Why exactly would gun control implemented by progressives in this country not look like gun control implemented by progressives in Cambodia, USSR, China, etc? You don’t get to different destinations using the same beaten-up “treasure” map.
From Electronic Frontier Foundation Newly Released Surveillance Orders Show That Even with Individualized Court Oversight, Spying Powers Are Misused:
Rather than notifying the court that it had destroyed the communications it obtained without authorization, the NSA made an absurd argument in a bid to retain the communications: because the surveillance was unauthorized, the agency’s internal procedures that require officials to delete non-relevant communications should not apply. Essentially, because the surveillance was unlawful, the law shouldn’t apply and the NSA should get to keep what it had obtained.
And these are the people we supposedly should trust with our freedom?
Maybe someone else has some perspective on this…
There is absolutely nothing an accused person can present that would actually be considered exculpatory. Meanwhile, any and all evidence just reinforces the accuser’s trauma and truthfulness.
5 Signs You’re In The Midst Of A Moral Panic
[Salem “witches”, the satanic panic of the 1980’s and 90’s, and others are discussed in the article.
It’s not a scholarly article but it’s good enough that you can see some common patterns that would have a low chance of false positives when broadly applied.
When Prophecy Fails also applies in many ways. Read my short synopsis of the book to get the gist of it.
The political left had a firmly believed prophecy that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election. When that failed they made a series of new prophecies involving the evils of a President Trump administration and prophesized all the more fervently. One of the more memorable was the prediction by Nobel Economics Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on election night:
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
All the predictions about the various investigations of President Trump and his advisors will result in his impeachment have repeatedly been proven false. But evidence cannot convince them. These people are in a state of hysteria.
As long as the Five Conditions are met they will continue to remain in their irrational state and increase the passion with every prediction that is proved false:
- There must be conviction.
- There must be commitment to this conviction.
- The conviction must be amenable to unequivocal disconfirmation.
- Such unequivocal disconfirmation must occur.
- Social support must be available subsequent to the disconfirmation.
Their numbers are growing smaller and while a good sign for the long term the short term consequences of the increased passion means there is also increased potential for violence.—Joe]
It is my firm belief that Fast and Furious was created to advance the gun-ban agenda of the Obama administration. Those in charge of it created a government-funded program to deliver thousands of guns to murderers with the sole goal of using the resulting crimes as leverage to reduce gun rights. Part of the plan was to guarantee that people were killed, and if that had to be law enforcement officers, “you have to break some eggs.” Individuals and companies would be destroyed as an integral part of the plan.
Remember the story. Share this frightening tale of government agencies being used to advance political agendas. Consider that many of the same people are still in power, operating on their own to effect elections or push agendas.
Imagine what the “It’s impossible to fire a federal employee” activists inside government will do under a Democratic-party controlled Congress or White House. Actually, there’s no need to imagine. We’ve seen the depths of depravity they sink to.
September 20, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
And this is why we should still talk about killing Communists. Because human lives are more important than Communist lives.
Michael Z. Williamson
September 20, 2018
Why We Should Still Be Talking About Killing Communists
[Some people might argue this is overstated and oversimplified.
A more persuasive argument for me is there is a place for dramatic effect.—Joe]
What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.
Expect similar differences in outcomes as well.—Joe]
Most of the advantages of social life, especially in it’s more advanced forms which we call “civilization”, rest on the fact that the individual benefits from more knowledge than he is aware of. It might be said that civilization begins when the individual in pursuit of his ends can make use of more knowledge than he himself has acquired and when he can transcend the boundaries of his ignorance by profiting from knowledge he does not himself possess.
F. A. Hayek
The Constitution Of Liberty, Chp. 2, pg 73
[Via email from nvguyusa who goes on to say:
So basically, civilization rests on the sum of the experiences and knowledge of all persons. Some of that knowledge can be articulated (he goes on to make a point of scientific knowledge in particular), but some of it, such as the sum of customs, traditions, beliefs, various faiths, “community standards”, if you will, cannot be known by all – the knowledge is too fragmented and diffused among the population at large, The problem with “central planning”, “big government”, whatever you want to call it is that it relies on the assumption that everything can be know in and accounted for in advance. The stunning failure of usurious tax rates (and the behavioral changes undertaken to avoid same) puts the lie to this. The planners cannot even get basic revenue projections right because they cannot account for altered behavior in the face a of a (relatively) minor change; how the [string of vulgar Anglo-Saxonisms involving one’s maternal lineage] do they expect to plan the perfect society at large?
