Thursday, June 16, 2022

THE DAILY FUDD: E217: "RKBA Political pragmatism made understandable for libertarians (and purists?): Imagine if it was (legal) marijuana!"

Libertarians complain about the current gun bill going through Congress. Some concerns are valid, and it's understandable that people of that mentality would give at least lip service to kicking back against it. However, libertarians are notable for not really being concerned about the substance of an issue, but rather the rhetoric and concept of it. They never win elections, so the thought of setting politically realistic policy positions doesn't occur to them. They are so accustomed to losing politically that being self-defeating in their positions doesn't faze them. So, it is easy for them to put up a seemingly purist position on RKBA and ignore the fact that it will actually lead to severe practical losses of the right they claim to be championing.

So, the objective of this installment is to help these potheads..., ur, libertarians, understand the practical effect and the reasons for dealing on the issue by replacing the substance of the issue--guns--with the one substance they do actually care about--marijuana.


Imagine an alternate universe--and potheads are actually good at that--where marijuana is generally legal in this country. <cringe> That is, at least as legal as guns. Restrictions on the constitutional "right to hold and smoke doobie" (RHSD) based on age, mental state, locations and activities, and criminal histories exist (and are opposed by libertarians, of course), but in general people can have their pot. Well, as is to be expected, there are cases of patent misuse of this weed, with people using it creating deadly and destructive traffic incidents (e.g., people smoking driving up onto sidewalks, and when finally stopped look at the policeman and respond, "Dude! Oh, that's Officer Dude! Narley!"), food supply poisonings, and general mayhem, not to mention other social consequences.

As a result, there is a fairly large swath of the public that, while generally supportive of "RHSD," want "common-sense" controls, and some wanting some severe restrictions in terms of age, background checks, and the grade or quality (potency) of the weed generally available. Other matters like definite rules on the difference between selling a friend a joint and actually being "engaged in the business" of marijuana dealing--intended to avoid "loopholes" in the system of preventing prohibited persons from obtaining the substance--are also in sight. Some people are decidedly anti-pot, and want heavy restrictions, perhaps even an essential ban--even seeking to pack SCOTUS with anti-pot justices who will ignore the Doobie Amendment and reverse the famed Marley decision recognizing it as a private right, rather than a collective option of States and localities.

At some point in time, the pot community is faced with a rather anti-marijuana Presidential administration, a Congress controlled by the generally less pro-marijuana party, and a number of incidents which have given political will to the call for more restrictions. Even some generally pro-marijuana officeholders see a legitimacy in some steps to curb "pot violence," as well as the need to respond to anti-pot questions with more than, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, DUDE!"

But more than that, some pro-pot people see the proverbial writing on the wall. SOMETHING is going to happen, and some of the proposals that have tacit public support would be draconian cuts into RHSD. So, they work with the other side to craft some limited steps to prevent people who should not have weed from getting and having it, and some other steps that sound good to a populace tired of these repeated incidents (and how they are played in the--in this universe--anti-marijuana media), and which may actually have some impact. The objective is to head off those deeper infringements that might substantively affect the positive function of people having marijuana.<eyeroll> (Okay, the analogy here has its flaws. But libertarians ignore the issue of a given right's function anyway, and most in their pot-addled brains believe legalized doobie would serve a purpose.)

The ultimate reason for their "caving" on RHSD: It buys time. Even as an army in the field might fight a holding action against a superior enemy to stall their advance while better defenses are prepared, these pro-pot politicians and such are trying to stave off the advance of the anti-pot side until the mid-terms, where they hope to regain a congressional majority, and then hopefully the installation of a pro-pot POTUS in the next Presidential election (yes, potheads can vote). A few concessions now until their side is in charge again and can block the anti-marijuana agenda.


Now, back to our universe: Put this way, many libertarians would suddenly go, "Yeah, dude! I get that! It's, like, not fun, but at least I'd still get my essential doobie." Then, when caught on the downside of their latest smoke, they can be reminded of that: "Now you can see how such political mitigation can look bad to a cause, but actually help protect it against total loss."

