THE DAILY FUDD: E129: "How Heller would have been lost if 'principles' ruled pro-gunners."

The 2008 Heller vs DC case established explicitly in American jurisprudence that the Second Amendment dealt with and protected a PRIVATE right to arms by PRIVATE citizens in their PRIVATE capacity. Without this decision, nothing in the private arms realm would be constitutionally secure.

The case was won by taking a moderate approach. The DC gun ban of the time worked by requiring handguns be registered, but forbidding any more to be registered after 1977-78. The approach taken was not to challenge the registration requirement, but simply to require DC to permit new registrations. It worked.

But this is fundamentally contrary to the "principle" people who insist on a purist/libertarian interpretation of 2A and that every effort in that regard have no qualifications. The theoretical effort I suggest regarding pistol magazines in the face of magazine limitations (TDF 90) is anathema to them. No partial measures to promote RKBA, and no conciliatory gestures, even to maintain firepower in the face of BLM thugs wanting to rape White women (HERE) and forcibly impregnate them with a next generation of Colin Kaepernicks. 

And some pro-gun outfits did indeed snipe at the effort, and the NRA specifically, for this approach. I recall Gun Owners of America, a "no-compromise" group that gets very little done, accusing NRA of "supporting gun registration" because at one point the lawyer they sponsored in the case--then still under the name, "Parker"--said that the plaintiff "wants to register his guns." Obviously, of course, the lawyer was referring to what was discussed above, yet GOA--an opportunist group--twisted the line in a way meant to confuse simple-minded Teabrainers.

The truth is, had the purist approach been taken, Parker/Heller would have failed. SCOTUS would likely have found against the individual right due to Anthony Kennedy's notoriously non-judicial approach to judicial matters. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia had to produce a rather weak and problematic (TDF 17) decision just to get Kennedy to sign on to it. Had he gone for something more akin to his stated positions on 2A/RKBA, Scalia would have at best left us a situation where even the most baseline RKBA that TDF has talked about would be in constitutional question, and quite possibly completely lost the case for pro-gunners.

Naysayers, of course, will yell, "Shall Not Be Infringed!" and ignore this reality today, even more that GOA did in the leadup to that blessed day in 2008. Between opportunism, personal self-absorption into indulgence, and a genuine degree of being spoiled by the Heller win, they endanger both rights and firepower. And some are frankly too dumb, too unsophisticated, too self-focused--and maybe too ADHD in a few cases--to learn. They are a danger to American heritage by enabling our enemies (TDF 67).

From 2018: Firepower is more important than principle. (Click to enlarge.)

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

ARTICLE: (MY TITLE:) "Republicans attempt moderate election measures that will allow Globalist/Left to continue subversion efforts."

The most disillusioning thing about all of this is that no matter how promising some of these moderate bills may seem, if the side of Patriots ever gets power again, they will work to simply reset the situation to a place where the other side can gain power again. The side of Globalists, on the other hand, will always do the exact opposite--that is, they will work to prevent their opposite numbers from ever regaining power, or even operating as opposition.

As federal voting legislation falters, state Republicans push to exert new powers over elections - CNNPolitics

VIDEO: Loesch and D'Souza. Reminds me how much more right I really am -- *I* made Federalist 46 call. They didn't.

Conservative talkers like these people failed to stop the Election Steal by calling for Federalist 46 action by the States. Federalist 46 State action is how we push back.

Loesch raises "real consequences," then can only talk about money. This is why conservatives fail. They are faced with utter persecution, violence, and the loss of our country and heritage, but all they can think about it money and career.

Selfishness will kill our people.

As for D'Souza, he's a patriotic conservative immigrant of color who uses the Teabrainer definition of Right and Left, and tries to erase our racial background from our heritage.

THE DAILY FUDD: E128: "On Biden's statement about cannon: Point out the BS, but avoid the kneejerk overreach."

On 23 June 2021, illegitimate President Joe Biden made statements about gun control that included an assertion that cannon could not be acquired at the time of the Second Amendment's passage. TDF readers know that artillery--call them "cannon" (Biden), "field pieces" (the Articles of Confederation), or whatever--factor into my Originalist work on the relationship between machine guns (full-auto) and 2A: TDF 10. 

