Yes, Virginia, libertarianism is suicide, and freedom can only exist in the context of authority and violent force -- Disruption at Yale Law School.

My Facebook comment: "Please, folks, accept the truth of this when I say that "freedom" is freedom's worst enemy. Those disrupters used "freedom" to shut down someone else's freedom. If we saw our liberties from the perspective of their intended function, we could readily shut down Leftist actions like this by whatever means are necessary. But "freedom" means they can pull them off."

The ultimate reality and failure of libertarianism is that freedom in terms of substance doesn't exist without law and authority to enforce it. For instance, if we lived in a truly libertarian society, and the local libertarian radio jock says something I don't like, I would simply go down to the station and kill him. Oh, he and others may try to fight me, but if I'm clever enough and maybe have some support, I very well might win. And the host is silenced, and people are scared to ever say whatever drivel it was he uttered. It's only because of AUTHORITY--law enforcement--that I could not seriously consider actually doing that. The SUBSTANCE of his freedom--not the concept, but actually being able to use it--would not exist but for authority.


https://www.thecollegefix.com/audio-yale-law-students-shrieked-like-banshees-to-drown-out-free-speech-event/

AUDIO: Yale law students shrieked like banshees to drown out free speech event

THE DAILY FUDD: E195: "Tacti-cool for Ukraine: Our 'Delta Force Ranger with SEAL Team 6' prepares for (in)action."

Our guy might be at least marginally useful with a .308 battle rifle in a set position (his fave position, obviously) in a little private citadel. Just sayin'.

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: E196: "'Magazine' versus 'clip' debate resolved by facts -- But a concession to the self-affirming dogmatists."

Here's the story:

No one seriously involved in the modern Second Amendment movement in America has not heard the yells and screams of many self-inflating gun nuts--and I count myself a gun nut, so that part's not an insult--when someone supposedly confuses "magazine" and "clip" in terms of gun specs. The action seems to have started in 1990s or early 2000s. Before that, a great deal of overlap occurred in common gun community usage. Indeed, in the original 1909 Army specifications for a new automatic pistol--the program that led to the M1911 .45--"clip" was indeed used for what these folks would insist is a magazine--and only a magazine.

Ultimately, this action stems from the fact that gun specs are probably the ONLY area where conservative-types are actually superior to liberal-types in terms of pure academics. In essentially every other area of discussion, liberals will tend to know more, as they are more willing to actually STUDY, and they take their issues seriously. When they say something that is factually untrue, it is far more often than not the case that they are attempting to deceive, rather than being sincerely wrong. Conservatives, on the other hand, generally are too individualistic and too devoted to things like football and NASCAR to actually study or research something, and their devotion to the concept of "principles" causes them to think every question has solid, absolute answers. As I've often noted, "Liberals are liars; conservatives are confused."

In today's TDF, yours truly will square all the circles and present the resolution to this matter. This take is based on FACTS, not dogma, and focused on REALITY, not, "Well, I jees' kinda theenk..."

1. Remember the 1909 Army usage. "Clip" has long been used for "magazine," period.

2. Keep in mind part of the general meaning of the word, "clip": "To snap onto" (verb) or "something that snaps onto" (noun).

3. Focus on the function of an ammunition clip, even as these Teabrainers define it: It holds individual rounds together in an arrangement to provide for ready use in a weapon.

Now, going backwards through these points, we see the answer: An M1-style en bloc clip or a SKS-style stripper clip hold rounds thusly, but they have no feeding mechanism--a spring or ratchet--integral with them. The former fits into the weapon magazine (which has the feed mechanism), and the latter simply holds the rounds until they are "stripped" off of it in the process of loading the weapon.

However, consider that a "magazine," as these people define that, does exactly the same thing, particularly as with the en bloc. Both hold rounds in an arrangement designed to provide for them being fired through the weapon. The only difference is that THE FEED MECHANISM IS INCLUDED IN THE ITEM ITSELF. Thus, we start to see an alignment of functions between magazines and clips

Next, looking at Point 2, we have the image of a "clip" being a part self-contained and readily separable from the weapon, but which in some manner attaches to--to one degree of sturdiness or another--and detaches from the weapon. Some magazines are considered "detachable" because they can readily be attached or detached from their weapon. In "assault weapon" laws, a "detachable" magazine is one of the key traits used in defining such a weapon. So both clips and this specific type of magazine ("fixed" magazines, which are not considered detachable, are not in sight in the terminology debate) have another common factor--they "clip" to their weapons in fulfilling their function.