Now, whether this explanation would actually work to make libertarians as pragmatic on RKBA as they are on their imagined and baseless RHSD is anyone's guess. Their substance has a far stronger impact on a person's thinking processes than do private arms. And again, losing political battles is just their lot, and suffering the consequences doesn't have the same effect on them. It's all just about a "principle" of "freedom," regardless of the substance (save, of course, for their doobie). However, it might help some of the non-pothead purists to see a value in this pragmatism: If arms in the hands of private citizens really does have benefit, then trading off in a tight political situation to hold on to at least the baseline of it (and the current gun bill preserved far more than that) can well be worth the cost, with the result having a very real value. Even as the pothead would most definitely deal to hold onto their drug, so maybe pro-gunners could see the way to deal to hold onto their firepower for both now and in the future.









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

at

Professor admits that yes, all the anti-Trump effort is an illegal and unconstitutional use of the system -- Federalist 46 State action justified.


The reason for prosecution is not "justice" or "guilt," but rather to politically damage President Trump. Indeed, conviction isn't necessarily a requisite. It is a clear call for political use of the judicial system. Inasmuch as this represents the thinking of Trump's opposition--which it does--it presents the ultimate justification to resorting to Federalist 46 State action to end this opposition's ongoing insurrection against America. 



From "Trump might have to be prosecuted to save American democracy, an expert on authoritarianism argues," Charles R. Davis Jun 14, 2022, 8:22 PM      https://www.businessinsider.com/interview-historian-ruth-ben-ghiat-on-donald-trumps-attempted-coup-2022-6  

Interview with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, "a historian at New York University,... an expert on the rise of fascism in Italy and... author of the the book, 'Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,' tracing the erosion of democracy from Russia to the United States of America."




at

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

THE DAILY FUDD: E216: "Preliminary evaluation of current gun bill (14 JUN 2022) -- No national 'Red Flag,' but gun hobbyists need to think."

Sen. Cornyn defends bipartisan gun deal after conservative criticism of proposed 'red flag laws' (msn.com)


1. "Red Flag": Regards aiding STATE laws. By the nature of our system, State and local jurisdictions will tend to have more authority on matters like this. There will be no NATIONAL law under this bill, and there are due-process requirements for a State to receive the help. So it comes down to the political environment of a given State as to whether/to what degree this would be egregious or oppressive. And the TDF position has long been that people who choose to live in places like California and New York get what they deserve. 14A only goes so far, and on a number of matters many pro-gunners would fully agree on that. Nonetheless, I would call for using Involuntary Commitment systems in this regard.

2. Mental health and school safety: Yeah, whatever.

3. "Boyfriend loophole": This is the one thing that actually concerns me a bit. It can be too easy for women to go full-bitch and get their men arrested and convicted of tiny offenses. But Lautenberg had been around for decades. Until we make a more fundamental regression of our approach to romantic relations--back to "when girls were girls and men were men"--there is little to be done.

4. Gun trafficking and straw purchases: Folks, 2A is not about a hobby. It is, though, about an important right to maintain some powerful items. There will be headaches. Just check the law. And maybe, when talking to a 2A-specializing lawyer, you can encourage him to use his soapbox on radio call-in shows to actually explain how our constitutional and Common Law system works, not just feed red meat to hick Teabrainers.

5. Increase pre-21yo background checks: Depending on details, this might actually be a stroke of genius. There has long been flexibility in declaring when a given person attains majority for a given purpose. And some have called for restrictions of acquisitions by people under 21. This might split the difference--preserving the 18yo independent worker's home-defense capability while addressing the concerns about maturity.

6. "Licensed gun dealer" determination: Folks, 2A is not about a hobby! It's not about trading guns the same way kids trade baseball cards (yes, I'm old-school). There is no call for more than the occasional private gun sale, and, "But it's my right!" crashes and burns on the long-standing government power to regulate commerce. Remember: If your argument against something like this makes you sound like you literally know nothing about the subject beyond, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" you're probably way off on your jurisprudence. And unless you want ALL private sales ended, and probably 2A repealed, you will keep in mind that given the importance of the right, a little hassle is a small price.


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

at

THE DAILY FUDD: E215: "Three articles pertaining to 'Red Flag' plans (two of my own) -- Solution goes to INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS."

Whether it be using Involuntary Commitment standards and procedures or full-on reliance of such commitments, the solution is obvious. Neither side in the debate--certainly not the fringes--is satisfied. So there's at least one argument in its favor.

