Yes. Require people to "identify" according to their chromosomes, with that less than one percent with truly screwed-up chromosomes and completely indeterminant features making a choice and sticking with it. And if that latter group is misgendered, require them to put up with it.
Included in this would be regulating use of hormones and other chemical or surgical aspects of trans practice--even for those cases already in progress--banning counseling in favor of transition, and sanctions against public presentation of oneself in contradiction of their genetic sex. (This latter point is somewhat subjective and of course subject to context--undercover detectives and actual costume parties not affected--and so would be used only in egregious cases.)
The things that matter in life.
The things that matter in life.
Saturday, May 8, 2021
Friday, May 7, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E92: "'Fuck "principles"--save FIREPOWER!' or 'Get real, folks--we deal or we die.'"
Libertarians reject the fact that laws exist. Purists refuse to accept that reality doesn't go like that, and/or act accordingly. And both use their "principles" to refuse to engage in gritty bargaining and negotiations to save some or even most of the current level of RKBA. It's all or nothing to them--and nothing is closer to what they're likely to get for all of us.
The answer is simple: FUCK THEIR PRINCIPLES. (Actually, it's to fuck THEM, but they can be useful.) Firepower is more important than principle, because firepower stops BLM thugs from raping our White daughters, while principle and five bucks might get you a coffee at Starbucks. BLM thugs don't freeze in position when your ten-round magazine runs dry and you yell, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" while loading another ten-rounder (see TDF 90). "But I shouldn't have to reload that soon! So the rules should be that they freeze while I do!"
There ain't no rules in real life, folks. These fools need to get with it.
The answer is simple: FUCK THEIR PRINCIPLES. (Actually, it's to fuck THEM, but they can be useful.) Firepower is more important than principle, because firepower stops BLM thugs from raping our White daughters, while principle and five bucks might get you a coffee at Starbucks. BLM thugs don't freeze in position when your ten-round magazine runs dry and you yell, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" while loading another ten-rounder (see TDF 90). "But I shouldn't have to reload that soon! So the rules should be that they freeze while I do!"
There ain't no rules in real life, folks. These fools need to get with it.
FIREPOWER FIRST!
Federalist 46 action would have taken her down: St. Louis Prosecutor Who Charged McCloskeys on the Verge of Losing Her Law License.
It's due to her handling of the Greitens case. But whatever the reason, the bitch needs taking down.
St. Louis Prosecutor Who Charged McCloskeys on the Verge of Losing Her Law License | Dan Bongino
Soros backed St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner, who chose to charge the McCloskey’s for defending their property from threatening, trespassing members of Black Lives Matter, could lose her law license over misconduct in the case of former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.
Facebook is super-"woke" -- It won't even allow pointing out what might be called "Nazi."
I've known for awhile I was on a targeting list for Facebook.
Thursday, May 6, 2021
War on Whites -- VIDEO: White disabled farmer denied aid based on race speaks out on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight'
I blame the Republicans:
Emancipation, 13-15A, the Civil Rights Act... All GOP-led.
THE DAILY FUDD: E91: "'Do the math and THINK!' or, 'How "Diagnosis Murder" demonstrates the fallacy of some 'principled' thinking.'"
"Diagnosis Murder," a 1993-to-2001 CBS dramatic series starring the lead actor in what is my vote for the best sit-com of all time, "The Dick Van Dyke Show," portrayed the crime-fighting actions of Dr. Mark Slone, an off-beat but brilliant physician. Though featuring the occasional obligatory Hollyweird liberalism, it was generally a fine program, which I recommend.
In a four-episode story arc carrying over seasons 3 and 4, the show--bias notwithstanding--depicts an all-too-common problem found among many grassroots activist movements: unsophisticated thinking and dumbness in the name of "principle" or such (further characterization omitted). In the story, a very intelligent criminal character, a near-equal to Slone, is using a violent group of such a nature for his own non-ideological enrichment. He engineers the kidnapping of Dr. Slone, with the intent of using his high intellect (yes, played by the same Dick Van Dyke from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang") to plan the robbery of a shipment of some one hundred million dollars to be burned.
With no choice, Slone plans the robbery--and true to his character, in a way with no one killed or injured. It seems that the group has two million in cash from a previous robbery, in which one of their numbers was killed. Quite understandably, that member is now upheld as a martyr. Slone's plan, which he doesn't explain to the people because they quite frankly could never have understood it, involves cutting up money-colored paper (this was back when cash was all green-gray) into bill-sized pieces, then bundling it with the real money from the robbery as camouflage. Those bundles were subsequently switcheroo'ed for the bundles of real money to be burned. So, the to-be-burned money is stolen, and with no one the wiser (and no one hurt).
