Saturday, April 24, 2021
You all did this -- I stand righteous in this by my Federalist 46 call: Harris/Biden's U.S. ambassador to UN slams America.
Yes, I really do hold myself better than most people here. You all thought about it. I DID IT. Federalist 46.
THE DAILY FUDD: E82: Redux of E79 -- "Common Law and 2A: 'There's more to RKBA than, 'We get guns!'"
The libertarians and purists of the Second Amendment community generally fail to understand how our social and government system works. The Constitution, contrary to Roy Moore and his acolytes, did not drop out of Heaven with its own angelic choir of interpretation. It is a human document written in the context of centuries--even millennia--of traditions and judgments by men. In a certain sense, the statements of "rights" actually are bumper-sticker shorthand for vast amounts of legal and social background.
Libertarians want to deny that.
Purists want to ignore that.
But it is the reality. We are NOT a libertarian system.
American law operates under the Common Law system we inherited from the Mother Country. Traditions, precedents, and caveats carried over, and were presumed in the writing of our governing documents, even without being explicitly mentioned. Americans were said to have the same rights as Englishmen--meaning the same guarantees with regard to what they could do without government preventing it. Yet in that, the same limits applied, subject to how precepts had developed--dare I say, "evolved"--in their own direction in Colonial America.
Much of what I have written about RKBA and 2A is based on applying this history. The 2A "right" carried with it the same limitations it had held in general terms at the time of its writing. So when a Common Law history is used to explain why, say, artillery is not 2A-protected (TDF 10), it's immaterial to counter, "But... 'Shall Not Be Infringed!'" The "right" not to be infringed was understood in a context, and artillery can be seen outside the protected realm of that context. (Please, do read TDF 10.)The problem is that libertarians have so taken their distinctive trait--a focus on personal "liberty"--to heart that they think EVERYTHING in governance is to be understood from that perspective. A form of selfishness derived from generations of "freedom" and prosperity building an odd sense of entitlement, it goes to why so many uneducated conservative-types think "Rightwing" is "liberty," and "Leftwing" is "tyranny." Finding themselves largely correctly labeled "Rightwing" by political science, they assume--that is, "ass-u-me"--then that "Right" must mean "liberty," since they can't understand anything else. Of course, they are "Rightwing" because they hold to traditional thinking and act as the base against which the "Leftwing"--the "progressives"--hits to push their anti-traditionalism agenda. Add in Teabrainish lack of education on things like the French National Assembly of the 1780s, and the basis for Teabrainish failure here is clear.
The upshot for RKBA is that libertarians need to understand that laws, and especially constitutions, carry a vast history with them without that history being repeated as nauseum. "Right to keep and bear arms" has a limited context, and we must understand that context put into the context of our time and technology. TDF 10 is my classic on this. Citing overreach of the "liberal" rights in 1A does not justify similar--and politically dead-end--arguments for 2A. Rather, it points to the need for rolling back that overreach--i.e., Fake News can be justifiably destroyed, and "Resistance" reporters executed, as their actions exceed what has been in Common Law considered their realm.
In conclusion, when libertarians attempt an overreach of the Bill of Rights, they are often pushing simply a false understanding of how our governance philosophy is. It is NOT libertarian. The Constitution is not a libertarian document. And for libertarians to use libertarian arguments as if they were worth more than a pile of dog shit is disingenuous. Simply because a libertarian approach requires one outcome doesn't mean that the Constitution requires it, or that it is what our foundation demands. It simply means that libertarians have let their pot smoking and conspiracy theories, along with denial of human nature, have led them to another politically DOA position that handicaps the conservatives and the Patriots in their struggle against the Globalist/Left (TDF 38).
Arguing a libertarian approach makes no more sense to trying to jam Sikh theology into Christianity. They are not compatible, and doing so is self-destructive. Maybe their drugs and conspiracy theories have given them a twisted view of how things should be, but it's not how they are. And the view is dangerous.
Focus on what is--that is, our system--not what you want it to be. The time has come to grow up (TDF 72).
Friday, April 23, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E81: "Why go fudd? Politics over preference, firepower over form, and reality over 'I wanna!'"
Virtual copy of this non-TDF article from 04 FEB 2021: Cats, Guns, and National Security: I know the vid is old, but it gave a soundoff point: Problems with self-seeking in RKBA. (catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com)
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE VIDEO DATES FROM MARCH 2020, LONG BEFORE THE ELECTION STEAL. SO WHILE THE GUY'S CHARACTER PROBABLY HASN'T CHANGED MUCH, HE MAY HAVE COME MORE TO HIS SENSES SINCE POSTING THIS.
