself, sees what we call in Military Intelligence the "second and third order of effect" of what might happen with an inferior drive, considers that maybe a bad consequence for society is something to be considered (rather than being selfish and self-centered), and thus opts to wait until the superior drive is available. This is something the typical individualist/libertarian-leaning conservative would never do.  "What's it to me?" he would ask.  After all, it's not like he would actually be causing the zombie invasion himself.  "It's that guy who dropped it who's responsible," he'd think.  And if somehow it was tracked back to that computer, the inferior drive, and thus the company, his own personal liability would be limited.  Of course, the principle of Enlightened Self-interest comes into play.  By preventing the zombie invasion, the fellow in the commercial is protecting himself and his own, as well as the civilization that enables his career.  But the individualist/libertarian-leaning conservative would never think that far ahead.  "I just kinda think the less-sturdy drive will be just fine," he reasons, with a foresight matching that of the fellow who invented the nuclear grenade launcher (it was never deployed, because someone else figured out that the range of the weapon was less than the lethal blast radius and thus the firing crew would be killed in the detonation).  The commercial depicts the superiority--indeed, the seeming perfection--of an outgoing and principle-centered mentality over that of self-centeredness.  For the fellow in the commercial to have marketed a computer with a drive that could so easily lead to the problem depicted would have been selfish.  "But I wanna be selfish," the conservative would say.  And the result would have been the destruction of America. Years ago when I was the Northern and Western Missouri Chapter Leader of ProtestWarrior.com, a now-defunct organization devoted to countering "anti-war" protests, I would explain to new activists that I had "a Rightwing ideology, but a Leftwing mentality."  The Left, and liberals in general, understand the need in politics to think beyond their own individual selves.  They sacrifice and work together.  And I did my damnedest to impress the need for this on my Chapter members, even as I did so myself.  I attending three regular events every week.  I organized three special events, which involved using vacation time from work.  I produced a weekly Chapter Newsletter.  I responded to press inquiries.  I tracked enemy activities, as well as activities by friendly organizations.  (With one exception, the other members showed up for only one meeting and one activity.) Conservatives not only won't do this, they brag about not doing this.  They won't put things like values and principles ahead of personal preference, and they too often honestly believe their selfishness is right!  They call it "introspective" or "rugged individualism" or some other euphemism, but the truth is they are either too dumb or too selfish to devote resources to anything beyond themselves or their own.  "I'm busy," "I have a family," and "I have to work," form the three-legged stool of conservative laziness.  But liberals could say the same thing, and yet are far more activist.  And they win. As said in the subject line, I don't know this fellow's politics.  He might vote rather conservative.  That said, most conservatives know when they watch that commercial that if they themselves were in his place, they would have opted to do differently.  They would honestly believe the thinking laid out above.  They would put their career first, and end up creating a chain of events leading to their family having their brains eaten by zombies. One can always argue just how much anticipating of that sort is reasonable to expect.  Indeed, there comes a time when in any endeavor, the decisionmaker much simply draw a line, call it, and engage the plan.  One can argue the matter in this case.  But one cannot rightly argue the point--namely, that the selfishness inherent in individualism/libertarianism-leaning conservatism is wrong, and the way of putting principles and values ahead of self is right and superior.  But conservatives will try.  They will apply free market ideas and a certain Darwinianism to justify their opposition to doing the right thing.  Christians, even, will ignore such clear parts of their religion as the Golden Rule and Philippians 2:3-4 in order to soothe their consciences.

THE DAILY FUDD: E75: "The periodic necessary caveat to fuddity--and the real reason to fight to prevent that outcome."

(MORE EMBEDDED LINKS TO BE ADDED LATER)

In simple terms, the reality of gun control, especially "assault weapon" bans, is this:

WHITE PEOPLE WILL LARGELY COMPLY WITH THE LAW (OR BURY THEIR STUFF, MAKING IT USELESS).

BLACK PEOPLE WILL LARGELY IGNORE THE LAW, HOLDING ONTO THEIR HIGHER-END ARMS AND USING THEM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.

The purpose of TDF is to prepare all law-abiding people and Patriots of whatever race for that situation. The American people failed to stop the 2020 Election Steal, and this is the result.