As stated there, there was no legislation, at least at the federal level, barring the acquisition of artillery. The only senses in which the insurrectionist Oval Office occupant's statement fits the facts are that localities might have acted to restrict such things, and quite frankly that only communities and the richie-rich were likely to ever have the means to acquire them. From TDF 10:

But cannon remained the province of government and the leading aristocracy--big land owners, ship owners, small communities fighting off the aforementioned French and Indians and whoever. There was no thought of Farmer Brown being guaranteed a cannon he could put on a hill overlooking the town and then go Festivus on them: "I got a lot of problems with you people!" There was no need to "ban" him from having it, though, as there was no imaginable way he'd ever be able to afford one. That was simply not what RKBA or 2A was about on the private side, insomuch as the Founders even considered the matter.

The whole TDF series goes into counterproductive actions--and REactions--of many 2A activists. Pertinent here: A common tactic when facing any kneejerk-reactive opponent is to drive them to hold untenable positions simply to oppose you. In this case, we see pro-gunners rightfully pointing out Biden's misleading statement, but then SOME of these people moving on toward saying that "cannon" were/should be seen as 2A-protected. The reality--that something can be legal, yet not constitutionally protected--is discarded, or more likely never considered, as these pro-gunners react to the liberals' witting or unwitting pushing them to an absolute binary conclusion. 

And for that matter, the same effect applies to some more general statements about RKBA limitations at the time of 2A ratification. Ignoring the parameters of the right not to be infringed only denies historical reality (see TDF 79) in favor of a false binary (TDF 109). 

The impact of all of this kneejerk on RKBA is the radicalization of the pro-gun perception in the eyes of moderates and neutrals (see TDF 67), potentially turning this vast swath of the American people actually ANTI-2A. The more the anti-gunners can cast 2A support as protecting a legal right to own such things as cannon--and then by extension machine guns, ICBMs, and weaponized anthrax--the more support for repeal of the amendment will skyrocket. 

RKBA isn't about a hobby, and it isn't about a principle. It's about firepower--the ability to apply kinetic FORCE on one's enemies in certain contexts. Without that ability, American heritage is gutted (SEE HERE), and our people are made literal prey for our enemies (TDF 46). Losing that ability on earthly "principle" is suicide. Losing that ability due to uninformed kneejerk reactionary stances is insane.

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

It's errant to call Hitler a "Critical Race Theorist."

Was Hitler a "Critical Race Theorist"?

Not really. "Critical Race Theory" is decidedly anti-White/Western and called "critical" by use of the Leftist "Critical Theory" method of propagation--constant, unrelenting, and often absurd criticism of the target.

Without getting into political-science semantics (though I'm willing), Nazism was exactly the opposite.

CHALLENGER'S QUESTION: "At the point of the spear, how does it differ from Hitler and the Jews?"

The most pointed answer to your question is that CRT would--and I hate to say it like this in that context--have it the other way around. The supposedly "oppressed" group would be pushing against the supposed "oppressors." Critical Theory has built into it its beneficiaries being oppressed by its targets. Nazi efforts to portray Aryan peoples as oppressed by that group (the Jews) failed even then. The Germans were arguably "oppressed" by Versailles, but that was at the hands of their fellow Aryan/Nordic peoples (regardless of the specific persons who negotiated for the Germans).

A key point: Critical Theory of any specific issue target carries with it a demand for transfer of wealth and power. It's that demand for Robin Hoodian taking from one side to give to the other (less fortunate in whatever sense) side that makes Critical Theory almost inapplicable by the Right. An ideological policy of compulsory taking from the poor and giving to the rich" has little rational basis beyond pure unprincipled empire-building. (Hey...! 😁)

Both the WW2-era Nazi regime in Germany and present-day BLM were/are evil and criminal, and both deserve{d) the same takedown. That does not change how the fact that they point in opposite directions and to opposite conclusions.