PRE-POST EDIT: I did look at his recent vids. He's more in panic mode, but still hangs on to his "But I want!" element.
Watch This BEFORE YOU GO FEATURELESS - Pro Tips for Featureless Rifles - YouTube
MY BRILLIANT ANALYSIS:
I'm gonna be the fudd here and say he's so busy trying to conform cosmetics to law that he gets stupid. Clear example was that pinned adjustable stock. It still rattles and moves. A more functional example is the muzzle brake, which from his description is actually counterproductive. NY has already banned those, but he can't think ahead enough to know that might come next to CA. And indeed, since We The People in our States allowed the 2020 Election Steal, it may come nationwide.
And that grip is one AG or court ruling away from being declared in violation. Even the company admits that it "and similar products have not been approved by the California Department of Justice." https://www.sparrowdynamics.com/Featureless-Grip-AR-p/crg-15.htm
Hey, I get it that a lot of those laws are unconstitutional. However, unlike self-focused libertarians, I focus on the intended function of 2A--the efficacy of the Militia. And all around, the better course of action in a society where the whims of politics can affect the legal prerogatives of private arms is to go basic and stick with a good correlation between requisite firepower and political defensibility. Self-focused people think otherwise, and they risk alienating the vast swath of the electorate that simply doesn't agree with them. The end result is the same or worse than the agenda of the gun controllers--complete disarmament.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
MEME: "If your partner said, 'It's me or the cat,' what would you say?"
First I'd say, "Partner? My love life's been DOA for years."
Then I'd cue, "So long, it's been good to know you."
Thursday, April 22, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E80: "'Compounds, enclaves, and households,' or, 'Mount Carmel only works when it's not the government trying to kill you.'"
As happens in a panic, people can be driven to at least consider extreme or out-of-the-box action. In 1999 following Columbine, I honestly wondered if moving to Switzerland was a legitimate answer to the potential loss then of gun rights pre-Heller. (I didn't, and I wouldn't have.) So I can't get too upset with people who raise even more intense--or simply crazy--ideas.
Post-Sandy Hook, my response involved offering some fudd ideas, but even as now, they were rejected. However, some suggested a far more extreme idea: Forming compounds for people to gather to protect their guns. (Actually, the idea was to form A compound, as this was coming off the TEA Party movement and rather individualist self-focused, but the principle could be applied beyond.) I immediately saw a few problems with this:
1. These individualists could never live together:
- Religion (arguments and conversion efforts--the early English colonists came to North America for religious freedom, and promptly set up communities compelling people to follow their particular denomination; it was freedom of the Crown's Anglicanism that they sought).
- Morality (okay, I mean sexual predilections).
- Economy (it would by nature be a bit communitarian/socialist).
2. Bringing in income (they would have to leave the compound to work).
3. It would never hold against the expected attack (cue video from Waco, Texas in 1993).
And others.
But the big thing that crossed my mind was the mission itself. When looked at from a certain angle, it had its seeming nonsensicalities:
- Gathering together to protect "freedom," when the operation would cause people to compromise their evangelism, submit to socialist operations, and largely stay confined.
- Such intense efforts for only self-focus and delusion. Such is not an act of patriotism, and I wondered how devoted they would be to upholding heritage.
But the biggest--and fuddiest--thing to come to mind was the whole enterprise: People would gather guns to protect their guns. Stepping away from all the issues, I had to wonder about the question, "If you really only have guns to protect your guns, then wouldn't getting rid of your guns end your need for having guns? And if you don't have guns, what's really your problem with banning guns?"
Of course, I have answered that question from a different angle many times in the TDF series, in articles about the connection between RKBA and American/White/Western heritage. Yet again, the devotion to heritage of these people was uncertain, and I honestly have to wonder how long it would work. With the other problems I pointed out in mind, I had this image of some night all the tensions--race, sex, religion, baseball team fandoms (this was pre-BLM), etc.--breaking loose. Neighbors to the compound would hear tons of shooting, far more than their usual night-firing practice sessions. The next morning, smoke would be seen rising from the compound, and First Responders would find something looking akin to the Mormon colony in the first (and best--Part 3 was okay) "Starship Troopers" movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J206CKoG1R0
And others.
But the big thing that crossed my mind was the mission itself. When looked at from a certain angle, it had its seeming nonsensicalities:
- Gathering together to protect "freedom," when the operation would cause people to compromise their evangelism, submit to socialist operations, and largely stay confined.