Electoral victory is still possible, but not likely, and only temporary. The country has turned the corner as a "free" country. Thus, Patriots/White people have three choices for survival:

1. "Go along to get along," relying on baseline arms.

2. Form enclaves with collective firepower.

3. FINALLY get a Federalist 46 State action happening.

There are no alternatives.

The flipside of fuddity is the effort to retain as much firepower as possible--20rd pistol magazines; semi-auto rifles (even if featureless) with as big of magazines as we can, PCCs with few restrictions, and yes, .50-caliber rifles, hopefully. There is a condition to this, though--one of character and spirit. Not only must libertarianism and purism be discarded in the realm of the activism, but individualism as a governing force among us must be subordinated--not eliminated, but subordinated--to the common cause of country and culture, heritage and heredity--ultimately, collective IDENTITY.

"Identity." It's a dirty word in this sense among Occidentals, be it due to economic self-interest, "personal sovereignty," or White Guilt pathology. We are the only peoples on the planet who have, out of a collective conscience, disavowed ourselves of such thinking. Other peoples have not. Unless we can reclaim our collective identity in both civic and genetic contexts, we will perish. That first option above--"Go along to get along"--will mean virtual slavery for our people in our own land. We may retain some baseline armament and remember our heritage, but it will be little more than that--a memory--unlikely to last much past the current prime generation.

Libertarians care little about this. Purists put a neurosis--even a psychosis--ahead of it. And too many of the rest have White Guilted themselves into ignoring it. As a Patriot, our collective identity--civic and genetic--is my driving force. And it IS the only force that can save even those other people from the consequences they deny to themselves are inevitable.

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: E74: "'The Baseline Project'."

Working on a minimalist effort with specifics for truly baseline RKBA. It will address the "Three C's"--"Carry piece," "Carbine (PCCs, .30 Carbine, and in principle home-defense shotguns)," and "Combat rifle."

Certain bargaining and negotiating aspects are classified at this time.

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: E73: "Baseline of baseline: Revolvers, 'blunderbuss,' and bolt-action rifle."

The Second Amendment is all but dead. Traditional RKBA is threatened, but MAY have a chance of minimal survival. I've long held that White people in America will at least maintain South Africa-level prerogatives on arms. But the key will be not to be greedy. That means libertarians will have to keep quiet, and purists will have to acknowledge defeat. And both will have to focus on what is NEEDED.

So, in that vein, first I will recall the suggested armory from TDF 8:

Next, I will fudd it down so as to make it the most likely survivable of the incoming wave of gun control. (And I will remind readers that the American people chose this by failing the heed the Federalist 46 vision that I promoted.) This is not for immediate implementation immediately, but people should be prepared to go to this:

1. Go all manual action. Banning self-functioning arms could theoretically be done by declaring them all "readily convertible" to machine guns. Point 5 is thus automatically covered; Point 2 might be considered nullified, but revolvers do exist in 9mm. If automatics are restricted, that round might be as well. Virtually all other automatic pistol rounds will be restricted automatically.
2. Go .410 shotgun for Point 3, to take advantage of some liberal preferences for shotguns, while keeping some of the usability of carbines and such.
3. Consider .45LC for Point 4, due to potential restrictions on automatic pistol calibers. Potential might exist for .45/.410 revolvers, as even restrictive states (save California) permit them. Single-action-only might also be considered as anticipatory.
4. Go bolt-action for Point 6, and don't overplay the features. However, this category will decline in importance for urban individuals and families if things progress. The war will be over.

And now...

CULL-DOWN:
1. CCW revolver: Probably .38(/.357) as most common revolver caliber. But maybe .45. 😁
2. .410 home-defense shotgun: "Modern blunderbuss." Manual-action PCCs are possible, but more susceptible to bans. 

3. .45 (iconic--CCW-compatible or not) revolver: Possibly .45/.410 in optimism; possibly single-action-only in pessimism. Less conspicuous than any long gun. Larger frame models make good true "sidearms" and might be less susceptible to bans if CCW is abolished.
4. "Sturdy" bolt-action rifle if desired: More politically defensible for rural-dwellers.
5. Retain 9mm if reasonable, but build no reliance on it. 

And finally...