The answer now should be obvious: Detachable magazines are indeed clips--a form that includes the bulk of the feed mechanism within itself--but not all clips are magazines. This of course fits PERFECTLY with the 1909 Army specifications referring to the sought pistol's detachable magazine as a "clip." And it explains the use of "clip" by people either not read into the discussion or such gluttons for punishment that they use "clip" for magazines regardless.

En bloc clip: Not a magazine (no feed mechanism).

SKS stripper clip: Not a magazine (no feed mechanism; removed before ammo is fired).

SKS magazine: Not a clip (integral--"fixed").

AR STANAG magazine: A magazine (contains feed mechanism) which can be called a "clip" (is removable/"clips" on).

People who followed the gun scene forty years ago know what I have put here is the truth. They remember the interchangeability. But many also know that if they speak up about it, a chain of stylized dogmatists will slam them as stupid. And likewise, I am sure that any forum where this article is linked will display the same desperate attempt to hold onto an academic bludgeon by which they can feel like they aren't unsophisticated rubes.

But as said at the beginning, this presentation is based on facts and reality. And even as their chants of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" don't change the legal, political, and historical realities of 2A RKBA, their complaining here doesn't change to academically proper use of the terms. The 1909 Army specification is the killer here. None of the dogmatists will ever be able change that fact. They are creating a contention where there need not be one.

This is right. They are wrong.

All that said, the advice of TDF is to generally follow the terminology convention of these people. When someone does use "clip" for magazine, though, please don't join in the attacks on the person. On the contrary, if possible contact the "violator" privately, apologize for your fellow 2A practitioners' childishness, and explain the issue. For the biggest reality of all in this is that RKBA is politically dependent on these people. And if letting them have their little game here keeps them politically usable, then it's a small price to pay for maintaining our private firepower and the capacity for--when the time comes--destroying our enemies.

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

ARTICLE: "Judge issues first acquittal to Jan. 6 riot defendant" -- Also, an assessment of the REAL mistake of the "rioters" that day.

Article includes statements by the persecutors--ur, prosecutors--but I will generally not be referencing that enemy propaganda here.

Also includes discussions of some protesters' genuinely violative acts. Patriots want the legitimately guilty, even those one could say were on "our side," punished. This includes a case of off-duty police officers violating the law, which is a different animal altogether, given their initiated status and supposedly superior knowledge.

When President Trump is returned to power, this judge should be given special consideration for positions in whatever reformed judiciary will be retained--so long as he holds this good line, that is.

Judge issues first acquittal to Jan. 6 riot defendant | The Hill

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday acquitted a New Mexico man of misdemeanor charges that he illegally entered the U.S. Capitol and engaged in disorderly conduct after he walked into the building during last year’s riot.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden issued the verdict from the bench after hearing testimony without a jury in the case against Matthew Martin. McFadden, who was nominated by former President Trump, acquitted Martin of all four counts for which he was charged.

McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge also said Martin’s actions were “about as minimal and nonserious” as anyone who was at the Capitol that day.

Martin is the third Capitol riot defendant whose case has been resolved by a trial. He is the first of the three to be acquitted of all charges that he faced. The first two Capitol riot trials ended with convictions, although McFadden acquitted one of those defendants of a disorderly conduct charge after a bench trial last month.

...

The judge...said video shows two police officers standing near the Rotunda doors and allowing people to enter as Martin approached. One of the officers appeared to lean back before Martin placed a hand on the officer’s shoulder as a possible sign of gratitude, the judge said.

This paragraph shows how desperate the anti-Trumpers are to miscast the whole aftermath. Sorry, but officers offing themselves over their role in the set-up--or perhaps being murdered to aid in the coverup--don't count in the way they try to imply. In fact, it's actually the opposite:

At least nine people died in the riot or its aftermath. One officer died after he collapsed hours after being sprayed with bear spray, and other officers who tried to quell the riot died by suicide in the months following the attack.

...

Defense attorney Dan Cron said Martin saw another person shake a police officer’s hand after entering the Capitol. Martin placed his hand on an officer’s shoulder “as a gesture of thanks and of goodwill,” Cron said.

...

Other riot defendants have claimed police waved them in or said they could enter.

...

Then there's this. One has to wonder if they were among the agent-provocateurs behind the set-up, giving reason for others to believe their actions were legal. This whole trial may itself indeed turn out to be a complete sham. It's possible they were sincere but stupid, but their law enforcement status both separates them from other defendants AND gives an argument for the actions seeming reasonable to regular people.