- Such intense efforts for only self-focus and delusion. Such is not an act of patriotism, and I wondered how devoted they would be to upholding heritage.
But the biggest--and fuddiest--thing to come to mind was the whole enterprise: People would gather guns to protect their guns. Stepping away from all the issues, I had to wonder about the question, "If you really only have guns to protect your guns, then wouldn't getting rid of your guns end your need for having guns? And if you don't have guns, what's really your problem with banning guns?"
Of course, I have answered that question from a different angle many times in the TDF series, in articles about the connection between RKBA and American/White/Western heritage. Yet again, the devotion to heritage of these people was uncertain, and I honestly have to wonder how long it would work. With the other problems I pointed out in mind, I had this image of some night all the tensions--race, sex, religion, baseball team fandoms (this was pre-BLM), etc.--breaking loose. Neighbors to the compound would hear tons of shooting, far more than their usual night-firing practice sessions. The next morning, smoke would be seen rising from the compound, and First Responders would find something looking akin to the Mormon colony in the first (and best--Part 3 was okay) "Starship Troopers" movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J206CKoG1R0
The truth is that full Waco-style compounds as a defense against tyranny are the worst of both worlds--they are too small to sustain themselves well, and too large to avoid notice by anti-heritage officials. They lack the flexibility of a relatively simple household, and the stability of a government-sanctioned installation. And, as noted above, they could easily be too diverse to exist for long with a "freedom"-focused character. Exclusivist practices could handle some of that--but then, there was Jonestown.
There is, though, one HUGE caveat to all that: The thinking of those people had them acting in resistance to GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. Their image was of federal and/or perhaps State agents doing Waco-type raids (note the irony) or going house to house confiscating (per Katrina, perhaps). These people had no real cognizance of Federalist 46--indeed, this was before my time studying seriously the whole "resistance to tyranny" concept in 2A. But readers of TDF, this CGNS blog, and other writings by yours truly over during President Trump's leadership and since know the vision of Federalist 46, which I called upon to point the way for the States to enable our 45th POTUS to defeat the "Resistance" insurrection and the 2020 Election Steal. The Founders intended for resistance to federal tyranny to be conducted BY STATE SANCTION.
There is, though, one HUGE caveat to all that: The thinking of those people had them acting in resistance to GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. Their image was of federal and/or perhaps State agents doing Waco-type raids (note the irony) or going house to house confiscating (per Katrina, perhaps). These people had no real cognizance of Federalist 46--indeed, this was before my time studying seriously the whole "resistance to tyranny" concept in 2A. But readers of TDF, this CGNS blog, and other writings by yours truly over during President Trump's leadership and since know the vision of Federalist 46, which I called upon to point the way for the States to enable our 45th POTUS to defeat the "Resistance" insurrection and the 2020 Election Steal. The Founders intended for resistance to federal tyranny to be conducted BY STATE SANCTION.
This raises the matter of compounds in that context--that is, preservation of heritage and protection against anti-heritage PRIVATE forces (that means BLM/Antifa thugs and the like) in at least tolerant jurisdictions--i.e., ones that at least won't themselves raid the place on the slightest pretense.
"Collective self-defense" is a doctrine used by the Left to justify Leftwing political violence, claiming it to be defense of a given demographic against "systemic racism" and all that drivel. For Whites or Christians or Patriots to do such, though, runs up against the Marcusian "Liberating Tolerance" principle--a core to the Leftist "racism" definition that only Whites can be "racist" because Whites are the ones in power--and is inhibited by the White/Western Guilt pathology of too many of our people.
But suppose for the sake of examination that people not of a "traditionally oppressed" demographic can throw off enough of that Guilt pathology, the libertarian/individualist self-indulgence, and ideological isolationism to form a compound-community. Such a community would form a difficult target for mobs and gangs. A convoy system for trips out of the compound, along with other steps of mutual protection--e.g., coordinating work schedules and having their own guards at their places of employment--would come together to defend against attacks there. THAT sort of set-up would have a viable chance.
In a sense, it is a household grown big, only more defensible.
We saw some of this with the Korean shopkeepers in 1992 Los Angeles. While much attention is paid to their armed vigilance, we should note something that libertarian/individualist-types will hate to admit--much of their success is attributable their COOPERATION. They protected their NEIGHBORHOOD, not just their own homes or their own businesses. They made their neighborhood a compound. They sacrificed their individual preference for a common cause.