CONCLUSION: "THREE-GUN"--Two pistols and a long gun (or two!).

1. .38/.357 REVOLVER for carry/backup (.45s are too big for easy carry). (Retain 9mm if reasonable, but build no reliance on it.)
2. .45 REVOLVER for home use/sidearm (heritage and last-to-be-banned large-frame).

3. "MODERN BLUNDERBUSS" of some sort, and/or (sturdy) BOLT-ACTION RIFLE (especially rural) for "full equipage."

Fits the minimal-essential with a strong political situation. There's a tad of fat there, but much more cutting into American RKBA would hit the "blunderbuss" core of our Anglo-American right. It's shameful the American people failed our country and heritage, and are bringing us to this.



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: E72: (EARLY EDITION) "Are you ready yet to drop the libertarian childishness and actually deal? Heller is doomed."

Report tonight: House, Senate Democrats plan to add 4 Supreme Court justices: Report - YouTube

Pro-gunners have choices here:

1. Continue acting like children with the libertarianism and purism, and watch RKBA die.
- The only actual specific issue libertarians care about is doobie.
- Purists are ignorant of anything about our Common Law history, and think "Shall not be infringed" is a magic incantation that stops anti-gunners in their tracks.

2. FINALLY go Federalist 46.
- It's not too late.
- Remember that *I* was one of the few with the courage, knowledge, and character to call for this YEARS ago in support of President Trump.

3. Negotiate a baseline meaningful RKBA.

- Focus on areas with the most popular political support. (No, it's not all or nothing.)

- Make common cause as at all reasonably able. (No, it's not all or nothing--and RKBA has a high priority.)
- Consider preemptive/affirmative action. (No, it's not all or nothing--save that we live or die.)

- Prioritize what is NEEDED, not stylish or ideal. (No, it's not all or nothing--be a grownup.)

- Don't be stupid. (No, it's not all or nothing--but some things are indeed out of consideration.

- Not every little thing is essential. (No, it's not all or nothing--almost anything that's assembled has expendable parts.)
- Think in interesting ways. (No, it's not all or nothing--it's about retaining SOMETHING!)

- As much as we hate to admit it, fudd is better than none! (No, it's not all or nothing--something is better than nothing.)

- "Old school" is still REAL school. (No, it's not all or nothing--just think of fudd as retro.)
- Minimalist is still something. (No, it's not all or nothing--a bullet beats a BB.)
- There are alternatives to ARs, and throwbacks still have value. (No, it's not all or nothing--employment also matters.)

- It was only a matter of time. (No, it's not all or nothing--reality exists.)
- Survival is the priority, not "muh rights!" (No, it's not all or nothing--except that our people survive or perish.)
- FLIPSIDE: Do keep in mind a vision.

- Remember that heritage has a place in RKBA, and RKBA has a place in heritage. (So then, maybe it IS all or nothing--that is, it's about America, Western civilization, and our people.)

The American people get their choice: VIDEO: "House, Senate Democrats plan to add 4 Supreme Court justices: Report - YouTube"

House, Senate Democrats plan to add 4 Supreme Court justices: Report - YouTube

THE DAILY FUDD: E71: "Brief analysis of constitutionality of Short-Barreled Rifle NFA restrictions: Miller vs Heller."

In basic terms:

Heller jurisprudence does not include SBRs under 2A protection, as they are not in "common use" in the civilian arena, and non-NFA carbines (16-inch barrel, 26-inch overall) are readily capable of such defensive use--"a blunderbuss to ward off burglars." (They are also suitable for law enforcement assistance.)

Pre-Heller 1939 Miller jurisprudence, on the other hand, set up a case FOR including them, according to one circuit court. In the 1942 Cases decision:

At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.

(Quoted from CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT (guncite.com))

Compare that in reference to a submachine gun's use in war to the M4 carbine, with its 14.5-inch barrel, being in very "common use" in the modern American military. If the former could be seen as 2A-protected due to its demonstrable military value and use, so could the latter--that is, a SBR.

The court simply decided that following the Miller line of thinking would be bad, so they didn't. That does not change the logic of it.

The only counterargument there would be pre-Miller holdings that the Right to Arms involved regular military rifles, not "criminal" contraptions and such. (This is briefly discussed in TDF 17.) SBRs might be classed as such, though the M4 factor might "pull a Cases" on that. 