The net result is a major multiplication of the group's cash level. The criminal mastermind is pleased, but the group's ideological leader is furious. He comes up to Slone, mad that Slone has caused all that money of theirs to be burned. (The fact that it was gained at the cost of one of their own was also a factor.) The criminal mastermind actually defends Slone, trying to explain how their money has multiplied by a factor beyond their ability to do arithmetic on their fingers. The group leader, in some great acting, gets a monkey-doing-a-math-problem look on his face. It's left indefinite as to whether he actually understands everything. (It should be noted that at one point, the criminal mastermind characterizes the group as so dumb "they think George Washington was named after the State.")
This group, and especially their leader, has the problem of being stuck at a single level and single dimension of thinking: Slone has caused to be burned their two million dollars. That they have a NET GAIN didn't register. That would require "arith-a-metic" and thinking. This situation to them is one of "principle" as much as profit. HE BURNED THEIR MONEY! Then there is the attachment to the cash due to their martyr dying. Of course, they would have eventually spent it, but for them to see this use as equivalent to that would again have involved going a level or two beyond in their thinking.
All of us do this sometimes. We let sentiment, emotion, and laziness lead us into dumb decisions. It's part of being human. However, when groups and movements allow that to happen--and to be come seemingly the norm--and even to codify into dogma, then it goes beyond that. It crosses from human nature into depicting the people as categorically... dumb, frankly.
The conservative/Right frankly has a harder time with this, due to their genuine concern about "principles." Liberals, on the other hand, lie intentionally. Their only principle is, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is the Revolution." So they aren't tied by points of ideology. They can be completely pragmatic in pursuing their aims. Conservatives, and often libertarians (save for issues of marijuana), let their principles--or audience-gaining rhetoric, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and the results are the same--become self-defeating blocks to the betterment of the situation.
RKBA is one such area, as I have pointed out repeated in this TDF series. Suggestions of political mitigation against disarmament efforts (TDF 25) lead to reactions much akin to that of the dumb group leader. They will look at an idea from a rational thinker like yours truly, and denounce it because it doesn't go as far as they want, or they see it as a compromise, or they simply can't take a one-step-back/TWO-steps-forward approach to their activism.
An example is my suggestion for saving higher-than-ten-round pistol-caliber magazines (TDF 49). When I suggest an approach such as a pro-gun member of Congress proposing an amendment to a magazine-ban bill that would change the number for such magazines--and only such magazines--from the usual 10 to 20, I often get slammed: "Well, why not just go all the way with it???" meaning, have the bill remove all limits, period. They can't support the measure on principle, because in their shallow thinking it constitutes supporting/enabling magazine bans ("You burned our money!"), and the net results of saving ten rounds to use against threats simply doesn't register. The fact that the amendment they would want proposed--which would do what, in fact, I and most "RKBA-focused Patriots" want--would be DOA, and thus accomplish nothing is irrelevant to them. That we'd still face being down to ten-round magazines across the board, rather than retain most of the pistol-caliber firepower we have now (TDF 90--"Pragmatism over principle"), is less important than the "principle" of yelling, "Shall Not Be Infringed!"
The concept of political mitigation has completely departed from their otherwise-activist minds (TDF 25).
Their self-defeating approach only contributes to the failure of their policy positions and their whole movement (which intersects heavily with that of Patriot heritage-preservers). Even as that leader couldn't quite process that net result, too many on the conservative/Right can--or will--only look at the surface. (I discuss in TDF 67 about the hows, whys, and results of such foolishness.) The truth is, lawyers lie in court to succeed in jurisprudence (consider the "Substantive Due Process" dance on 14A). And politicians must lie to succeed in legislation. Accept it.
Critics of this approach will still ask about whether I--it's always personal with them--actually "care" about "freedom" or "the Constitution" or whatever. I tell them, "I care about our country, our people, and our heritage more, and RKBA is key in that (TDF 50)." "Freedom" when it enables or leads to the loss of freedom by chaos--be it the chaos itself or the resultant "order" which some will impose--cancels itself out. The Constitution is not supposed to be a suicide pact, and we ought not make it one (though some recently have done exactly that in refusing to stand against the 2020 Election Steal).
Both of these have their function and purpose. Let us put that purpose first. And for that purpose, TWENTY rounds is better than ten, even as a hundred million dollars is better than two.
It's time to grow up (TDF 85).
ADDENDUM: For more generic discussion of this sort of dumbness, which yours truly dubs, "Teabrainery": THE DAILY FUDD: E132: "SPECIAL REPORT: Here's what I mean by 'Teabrainery.'"
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: E90: "Saving firepower: 'RKBA: Pragmatism vs principle,' or 'Yes, 20 rounds is better than 10 rounds and a four-word chant.'"