"Mount Carmel" was the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas famously burned by a federal government overeager in pushing their gun control agenda. The Davidians' stand failed, as it was guaranteed to do given their opponent. The truth is, though, their system actually had defensive value had it been directed against a foe like Antifa or BLM. They could have held off an attack far longer than the Koreans in 1992, and certainly long enough for tolerant local authorities to arrive.
But the Davidians had a commonality--their faith--and a compelling power--their leader--holding them together. It led them into a religious culthood, to be sure, but it gave them strength regardless. If Patriots can sacrifice to have the latter result while avoiding the former result (and frankly, in our rather secular age that really shouldn't be that hard), a compound situation to preserve our heritage can work if the political situation is tolerant enough, and the threat level is high enough to warrant it. If society is too hostile, a more subdued approach may likely be more advisable. If society is "too" hospitable--that is, compounds are hardly necessary--it frankly will be difficult for this generation to set aside differences and preferences enough to make a compound work.
All in all, it's a balancing act and algorithm of several factors as to whether a compound is actually advisable. Ideally, a coordinating entity would exist to ground and guide such efforts as compounds, but the Trump Organization is not willing to do that.
Not yet, that is.
Now, for those persistent in their aim for a compound, check out this video on urban warfare. It discusses making buildings into strong points. Some of the aspects don't apply, as neither side will have the weaponry discussed. (And please, Patriots and libertarians, don't cry over lack of full auto!). Take this for what it's worth.
But suppose for the sake of examination that people not of a "traditionally oppressed" demographic can throw off enough of that Guilt pathology, the libertarian/individualist self-indulgence, and ideological isolationism to form a compound-community. Such a community would form a difficult target for mobs and gangs. A convoy system for trips out of the compound, along with other steps of mutual protection--e.g., coordinating work schedules and having their own guards at their places of employment--would come together to defend against attacks there. THAT sort of set-up would have a viable chance.
In a sense, it is a household grown big, only more defensible.
We saw some of this with the Korean shopkeepers in 1992 Los Angeles. While much attention is paid to their armed vigilance, we should note something that libertarian/individualist-types will hate to admit--much of their success is attributable their COOPERATION. They protected their NEIGHBORHOOD, not just their own homes or their own businesses. They made their neighborhood a compound. They sacrificed their individual preference for a common cause.
Ferguson in 2014 showed some of this as well, but in truth it was mostly shop by shop rather than area defense. To be fair, the tactical situation was less geographical. So I am left to wonder if the good guys--yes, mostly White people--could have come together enough to mount a private-sector spatial common defense if faced with something as overreaching as the LA insurrection. Some no doubt would have done so, but given the level in libertarian infection on the conservative/Right, I suspect too many would have not.
"Mount Carmel" was the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas famously burned by a federal government overeager in pushing their gun control agenda. The Davidians' stand failed, as it was guaranteed to do given their opponent. The truth is, though, their system actually had defensive value had it been directed against a foe like Antifa or BLM. They could have held off an attack far longer than the Koreans in 1992, and certainly long enough for tolerant local authorities to arrive.
But the Davidians had a commonality--their faith--and a compelling power--their leader--holding them together. It led them into a religious culthood, to be sure, but it gave them strength regardless. If Patriots can sacrifice to have the latter result while avoiding the former result (and frankly, in our rather secular age that really shouldn't be that hard), a compound situation to preserve our heritage can work if the political situation is tolerant enough, and the threat level is high enough to warrant it. If society is too hostile, a more subdued approach may likely be more advisable. If society is "too" hospitable--that is, compounds are hardly necessary--it frankly will be difficult for this generation to set aside differences and preferences enough to make a compound work.
All in all, it's a balancing act and algorithm of several factors as to whether a compound is actually advisable. Ideally, a coordinating entity would exist to ground and guide such efforts as compounds, but the Trump Organization is not willing to do that.
Not yet, that is.
But the ultimate truth remains: If any collective action to work, Patriots must throw off both libertarianism/individualism and White Guilt. Without doing that, every compound, enclave, and frankly household will fall.
SPECIAL ITEM:Now, for those persistent in their aim for a compound, check out this video on urban warfare. It discusses making buildings into strong points. Some of the aspects don't apply, as neither side will have the weaponry discussed. (And please, Patriots and libertarians, don't cry over lack of full auto!). Take this for what it's worth.
The big agenda under Heaven: Destruction of White/Western and American heritage is the point.