After Martin’s acquittal Wednesday, a jury in a different courtroom heard a second day of testimony for the trial of former Rocky Mount, Va., police officer Thomas Robertson. The town fired Robertson and another officer, Jacob Fracker, who joined him at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Fracker was scheduled to be tried alongside Robertson before he pleaded guilty last month to a conspiracy charge and agreed to testify against somebody who was his mentor and a father figure.

“I absolutely hate this,” Fracker said. “I’ve always been on the other side of things, the good guys’ side, so to speak.”

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

There are two basic reasons that some sincerely Patriot-minded people did violative acts that day. The first reason is that most of them were Teabrained, and simply stupid. That is the bane of the modern grassroots conservatism in America today, which I have often discussed (most notably HERE). 

The other reason is related to this, but much more specific: These people, having seen the Antifa and BLM insurrection of the previous summer, and indeed decades of the Left getting away with tons of similar acts, took it on themselves that they should be able to do something similar. That is, they thought they had the "right" to do it in some moral sense (no comment), and they thought they'd easily be able to beat the rap, as those Leftists generally do.

But they made two mistakes: First, they forgot the inherent advantage the Left has in matters of "civil disobedience" at numerous levels--judicial and media bias, being the biggest. But also, they simply didn't know that so much of what the Left does in this area is in cahoots with the authorities! Of course, part of that is the Deep State set-up we saw on January 6, but back through the decades it has been more in the form of pre-event agreements. Note this from "Of Arms and the Law" in 2005:

How things are done in Washington

POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 20 DECEMBER 2005 10:11 AM

Saw some footage of a protest the other day, and it reminded me of the days when I worked in Interior Dept's legal shop. The Park Service attorneys were across the hall, and we often lunched together.

One day their conversation went like this: "It's all worked out. The protestors will come in as part of a White House tour group. They'll send ten, perhaps twelve. At 9:15 they leave the tour group and go onto the White House lawn and sit down. At 9:30, Secret Service will tell them to leave, and four will refuse, the others will return to the group. At about 9:40 the four will be arrested, booked, and released."

I was astonished ... how could you predict these events, down to the minute? The Parks attorneys explained that in a DC protest of this type, all the details were negotiated in advance between the protestors and the government. It made it more convenient for everyone. The government tried to dicker them down on how many would stay and be arrested (less work for the agents), and they tried to dicker the government up on how long a time window between refusal to leave and arrest. There might be other terms to be worked out as well. But this way the media could be notified to show up at 9:30 for photos, or earlier for the story. If you didn't coordinate -- why, what if the media showed up and security was shorthanded and couldn't make arrests for another hour? Or someone threw the timing off and arrested before the media showed up? Or somebody got hardnosed and instead of book and release, actually popped the protestors in jail? Much better to reach agreement in advance. Besides, by scheduling early in the day you ensure that the reporters have time to write the story.

I remembered reading a WashPo article on an AIDS protest where the police wore rubber gloves in picking up the protestors, and the protestors were angry because that wasn't part of the deal, leaving me wondering what was the "deal." That was it -- the negotiations hadn't mentioned gloves, and the protestors thought it spoiled the photos' intended impact. (I seem to recall that the police objected in turn that the protestors were not supposed to lie down and require carrying, as they did).

So the next time you see a DC protest (a non-rowdy one, anyway), remember it may have been negotiated out down to how many get arrested and the precise time at which it occurs.

The January 6 "rioters" simply weren't aware of how the Left pulls off their stunts. They didn't try to do pre-event negotiations with the authorities: "Okay, the Viking-helmeted guy and 50 other people get to enter the Capitol and stir around for 15 minutes, then you arrest them for disorderly, then release them two hours later without charges." Most of them could never imagine how such things were done, as they were the "good guys." And, they had never done much if anything in the way of street activism (no, attending an organized Trump rally on set grounds doesn't qualify). As one who indeed has done street activism--namely, as a Chapter Leader in "ProtestWarrior," a now-defunct outfit of the early 2000s which did counterprotesting of anti-American "peace" activists during the early years of GWOT (if you don't know what that is, look it up and then sit down and just keep reading)--I know the seemingly impossible way the Left succeeds, while we on the Patriot/Right know we would fail with exactly the same actions. This article, though, educated my planning--I knew not to try the same things the Left did--and in my pushing it to Chapter members, hopefully helped them understand the situation.

Hopefully the actions by this judge yesterday will help with the jurisprudential side of rectifying what happened on January 6, 2021 in every sense. Yet the actual issue will only be resolved by a fundamental and comprehensive shift in the American political condition. Our system is broken. It needs replacement. Federalist 46 remains our biggest hope.

Vaguely on topic: Arguably the greatest movie ending ever: "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man."