Below are excerpts from three article (two of my own) addressing this. The third is an objective review of the second, bringing out some of its points better than the original.


NOTE: This first article was written by yours truly before I read the second.

The problem is that too many on the pro-gun side will say that the crazy people are the problem--implying the answer is to control those people. On the other hand, they oppose any "Red Flag" laws, period, as a matter of course--implying control over those people is wrong. In typical Teabrainer fashion, they suffer a cognitive dissonance in their rhetoric, squared only their libertarian foolishness in supporting a politically self-defeating and politically and socially irresponsible vision (TDF 41, starting in Paragraph 8).
...
The answer, thus, is to have fiscal conservatives to bite the bullet and impose INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT rather than disarmament. If a person is THAT dangerous, then get them off the street completely. "The gun genie is out of the bottle."
...
"[I]nvoluntary commitment laws to pose less inherent threat to RKBA than Red Flag laws: They don't focus on guns, and the Patriot side can use them against non-gun owners."

================


Some of them: Schools can no longer be soft targets, institutionalization will need to come into play, and police will need to relearn what their job is.
...
Three parts of the solution present themselves readily. First, to make schools hard targets for would-be murderers. Second, to institutionalize those who are insane and dangerous. Third, is to reject liberal nostrums on gun control because they obviously won’t work.
...
I last wrote about the absolute necessity of preventing these killings of children and teachers in the aftermath of the 2012 Newtown school massacre...
...
What needs to be done is to change the state laws which effectively prohibit the involuntary institutionalization of insane people who are a danger to the community. 
...
It’s long past time for us to learn the lessons that reality keeps teaching us and act upon them. How many more kids have to die before we do? 

================


The biggest takeaway for people should be stated need to control crazy people. There are so many reasons for removing nutcases from society, and libertarian-minded people need to have this understanding imposed upon them.
...

[From original article:] State “red flag” laws permit police to confiscate firearms from an individual on the basis of a complaint by police, a family member, or a neighbor. 

And here's the big concern. "Red Flag" laws are complete no-go's for libertarians and purists, and even more practical pro-gunners are leery to the same point of them. However, the fellow has indirectly addressed part of the problem. 

The TDF position has been that pro-gunners should be actively involved in crafting any Red Flag legislation so as to include serious protections from their misuse. The writer notes making "dangerous insanity more definable." Such would act to mitigate the danger of liberals declaring "a mean tweet" or "pro-White statement" grounds to get a Patriot disarmed. Indeed, often yours truly has said to run them along the lines of common 96-hour involuntary commitments, perhaps even simply using that power. After all, if a person is dangerous enough to disarm, they are dangerous enough to restrain.

...

[From original article:] The focus on AR-15 style rifles is convenient for liberals but entirely off base. Charles Whitman didn’t have an AR-15 when he murdered those people at UT Austin. He had a bolt action rifle, a pump action rifle, and an M-1 carbine.

My point here is something of a two-edged sword. According to the great Ken Hackathorn, "When I was a... 18-year-old, [the M-1 carbine] WAS the AR-15 of MY generation. This WAS the 'assault rifle.'" ("Ken Hackathorn on the M1 Carbine: Reputation vs Reality" -- quote at 11:56 point. NOTE: Yes, it's the anti-Trump Gun Jesus, but it's still the great Ken Hackathorn talking.) On the one hand, the 1966 shooting referenced does indeed involve something which, though actually escaping the usual AW furniture-feature restrictions, held a comparable role and did feature hi-cap magazines. On the other (pro-gun) hand, it shows the presence and ready availability of a weapon of vaguely similar capability (particularly in the context of a mass shooting) during a time before the AR-15 and when such events were apparently rare.

[From original article:] It’s long past time for us to learn the lessons that reality keeps teaching us and act upon them. How many more kids have to die before we do?

The truth is, this is a question for both sides.

================

"It really is the solution, folks: INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT systems. The flipside of our Right to Arms is our responsibility to public safety. The function and intent of the former can be fulfilled without undue danger to the latter. And the necessity and responsibility of the latter can be fulfilled without undue burden on the former."


at

Monday, June 13, 2022

A few thoughts Teabrainers need to learn.

 





at