Greg Penglis' "Action Radio" talked today about the showtrial for the officer accused of murdering a drugged-up Black thug. A lot was discussed, albeit with Penglis' usual TEA Party style and one of their regulars passing on a myth about Abraham Lincoln owning slaves.
It's generally worth the listen. I called in, but he never got to me. That fine. I was going to say:
All those pedestrian trees notwithstanding, the point of it all is opposition to White/Western civilization. It's not all race--though that's a component and a tool. To say it's specifically anti-Christian Satanic, as some would assert, falls short, as most Christian-professing people are outside White/Western civilization. And not some NWO thing. Just a commonality of agenda. Marine LePen has it right: It's more Patriot versus Globalist than Right versus Left.
The answer is to throw off White/Western Guilt pathology, and urge our elected STATE leaders to read Federalist 46 and use their power as they in their positions of authority see as possible. And I must add, use in all this an originalist--which is NOT libertarian--Second Amendment application. (Again, it's NOT libertarian in expanse or import. I'd probably get a B-rating from the NRA, to be honest.)
White/Western pride.
Federalist 46 STATE action.
Private arms with a community vision."
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
LYRICAL REVISION of "Even Though I'm Leaving," by Luke Combs -- in honor of my best friend (yes, my cat).
This blog is, of course, "CATS, Guns, and National Security."
Lyrics to this wonderful song revised to fit my life with my feline.
Lyrics to this wonderful song revised to fit my life with my feline.
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E79: "'Anglo-American Common Law,' or 'No, libertarians, the Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum, so hush.'"
Briefly, American law operates under the Common Law system we inherited from the Mother Country. Traditions, precedents, and caveats carried over, and were presumed in the writing of our governing documents, even without being explicitly mentioned. Americans were said to have the same rights as Englishmen--meaning the same guarantees with regard to what they could do without government preventing it. Yet in that, the same limits applied, subject to how precepts had developed--dare I say, "evolved"--in their own direction in Colonial America.
Much of what I have written about RKBA and 2A is based on applying this history. The 2A "right" carried with it the same limitations it had held in general terms at the time of its writing. So when a Common Law history is used to explain why, say, artillery is not 2A-protected, it's immaterial to counter, "But... 'Shall Not Be Infringed!'" The "right" not to be infringed was understood in a context, and artillery can be seen outside the protected realm of that context.
The problem is that libertarians have so taken their distinctive trait--a focus on personal "liberty"--to heart that they think EVERYTHING in governance is to be understood from that perspective. A form of selfishness derived from generations of "freedom" and prosperity building an odd sense of entitlement, it goes to why so many uneducated conservative-types think "Rightwing" is "liberty," and "Leftwing" is "tyranny." Finding themselves largely correctly labeled "Rightwing" by political science, they assume--that is, "ass-u-me"--then that "Right" must mean "liberty," since they can't understand anything else. Of course, they are "Rightwing" because they hold to traditional thinking and act as the base against which the "Leftwing"--the "progressives"--hits to push their anti-traditionalism agenda. Add in Teabrainish lack of education on things like the French National Assembly of the 1780s, and the basis for Teabrainish failure here is clear.
The upshot for RKBA is that libertarians need to understand that laws, and especially constitutions, carry a vast history with them without that history being repeated as nauseum. "Right to keep and bear arms" has a limited context, and we must understand that context put into the context of our time and technology. TDF 10 is my classic on this. Citing overreach of the "liberal" rights in 1A does not justify similar--and politically dead-end--arguments for 2A. Rather, it points to the need for rolling back that overreach--i.e., Fake News can be justifiably destroyed, and "Resistance" reporters executed, as their actions exceed what has been in Common Law considered their realm.
In conclusion, when libertarians attempt an overreach of the Bill of Rights, they are often pushing simply a false understanding of how our governance philosophy is. It is NOT libertarian. The Constitution is not a libertarian document. And for libertarians to use libertarian arguments as if they were worth more than a pile of dog shit is disingenuous. Simply because a libertarian approach requires one outcome doesn't mean that the Constitution requires it, or that it is what our foundation demands. It simply means that libertarians have let their pot smoking and conspiracy theories, along with denial of human nature, have led them to another politically DOA position that handicaps the conservatives and the Patriots in their struggle against the Globalist/Left (TDF 38).
Arguing a libertarian approach makes no more sense to trying to jam Sikh theology into Christianity. They are not compatible, and doing so is self-destructive. Maybe their drugs and conspiracy theories have given them a twisted view of how things should be, but it's not how they are. And the view is dangerous.