But whether other arguments might be made against 2A protection for, in that case, SMGs or not--e.g., some SBRs being considered "specialty" arms, rather than "general"--the jurisprudential thinking pointed to their protection.

UPSHOT: SBR NFA restrictions will be upheld by SCOTUS (of course), true to the Heller decision.

As for an objective opinion:
- Narrow, "full Militia" view: SBRs are probably mainstream enough to pass muster.
- General "protected unless" view: Almost certainly pass muster (though Short-Barreled Shotguns could still fail as "too criminal").

FUDD POSITION: Non-NFA carbines fit the bill called for, and thus SBRs would be low on the Essential Scale. Legitimate to raise a challenge, but not tactically worth much risk.

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

Full-on Teabrainery on Teabrainery: Effort to clear a Teabrained Congresswoman by conservative outlet makes her sound worse.

REP Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-14) of Georgia maDe a dumb statement essentially declaring Guam to be a foreign country, like China, to oppose money spent on or given to it. This is classic Teabrainery, of course, the kind that should be explained away publicly as a simple brain fart, when the truth is that the hick has no idea about anything like that. But Gateway Pundit, a conservative outlet, attempted to save her by saying she simply meant it wasn't part of "America" the geographical entity, NOT that it was a foreign country.

Three problems with that:
1. It's stupid, as her point and comparisons are obvious:

2. The big one: It makes her sound even worse than the other explanation. It's one thing to oppose sending money to foreign countries. It's another to oppose money going to a U.S. territory, occupied by U.S. citizens.

3. By the Teabrainer's logic, the State of Hawaii is not "America" (though I have long held Hawaii should NOT be a State for that very reason!)

TOTAL 100-PERCENT FAIL.

Please, conservatives, think BEFORE you blather. Think about the consequences of the snap idea formed when two brain cells bumped into each other when you did the kneejerk reaction. Think about both the rational and PC aspects. Then if you believe you're on to something, do the smart thing and check with someone smarter than you before acting or speaking. (For those of you who know me personally, you know how to contact me.)

It's okay to be academic. You don't have to be kneejerk about everything.

See here for more on not being a moron: 

"Why you should check things BEFORE publicly expressing them." https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2020/12/why-you-should-check-things-before.html

CITE OF THE TEABRAIN FAILURE: https://tgpfactcheck.com/snopes-moves-guam-across-globe-through-sheer-willpower/

More racial insurrection -- Trump couldn't destroy it because of Deep State "Resistance"; Harris/Biden are supporting it.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/developing-blm-mob-forms-outside-brooklyn-center-police-department-chanting-whose-streets-streets-video/

THE DAILY FUDD: E69 (out of order): "SOMEWHAT OFF-TOPIC -- 'A brief word about race wars,' or 'Idaho doesn't have room for all of us.'"

Technically, this might not be on-topic with TDF, but it's goes to the deepest reason for preserving as meaningful a RKBA as possible. America is not an "idea." It is a geographical area also called, "The New World," consisting of two continents. It is also used as synonymous with the United States of America, as our nation was the first European-demographic-based independent country in that region. Yes, that is Euro/White/Western-centric in its view of history. And that is why these United States indeed form a White country, with many others as full citizens with equal protection under the law.

From the Declaration of Independence. Note that Chinese, Swazi, and Turkish backgrounds are not mentioned. And even other European backgrounds--like German--are omitted.

And that is why other demographics will always feel a certain apprehension here. Between jealousy at what our White/Western peoples have accomplished north of the Rio Grande (and south, for that matter), the quite natural fact that our society and culture are European-based (every demographic founding a country sets its culture and society accordingly--unless it starts out with a White Guilt-type pathology), or the Rule of Three (now turning into a Light vs Dark contrast), minority or non-dominant peoples in a setting--and that almost always means the darker-skinned peoples--will almost always go liberal/Left politically. Whether it be a resistance to "colonial domination" (Africa and Southeast Asia), an effort to head off the perceived threat from nationalist movements by the dominant light-skinned demographic (Jews, frankly; also other non-Nordic/Aryan Whites), or resentment over perceived wrongs from centuries before (American Blacks; ethnic Koreans in Japan), even if their culture itself is rather conservative, they will vote Left to keep down their host country and its pride.