NOW FOR THE FULLER ANSWER:

IN THIS, I USE THE DEFINITIONS OF "LEFT" AND "RIGHT" STANDARD IN THE POLITICAL FIELD. TO DO OTHERWISE, AS IS THE MANNER OF SOME, IS WRONG.

Contrary to what Bubba down at the Tea Party meetin' might say, Nazis were a Rightwing movement--meaning they upheld more traditional orders, like nationalism. In racial issues, that means they upheld the historically, and more importantly, CURRENTLY still-leading races: Whites/Occidentals/Westerners, and in extension, lighter-skinned North Asians--i.e., Japanese.

Actual "Critical Race Theory" gets its name as the application of the more generic Leftist Marxist "Critical Theory" to race. It's more than a tactic. It goes to the application of Marxist principles of "equal distribution" into non-economic areas (like race relations)--that is, the relative empowering of what the Left likes to call "traditionally oppressed" demographics at the direct expense of the--I'll say--"traditionally leading" ones.

[The Paris Climate Accords are all about this--weakening advanced (that means White and Asiatic) economies to give shithole economies (Africa) the means to catch up and ultimately overtake us.]

I do get how you can draw a parallel between Nazi propaganda against Jews and Leftist/Black propaganda against Whites (and of late, North Asiatics). Yet that focuses on them entirely as tactics. "Critical Theory" carries a substance with it that ultimately can't be applied by the Right against the Left. The Right can lie and criticize and do so much, but it's harder to say to the public with a straight face, "Our group has been in charge for centuries, and thus we need to keep it that way," than it is to say, "That dominant 'oppressive' group has been in charge for centuries, and everything about that group is bad and oppresses other peoples and should be suppressed." The former argues for keeping inequities, while the latter calls for eliminating them.

We all know the traditional order has problems. Critical Theory uses those problems as the basis for its agenda. Our group's problems justify replacing us (regardless of an objective comparison to the other group).

Actually, a better parallel would be for the Right to say, "Our group has been in charge for centuries, and (so) everything about other groups is bad and should be suppressed." (That's something of the Nazi line.) It would use something of a Critical Theory TACTIC, but is immediately labeled "racist" and such by even its intended beneficiaries, regardless of any validity it might hold. It goes to an Affirmative Action-type mentality of giving "special rights" to less fortunate: The underdog (supposedly "traditionally oppressed") group can attack the leading group (look at how the term "racism" has been turned to apply ONLY to Whites, and why), but not the other way around.

So even tactically there is not an equality in terms of Critical Theory in our increasingly liberal Western world.

It's that demand for Robin Hoodian taking from one side to give to the other (less fortunate in whatever sense) side that makes Critical Theory almost inapplicable by the Right. A policy of compulsary taking from the poor and giving to the rich" has little rational basis beyond pure unprincipled empire-building.

My concern is the false equivalencies that too many liberals would use that to push, and that too many conservatives would accept out of White Guilt. I see too many such comparisons being taken too literally and seriously by grassroots on the conservative/Right. For example, Jonah Goldberg's book title, "Liberal Fascism": Though intended to be ironic, with the book discussing the Left using tactics generally associated with the fascist far Right (Fascists), many who should know better took it as literal. Hence you will hear loudmouth pundits ignoring the nationalist definition of actual FASCISM and saying, "Right=Liberty; Left=Tyranny." Their shallow analysis creates errant understandings among the grassroots, making them look like hicks in the eyes of most people.

Both Nazism and BLM are evil and criminal, and both deserve the same takedown. That does not change how the fact that they point in opposite directions and to opposite conclusions.

THE DAILY FUDD: E127: "Recent hiatus; plans."

Apologies for recent gap in publications. Personal matters connected to the greater mission of the blog had to take precedence. Plus, after the American people's failure in the Election Steal, I answer to no one. 

Upcoming editions:

1. "How Heller would have been lost if 'principles' ruled pro-gunners."
2. "TRIPLE TITLE: 'Popular elections are the weak institutional link in American/Western civilization,' or 'Yes, Virginia, your man Washington should have been king,' or 'King Donald I, for he is the best available.'"
3. "Final word on heritage and arms: All that ultimately matters."

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