Focus on what is--that is, our system--not what you want it to be. The time has come to grow up (TDF 72).
Much of what I have written about RKBA and 2A is based on applying this history. The 2A "right" carried with it the same limitations it had held in general terms at the time of its writing. So when a Common Law history is used to explain why, say, artillery is not 2A-protected, it's immaterial to counter, "But... 'Shall Not Be Infringed!'" The "right" not to be infringed was understood in a context, and artillery can be seen outside the protected realm of that context.
The problem is that libertarians have so taken their distinctive trait--a focus on personal "liberty"--to heart that they think EVERYTHING in governance is to be understood from that perspective. A form of selfishness derived from generations of "freedom" and prosperity building an odd sense of entitlement, it goes to why so many uneducated conservative-types think "Rightwing" is "liberty," and "Leftwing" is "tyranny." Finding themselves largely correctly labeled "Rightwing" by political science, they assume--that is, "ass-u-me"--then that "Right" must mean "liberty," since they can't understand anything else. Of course, they are "Rightwing" because they hold to traditional thinking and act as the base against which the "Leftwing"--the "progressives"--hits to push their anti-traditionalism agenda. Add in Teabrainish lack of education on things like the French National Assembly of the 1780s, and the basis for Teabrainish failure here is clear.
The upshot for RKBA is that libertarians need to understand that laws, and especially constitutions, carry a vast history with them without that history being repeated as nauseum. "Right to keep and bear arms" has a limited context, and we must understand that context put into the context of our time and technology. TDF 10 is my classic on this. Citing overreach of the "liberal" rights in 1A does not justify similar--and politically dead-end--arguments for 2A. Rather, it points to the need for rolling back that overreach--i.e., Fake News can be justifiably destroyed, and "Resistance" reporters executed, as their actions exceed what has been in Common Law considered their realm.
In conclusion, when libertarians attempt an overreach of the Bill of Rights, they are often pushing simply a false understanding of how our governance philosophy is. It is NOT libertarian. The Constitution is not a libertarian document. And for libertarians to use libertarian arguments as if they were worth more than a pile of dog shit is disingenuous. Simply because a libertarian approach requires one outcome doesn't mean that the Constitution requires it, or that it is what our foundation demands. It simply means that libertarians have let their pot smoking and conspiracy theories, along with denial of human nature, have led them to another politically DOA position that handicaps the conservatives and the Patriots in their struggle against the Globalist/Left (TDF 38).
Arguing a libertarian approach makes no more sense to trying to jam Sikh theology into Christianity. They are not compatible, and doing so is self-destructive. Maybe their drugs and conspiracy theories have given them a twisted view of how things should be, but it's not how they are. And the view is dangerous.
Focus on what is--that is, our system--not what you want it to be. The time has come to grow up (TDF 72).
Monday, April 19, 2021
MUSIC VIDEOS: "More Hearts Than Mine," by Ingrid Andress (Official, Opry, CMAs, a reaction vid).
Andress modeled the song after her own extended family life--though the whiskey part was more her uncle than her father, she said. Then she ran a true-to-life situation through that template, added her amazing talent, and came out with a nearly perfect modern Country song. That's what Country music is: Real lives and stories put to song.
OFFICIAL VIDEO:
OPRY PERFORMANCE:
CMA PERFORMANCE:
THE DAILY FUDD: E78: "BASELINE REGION: Pistol-caliber mags, PCC grips, and military-grade featureless rifles and mags."
BASELINE REGION TO ACCOMPLISH THE FUNCTION: "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
20-ROUND PISTOL-CALIBER MAGAZINES: COVERS MOST "STANDARD CAPACITY."
PISTOL GRIPS ON PCCS: HOME-DEFENSE USE WARRANTS.
IMPORTANT TRANSITIONAL REALITY NECESSARY FOR THE POLITICS OF IT ALL: NOT ALL LONG GUNS ARE CREATED EQUAL.
MILITARY-GRADE FEATURELESS SEMI-AUTO RIFLES WITH GUARANTEED 10-ROUND MAGAZINES: FITS DEFENSIVE AND MILITIA USE (WORKING TO AVOID HAVING TO GO TO BOLT-ACTION).
WITH A PERSONAL ADDENDUM TO THIS LATTER POINT: SOMETIMES THINGS CAN WORK OUT TO THE BETTER.
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: E77: "(I hate this) Please, stop acting dumb about AW issues."