They may ascribe it to actual problems in the past. But regardless, their actions are in the present.

The failure of the American people to stay the MAGA course and instead to permit the 2020 Election Steal can be ascribed heavily to a White/Western Guilt pathology. There are other factors--fear, laziness, materialistic and ideological selfishness, libertarianism, and the business self-interest of leading voices on "our side"--but ultimately we have lost the natural drive to stand for our demographic. I would work to challenge this pathology with the graphic below:

But few would spread it, and I would take shots that it was "making things worse." Those shots came in some cases from minorities--which makes them meaningless, as they were benefitting from the situation--but some came from fellow Whites on the conservative/Right. Those people were reacting out of the same factors that blocked resisting the Election Steal. They wouldn't stand for their own people.

Prior to that failure, I had anticipated a grand civil war with a partial racial component. That anticipation did not happen, but my discussion of it merits referencing:

It is not too late.

In the TDF series, I have pointed to handguns as a priority over long guns. The reason is that unless a shift in this pathology and priority among my people turns, and turns soon, the heavier firepower will become useless--as if it would even still be legal. Long guns are most advisable in set facility defense, as kinetic action with a full-power rifle apart from that can be harder to defend in court as "legitimate self-defense." And in those settings, there are less-likely-to-be-banned (outright) options that can serve the purpose. Thus, CCW in public and "modern blunderbusses" in the home (and travel, perhaps) take on a higher importance. As preserving our heritage becomes more of a subculture, making our kinetic defense more subdued can make it more survivable. That is, while ARs are great for defending the home...

...their legal future is one of condemnation. They WILL be banned. (And because people didn't listen to me about Federalist 46, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.)

The only alternative is an enclave system whereby Whites and a few others live in offset, delineated areas, and where community defense without regard to AW bans and such is feasible. But Idaho and other such areas simply cannot support all of us. In any case, it would require some sort of change of character. Libertarianism and individualism would have to stop. This might come by sincere repentance or by the crushing of individual pride and maybe spirit, but it would have to come.

Thus, it appears we face a fate similar to our brethren in Rhodesia and South Africa, with us living in mainstream society, but under the domination of, frankly, others. In that situation, a subdued but effective defense structure to keep our heritage alive until "the time" comes seems the only choice. (A future article will correlate and condense that matter.)

Our people have made their bed. Unless the wake up, they--we--will have to lie in it.

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: E70: "Racial insurrectionist riot in Minnesota under anti-gun Harris/Biden insurrection: Patriot priorities and planning."

Below is a tactical description dating from 2018. At the time, Point 1 was priority, as the threat was from attacks in public on Patriots. In 2020, Points 2 and 3 moved into priority due to the growth of the BLM insurrection and chances of a civil war. With the failure of the American people and States to stop the 2020 Election Steal, we face a situation where we may be back to Point 1, plus some of 2, as the priority, not due to the tactical situation so much as because Point 3 will face legal strangling. If that happens, it was the fault of our people.

RECOMMENDATION: Acquire uber-PC rifles. Focus work politically on more defensible pistol-caliber arms: Preserve magazine capacity and PCC features.

And Patriots need to develop COLLECTIVE action plans. No time for individualism.

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

America and the world will know I was right.

 

(ARTICLE and VIDEO) Cats filling void left by Corona: "‘Working Cats:’ Humane Animal Rescue Of Pittsburgh Helping Solve City’s Rodent Issues."

‘Working Cats:’ Humane Animal Rescue Of Pittsburgh Helping Solve City’s Rodent Issues – CBS Pittsburgh (cbslocal.com)

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/04/09/humane-animal-rescue-working-cats/?fbclid=IwAR1iX2AsI5bG_cZkZm0xVKZqrJUsGMlpobRo-nsMq0Nmh-SJvK8HEeECBlA

SNIPPIT:

“These are cats that really got a second chance at life,” Krissy says.

Amanda adds, “It’s really a life-saving program, and we’re really excited that it’s kind of taken off here.”