A difficulty the pro-gun conservative/Right has in combating gun legislation is a purist and libertarian approach. This approach prevents pragmatic actions that could save a great deal of firepower and hamper anti-gun legislative and jurisprudential momentum. This is a mistake from which we must turn.
TDF 67, TDF 77 and many other editions discuss the problems behind the libertarian and purist mindsets. They are spoiled brats, ruined by "freedom" and prosperity because they let it turn their minds into an odd form of entitlement--they get what they want, period. Then reality--the demands for gun control by those moderate, neutral, or opposed to gun rights--hits, and they can only act as petulant children. They act to actually handicap efforts to politically mitigate potential anti-gun legislative or judicial efforts (TDF 25).
The result: Thinking, function-focused people whose ideas would help the American people are drowned out, and MORE loss of RKBA than was destined to happen occurs. What might have been saved is lost, tactical power is reduced, and BLM thugs are able to rape and riot all the more.
And all in the name of, "Shall Not Be Infringed."
However, raising the capacity limit to 20 by political mitigation (see TDF 49 for how this is actually quite possible) would preserve the vast majority of "standard-capacity" pistol magazines--saving people money on replacing them with lower-capacity versions--and thereby increase firepower for use against BLM thugs, saving more homes and businesses from pillaging.
Principles don't stop BLM thugs. Don't let purism and libertarianism stand in the way of this.
TDF 49 explores the issue of political engagement to raise proposed specifically pistol-caliber magazine limits. Excerpted below.
===========================================================
THE DAILY FUDD: E49: "Save hicap PISTOL-caliber magazines."
UPSHOT: Hicaps in pistol-caliber weapons are more important than in rifle-caliber arms, and so long as they are preserved, losses in rifle-caliber capacities have at least a chance of being restored.
From 2018, but with validity today:
Increased urban and suburban life in America renders full-power rifles less practical and legally/politically defensible from a Blackstone defense right perspective (the essential focus of Heller), and makes pistol-caliber arms more fitting from a tactical perspective. They are more akin to the 1688/89 English Bill of Rights "blunderbuss" and Blackstone RKBA. Thus, it is easier to defend hicaps and AW features on them than on full-power rifles.
Pistol-caliber long guns can be described as "overgrown handguns," and can thus draw on Heller's pistol-centric decision, as well as being--along with home-defense shotguns--quite directly the modern descendants of the blunderbuss--"And Your Honor, blunderbusses have been in truth guaranteed since 1688."
Thus, a ready argument presents itself that the defensive nature of pistol-caliber arms in the present civilian setting overrides concerns over criminal use of AW-type features and components. It certainly would aid in at least raising the maximum capacity of pistol-caliber magazines. As I noted in TDF 46:
The fact is that, apart from low-end "hunting" rifles perhaps, handgun ownership far and away holds the best chance of getting the biggest 2A-related support, even--maybe especially--in Blue States. It's core Heller, and normal pistols are less "scary-looking" than most tactically-geared long guns. It is with handguns that escaping magazine capacity limits--or at least making them far more reasonable than the usual ten (twenty would cover virtually all "standard-capacity" ones)--has the best chance.
The fact is that, apart from low-end "hunting" rifles perhaps, handgun ownership far and away holds the best chance of getting the biggest 2A-related support, even--maybe especially--in Blue States. It's core Heller, and normal pistols are less "scary-looking" than most tactically-geared long guns. It is with handguns that escaping magazine capacity limits--or at least making them far more reasonable than the usual ten (twenty would cover virtually all "standard-capacity" ones)--has the best chance.
Also noted there (drawing from TDF 22), and related to the increased urbanization of America, is the effect of liberal gun ownership might have in mitigation:
Continuing on, pistol-caliber arms can be distinguished tactically from full-power rifles in that the former's employment in defensive situations more often involves active movement. Someone facing an attack on the street and "bearing" a CCW piece will be seeking to move to a safer location, and a home defender with either pistol or carbine may well have to move from room to room to confront an intruder. Either situation makes reloading all the more difficult and risky.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Monday, May 3, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E88: "'Fifty shades of 2A?' -- (Not endorsed, but interesting.)"
The "militia" reference in the Second Amendment is in the preambular/"prefatory" clause. Such clauses are statements of aspiration. They are in contrast to "operative" statements, which are the meat and meaningfulness of such a legal statement. It is because of this that to link the Right to Arms to any sort of (government-tied) militia element is incorrect. It is a "right of the PEOPLE"--the common people, which are the constituent parts of Militia. (More on that later.)