In TDF 53 and TDF 54, I discussed the "evil features" of "assault weapon" bans from political and tactical/practical levels. Today, I have to say something about how they have traditionally been defended over the past 30-plus years. TOO MUCH BULLSHIT.
As I say in the title, I hate this. I hate giving voice and base to to the other side, but pro-gunners need to throw off the hickness. Shallow answers don't cut it (TDF 63).
When "assault weapons" features became prominent targets for anti-gunners, the most common pushback was that they were "cosmetic"--i.e., they did nothing, they just made the gun look cool.
But it eventually became undeniable that most of the features actually did effect the use of the weapon. Hence, "ergonomic" became the term in vogue. That is technically accurate. However, the use for which these features improve ergonomics are in fact TACTICAL, often going into situations where no civilian acting on his own private individual discretion will likely have justification for being. In other words, while hardly necessary for such undertakings, they are the factors that would seem to some to contribute to use in things like school mass shootings (see again TDF 53 and TDF 54). Add to that the fact that frankly, most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
As I say in the title, I hate this. I hate giving voice and base to to the other side, but pro-gunners need to throw off the hickness. Shallow answers don't cut it (TDF 63).
When "assault weapons" features became prominent targets for anti-gunners, the most common pushback was that they were "cosmetic"--i.e., they did nothing, they just made the gun look cool.
But it eventually became undeniable that most of the features actually did effect the use of the weapon. Hence, "ergonomic" became the term in vogue. That is technically accurate. However, the use for which these features improve ergonomics are in fact TACTICAL, often going into situations where no civilian acting on his own private individual discretion will likely have justification for being. In other words, while hardly necessary for such undertakings, they are the factors that would seem to some to contribute to use in things like school mass shootings (see again TDF 53 and TDF 54). Add to that the fact that frankly, most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
Indeed, these features caught the eye of wannabe commandos and people in California just wanting to poke the ATF or their State analogs. The term, "tacti-COOL" came into use: Adding often useless features with "tactical" in their name, even though the person doing so has no training in using them. (True confession: I once added a red-dot scope of a particular model and color to a rifle because of something like that.)
All of this looks like obfuscation to the bulk of the general population--the "moderates" and "neutrals"--costing the pro-gun side credibility in both the technicals (on the one area where conservatives generally do have the facts better than the liberals--see later) and genuine concern about the issue itself (TDF 67).
ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER SUBJECT: Some years back after a major accident, there was talk of NASCAR requiring brake lights on competing vehicles. A retired driver-turned-commentator, complete with his southern-hick accent and limited use of words over two syllables, said (close paraphrasing), "Well, I don' know that there'd be room back there for lights, with all the advertising and what." I so wished I'd been there. I'd have dryly said, "Well, maybe those slots there where the street-legal models have them." The statement of the "commentator," who probably couldn't even spell that word, was nothing but bullshit from a hick.
Recently I heard a radio guest wondering why anti-gunners would oppose features contributing to more accurate fire. The problem here is:
1. The other effects of the feature; and
2. The second shot. Hunting rarely involves a quick followup shot. It's tactical situations that do. That's why Three-Gun competition arms have them. It's that second shot being more accurate in a situation like a mass school shooting that concerns them. The radio guest made a partial point, of course--increased accuracy reduces accidents--but he ignored the big giant rapid-fire factor in the room.
None of this cancels out the uncharacteristic lack of technical knowledge of anti-gunners, of course...
But facts are facts. Pro-gunners need to think and say rightly. The guest tried to hide the obvious additional fact, and it made him look dense at best.
Another example regards the recent Colorado shooting using a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" (TDF 47), a caller to a radio show wondered about the report--possible conspiracy theorizing without basis--because he thought it would be DISadvantageous in the close quarters of store aisles. In reality, of course, the short barrel dealt with that factor, so the shooter had the advantage of both compactness the stabilization of what was in truth a SHOULDER STOCK:
As--Election Steal 2020 notwithstanding--the American people turn more liberal, their willingness to put with the "tragedies" will drop compared to their concern about possible "genocides." (Indeed, the demographic most likely to face oppression or genocide in the move Left won't easily raise that factor due to its unique pathology of "guilt.") The upshot is that these features do bear on the tactical functionality of these arms, particularly in the tactical realm. Even the fuddiest of fudd rational 2A examination points to the tactical factor in the amendment. So it makes perfect sense for proper 2A-minded folks to want them. Yet those are, thus, the features most at play when major tragedies occur--acts seemingly more tactical than criminal.