They’re not cuddly cats, but they earn their keep by working to keep out unwanted animals and entertaining while they do it

THE DAILY FUDD: E68: "'Shut up, libertarians & purists. We can actually win on CCW permits,' or 'Why I don't use the term "constitutional carry."'"

FOLKS, TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. CALLING FOR POLICIES THAT WILL NEVER BE ADOPTED DOES NOTHING TO HELP THE SITUATION.

Settlement of the English colonies in North America made BEARING a much larger part of the Anglo Common Law Right to Arms. In the Old Country, the right in terms had largely focused on one's home (e.g., the 1688/89 English Right to Arms provision being interpreted as a blunderbuss in a peasant's home to ward off burglars). Long-distance traveling in the colonies sometimes involved being armed being legally required. But local carry around your "familiar haunts," as Arkansas courts would later describe them, was seen as subject to regulation. Texas as well regulated handgun possession when not "traveling"--defined by Texas authorities to me personally circa 2000 as crossing three county lines and staying overnight. Such prerogative for regulation will likely carry over in post-Heller 2A and 14A jurisprudence, meaning that while such local carry would ultimately be protected, some localized regulation--such as a Shall-Issue permit (taking an Equal Protection argument into account) with non-egregious and equitable prerequisites--would stand as a long-standing element within that constitutional concept.

TIER 2: Regarding "familiar haunts" and such: Back in the day, long-distance travel was more of a hassle, and more of a danger, hence the right--sometimes even requirement--to be armed while doing so. Once one arrived at a locale, one often would deliver their arms to an appointed place, conduct their business, and then retrieve their arms as they left town. Communities were generally considered relatively safe, as people were generally better and locals had arms in their homes and businesses, and thus could deter and defend visitors against criminality.

Today, we live in a more urbanized setting, but one where often our "familiar haunts" don't include parts of the buildings in which we live. We simply don't know our neighbors the way we once did. Travel within a community is more extensive than some inter-community travel back in the day. And what would qualify as "familiar haunts" can readily be in far more diverse and separated locations. (Un-PC point: In addition, criminality is more rampant due to our more cosmopolitan settings.) 

So today, the arguments back in the day deprecating local carry versus travel carry hold less water. Putting 2A matters under strict scrutiny, it should thus be notably harder to justify heavy regulation. Today we have stories of women raped in their own apartment buildings, whereas a century ago a rape in New York's Central Park would have been almost unheard of. Local travel--be it "familiar haunts" or within a community one is visiting--has lost its safer character. (Interestingly, Texas eliminated some restrictions on local carry by declaring in statute that a person is to be presumed "traveling" if found armed.) Quite frankly, today "local" carries the same "right of self-defense" call for carry as long-distance travel.

CONCLUSION: 2A with 14A should be recognized as indeed protecting both local and travel carry. Within that RKBA tradition, communities have the prerogative for limited regulations on local carry-- such as concealed versus open carry, non-egregious permits and requirements, discharge outside of recognized gun ranges, and some specific locations (though an argument could be made that such locations need to offer a "gun check" service, much like hats and coats back in the day).

The term, "constitutional carry" is at best premature, and politically self-endangering. While libertarians are so used to losing politically that they don't care about the community impact of either their policy ideas or the defeat of certain policy positions, Patriots do indeed care. We ought not push for policy positions that lead to loss for those supposed to benefit from the polities--and that includes personal rights. The well-being of our communities are key to our survival and success, and our rights mean nothing if the conditions are the ground make community tranquility impossible. Plus, to demand a supposed purism that is politically destructive only aids those in opposition to such rights.

Use of this term, however sincere and well-meaning, sets the stage for consternation should jurisprudence develop in the most likely direction--the accurate one, which I described above. Does the 2A community accept a SCOTUS ruling saying such, and thereby guaranteeing general CCW? Or does it go the libertarian route, gripe a lot, and end up alienating the vast swath of the general population on the matter, leading to its loss? Let us hope not.

Our heritage--including our traditional rights--includes community authority. In regard to RKBA, local carry has for centuries been an area where such authority has notably ranked, even with State constitutional guarantees. Even as slander prohibitions are within "freedom of speech," history shows--for better or worse--that carry regulations are within historic RKBA.