So the issue arises as to what impact the reference to the Militia should have on 2A interpretation and jurisprudence in terms of black-letter protections and "rights." Setting aside "sophisticated" and "collective rights" interpretations, the technical answer is none. A prefatory clause does not impact on the operative clause's statement. For example, United Nations Resolution 1244, which ended the shooting in the 1990s Kosovo War, explicitly says in its preambular bullet points: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of [Serbia]." Yet, in 2007, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia, and most countries were relatively quick to recognize it. The ASPIRATION had been to keep Serbia in one piece, but the reality of carrying out the accord didn't quite make it happen.
The aspiration of 2A is obviously an armed citizenry prepared to act militia-style:
So the issue arises as to what impact the reference to the Militia should have on 2A interpretation and jurisprudence in terms of black-letter protections and "rights." Setting aside "sophisticated" and "collective rights" interpretations, the technical answer is none. A prefatory clause does not impact on the operative clause's statement. For example, United Nations Resolution 1244, which ended the shooting in the 1990s Kosovo War, explicitly says in its preambular bullet points: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of [Serbia]." Yet, in 2007, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia, and most countries were relatively quick to recognize it. The ASPIRATION had been to keep Serbia in one piece, but the reality of carrying out the accord didn't quite make it happen.
The aspiration of 2A is obviously an armed citizenry prepared to act militia-style:
Hence, the argument is that common citizens are to be militarily armed. One of the earliest uses of the "common use" approach to 2A used to the term to refer to what was in "common use" in the military, and that people had a right to the standard military arm of the time (but see TDF 10). Such was reversed at Heller to common use in CIVILIAN life (see TDF 17).
The lower-end take, closer frankly to the Heller decision, however, might narrow the right down to the primordial elements circa the 1688/89 English Bill of Rights, which was interpreted to allow for basically a "blunderbuss to ward off burglars."
The lower-end take, closer frankly to the Heller decision, however, might narrow the right down to the primordial elements circa the 1688/89 English Bill of Rights, which was interpreted to allow for basically a "blunderbuss to ward off burglars."
In today's terms, that would be a carbine or a home-defense shotgun in modern technology (similar to how online publication is held equal to printing paper copies). Add in a pistol for "bearing," and one could see a very minimalist fulfillment of 2A--one that would low-end traditional American armament, while still more firmly securing more firepower than other countries with any sort of constitutional Right to Arms provisions (see TDF 28 and TDF 43/44).
This is where the "shades" come in. From this, one could argue that the Founders indeed wanted a populace armed with full-on Militia-suitable arms ("in common use" militarily) as much as possible, but only secured the baseline rights of Englishmen plus carry ("bear") to give flexibility for future generations. (DISCLAIMER: Even this fuddster rejects endorsing this view, but bear with the theory--remember, TDF is more about practicality than principle.) By this reading, the people would be protected from disarmament against criminal elements and retain some baseline community service ("posse") functionality and resistance for invasion--Federalist 46 matters notwithstanding--with a provision for higher-end arms becoming incorporated by custom. Such a view would fit with Heller's "common use" twist.
It might also be taken to support a certain selectiveness on higher-end arms guarantees. (See TDF 10 for an originalist view of such things.) For instance, for veterans and drill-status militia to be afforded more protection for higher-end arms than civilians, or other plays on the "suitable to the Conditions" clause in the original English right codification, might be read into that. That would raise "equal protection" issues, obviously, but it is always debatable just how far the Founders saw that provision reaching.
The upshot in all of this, as well as much of TDF, is that at least marginally viable alternate readings of 2A are possible without losing a meaningful private right. The aim is to prepare 2A practitioners for whatever the post-Election Steal liberalizing America might hold for this core element of American heritage. The various takes in this series can be mixed-and-matched to give RKBA defenders concepts to be used politically and legally to defend and maintain as much RKBA as possible, in part of setting up ways for liberal courts, including the soon-to-be-packed SCOTUS, to see clear to maintain the obvious private-right element--something supported even by many liberals--as they push other arms agendas.
It might also be taken to support a certain selectiveness on higher-end arms guarantees. (See TDF 10 for an originalist view of such things.) For instance, for veterans and drill-status militia to be afforded more protection for higher-end arms than civilians, or other plays on the "suitable to the Conditions" clause in the original English right codification, might be read into that. That would raise "equal protection" issues, obviously, but it is always debatable just how far the Founders saw that provision reaching.
The upshot in all of this, as well as much of TDF, is that at least marginally viable alternate readings of 2A are possible without losing a meaningful private right. The aim is to prepare 2A practitioners for whatever the post-Election Steal liberalizing America might hold for this core element of American heritage. The various takes in this series can be mixed-and-matched to give RKBA defenders concepts to be used politically and legally to defend and maintain as much RKBA as possible, in part of setting up ways for liberal courts, including the soon-to-be-packed SCOTUS, to see clear to maintain the obvious private-right element--something supported even by many liberals--as they push other arms agendas.
It's not ideal, but it is what it is. And it's a damn sight better than nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)