And that same increasingly-liberal people can see this. It is counterproductive to fail to think before answering, or worse yet, be disingenuous or play dumb to them. Cases beyond a "Shall Not Be Infringed" incantation can be made against banning these features--though frankly, it must be said again: Most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
If you genuinely don't know the answer, don't give bullshit. Contact me instead. If you are in a discussion just for fun, please bow out now. The cause is more important than you getting your jollies.
I hated publishing this. But I had to do it.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
All of this looks like obfuscation to the bulk of the general population--the "moderates" and "neutrals"--costing the pro-gun side credibility in both the technicals (on the one area where conservatives generally do have the facts better than the liberals--see later) and genuine concern about the issue itself (TDF 67).
ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER SUBJECT: Some years back after a major accident, there was talk of NASCAR requiring brake lights on competing vehicles. A retired driver-turned-commentator, complete with his southern-hick accent and limited use of words over two syllables, said (close paraphrasing), "Well, I don' know that there'd be room back there for lights, with all the advertising and what." I so wished I'd been there. I'd have dryly said, "Well, maybe those slots there where the street-legal models have them." The statement of the "commentator," who probably couldn't even spell that word, was nothing but bullshit from a hick.
Too often, the same is true with defenders of gun features. As with conservatives in other areas, they tend to come up with single-point, single-layer responses that are readily knocked out by the slightest thinking. It's "kneejerk" as its academic worst.
Recently I heard a radio guest wondering why anti-gunners would oppose features contributing to more accurate fire. The problem here is:
1. The other effects of the feature; and
2. The second shot. Hunting rarely involves a quick followup shot. It's tactical situations that do. That's why Three-Gun competition arms have them. It's that second shot being more accurate in a situation like a mass school shooting that concerns them. The radio guest made a partial point, of course--increased accuracy reduces accidents--but he ignored the big giant rapid-fire factor in the room.
None of this cancels out the uncharacteristic lack of technical knowledge of anti-gunners, of course...
Another example regards the recent Colorado shooting using a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" (TDF 47), a caller to a radio show wondered about the report--possible conspiracy theorizing without basis--because he thought it would be DISadvantageous in the close quarters of store aisles. In reality, of course, the short barrel dealt with that factor, so the shooter had the advantage of both compactness the stabilization of what was in truth a SHOULDER STOCK:
I discussed the political liability of these things things, and how flaunting their flaunting of laws on Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs) led to problems in a pre-TDF article HERE.
People like that caller get away with their stupidity because they don't get called on it. They call sympathetic outlets--which is understandable--and they are faced with people who either are as low-thinking as they are, are soap-sellers not wanting to tick off their core audience, or who don't want to disillusion fellow pro-gunners/clue off the opposition to the fallacy. It is that latter point which limits how I publicly--and in some cases privately--reply to such. This article marks a departure based on a conclusion that alerting the good guys to their mistake does more good for the cause than alerting the bad guys does harm.
UPSHOT:
People like that caller get away with their stupidity because they don't get called on it. They call sympathetic outlets--which is understandable--and they are faced with people who either are as low-thinking as they are, are soap-sellers not wanting to tick off their core audience, or who don't want to disillusion fellow pro-gunners/clue off the opposition to the fallacy. It is that latter point which limits how I publicly--and in some cases privately--reply to such. This article marks a departure based on a conclusion that alerting the good guys to their mistake does more good for the cause than alerting the bad guys does harm.
UPSHOT:
As--Election Steal 2020 notwithstanding--the American people turn more liberal, their willingness to put with the "tragedies" will drop compared to their concern about possible "genocides." (Indeed, the demographic most likely to face oppression or genocide in the move Left won't easily raise that factor due to its unique pathology of "guilt.") The upshot is that these features do bear on the tactical functionality of these arms, particularly in the tactical realm. Even the fuddiest of fudd rational 2A examination points to the tactical factor in the amendment. So it makes perfect sense for proper 2A-minded folks to want them. Yet those are, thus, the features most at play when major tragedies occur--acts seemingly more tactical than criminal.
And that same increasingly-liberal people can see this. It is counterproductive to fail to think before answering, or worse yet, be disingenuous or play dumb to them. Cases beyond a "Shall Not Be Infringed" incantation can be made against banning these features--though frankly, it must be said again: Most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
If you genuinely don't know the answer, don't give bullshit. Contact me instead. If you are in a discussion just for fun, please bow out now. The cause is more important than you getting your jollies.
I hated publishing this. But I had to do it.