The Constitution is not libertarian, and neither is our Common Law tradition. I personally would love to see CCW--and some very particular open carry--as much a a part of our social order as neckties on men (which I'd actually like to see banned as torture devices) and boob accentuation on women (yes, I'm a pig). But let us not push our preferences or personal visions at the expense of the functional purposes of whatever tradition, convention, or constitutional right might be in sight.

RKBA and CCW have their function. Let us work for and preserve THAT.

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: E:67: "'Answering RKBA questions,' or 'A 2A purist, a 2A hobbyist, and a libertarian walk into a serious RKBA discussion...'"

SPECIAL NOTE: (See TDF 25 regarding "Political Mitigation" of gun control efforts by engagement and negotiation--rather than denial, a NATO-like defense of everything that shoots, and chants of, "Shall not be infringed!")

Today we will discuss the divergent responses of various categories of people on matters of guns, the Second Amendment, and the Right to Arms. These are the "2A Purist," the "2A Hobbyist," the "Libertarian," the typical "2A Activist," the regular "Moderate/Neutral" on RKBA (the vast bulk of the American population), and the "2A-focused Patriot." These categories do not cover all people not affirmatively anti-gun, but the distinctions here are telling enough.

When a given point of controversy or concern about the guarantee of private armament is raised:

2A PURIST: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! If you say, 'I support 2A, but...' you don't support it, period."

2A HOBBYIST: "But I wanna!!!"

LIBERTARIAN: "Don't listen to the conspiracy. There shouldn't be ANY laws about... *takes draw* Hey, Dude! What were we talking about?"

2A ACTIVIST: "I'd love to engage the matter legislatively with negotiations, but the Purists and the Libertarians would yell."

REGULAR MODERATE/NEUTRAL: "I might actually support 2A/RKBA, BUT, there are some things that you need explain to me why people in private/civilian settings need them or should have them, and especially why it should be considered a protected right."

2A-FOCUSED PATRIOT: "RKBA is a key part of American heritage, and it serves as a restraint at so many levels against the advance of Globalism/liberalism/anti-Western heritage thought in America, and thus, Western civilization. Allow me explain the purpose, reason, or function behind the specific point is question, and weigh its essential nature toward that heritage and the 2A civilian Militia function in the context of Anglo-American Common Law, the writings of the Founders, the Constitution, jurisprudence, and the sociopolitical and technological state in which we live, hoping to preserve what is essential firepower as constitutionally protected in civilian hands..."

-----------

Effects on the Moderate/Neutral category by the others:

The Purist alienates and offends them, offering no substantive defense, and perhaps driving the Neutrals into the anti-gun camp.

The Hobbyist strikes them as a petulant child, acting and demanding without regard to the consequences of heeding their demands. They offer no compelling reason for the free access to arms that they demand.

The Libertarian is shown to be disregarding of society, period, and the systems, laws, etc., that make for "domestic tranquility." They destroy their own credibility.

The 2A Activist seems oblivious to the fears some hold, and ultimately are just seeking an audience and following. He or she might even be disingenuous.

The 2A-focused Patriot tries to answer their questions, because they genuinely believe RKBA is important in its own right. (See TDF 25 regarding "Political Mitigation" of gun control efforts by engagement and negotiation, rather than denial, a NATO-like defense of everything, and chants of, "Shall not be infringed!")

----------

What the real aim of the pro-2A categories should be:

Answer: The maintenance as a right to the requisite firepower to accomplish the intent of RKBA--from Blackstone defense to civilian Militia function. RKBA is not a matter of self-indulgence or some point of libertarian debate. Like all rights, it has functions, and should be viewed in the framework of those functions. The elements of the right can indeed be rated in terms of "essential" levels--per Benjamin Franklin's admonition "essential" rights ("liberties") not be forsaken for merely "a little temporary safety"--thus implying the existence of LESS essential liberties not covered by his admonition.

The following outline was initially composed in 2018, with that tactical and sociopolitical environment in sight, yet the principles remain valid. While some fellow "2A-focused Patriots" may dissent on aspects or priorities, it demonstrates a key point that the Purist, Hobbyist, and Libertarian far and away fail to the detriment of the RKBA cause to hold: "The Second Amendment ain't about indulgence."

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