Only the naïve and willfully ignorance believe they can plan the perfect society at large. The rest are in it for the power and money.—Joe]
Democrats are caught on the horns of their own dilemma. They can either propose useless laws that would have virtually no impact on potential mass shooters; or gun confiscation which has very little support among the electorate and would be a massive turnout magnet for Republican voters.
May 21, 2018
Commentary: The problem with “common-sense” gun laws
[And many Democrats know this. Yet the Democrat platform for the election this year is heavy with gun control.
There is a reason for this. It’s not their intent to reduce violent crime. Most of them know better than that. Increases in violent crime serve their purposes better. When society around people has a high percentage of violent predators a common instinct is to demand more government intervention of private life. This gives more power and money to those in government. It’s a rare and principled person who would advocate against their own personal interest even when it is to the benefit of society as a whole. Those sort of people are seldom drawn to political life.—Joe]
A state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-delineated civil right.
Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President
September 11, 2018
FED. COURT ENJOINS PART OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE IN SAF-SUPPORTED CASE
A federal district court has ruled that a section of the California Penal Code is unconstitutional and has issued an injunction against enforcement of a prohibition on the display of handguns or handgun placards that may be seen from the outside of a store in a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and two California gun rights groups.
The state of California is expected to appeal the decision. They don’t want us to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights either. The state of California mindset appears to be the same as that of Stalin.—Joe]
If Brett Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, the gun industry will have new ammunition in their war to overturn common sense gun safety laws aimed at protecting our children, keeping our streets safe, and stopping deadly firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
September 3, 2018
Senator Bob Menendez Speaks in Paterson Against Appointment of Supreme Court Nominee Based on ‘Dangerous Views on the Second Amendment’
[All freedoms are “dangerous”. And that is why some of the most important ones are specific enumerated rights.
And you notice, as frequently is the case, this anti-gun person speaks in terms of “the gun industry” being the driving force rather than there being a market for common sense defensive tools. They pretend to believe that only evil capitalists and criminals could possible want or need to own guns. The truth is that only political tyrants and criminals could possibly want or need to restrict gun ownership.
I would like to suggest Senator Menendez and his ilk get on the winning side soon or risk prosecution in the future.—Joe]
I haven’t read this yet. It sounds interesting:
An elementary mathematical theory based on “selectivity” is proposed to address a question raised
by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with
greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective
then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to
prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less
variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This
theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that
one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time
one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic
model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.
If I had seen this without much other context I probably would have read the abstract and moved on. Interesting, but not worth much more time. However…
The context in which I ran across this was Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole, an peer reviewed paper, approved and published, was removed from online archives:
Colleagues I spoke to were appalled. None of them had ever heard of a paper in any field being disappeared after formal publication. Rejected prior to publication? Of course. Retracted? Yes, but only after an investigation, the results of which would then be made public by way of explanation. But simply disappeared? Never. If a formally refereed and published paper can later be erased from the scientific record and replaced by a completely different article, without any discussion with the author or any announcement in the journal, what will this mean for the future of electronic journals?
I save banned CAD files for 3D printing. I buy banned books. And I publish banned academic papers.
The governments of Australia, United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have made the strongest statement yet that they intend to force technology providers to provide lawful access to users’ encrypted communications.
As part of that, the countries that share intelligence with each other under the Five-Eyes umbrella agreement, intend to “encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services.”
While the statement says the five countries “are committed to an open, safe and secure internet”, it also calls for the tech industry to develop solutions that prevent illegal and illicit content from ever being uploaded.
Where there has been a failure to prevent uploads of undesirable material, tech vendors should develop capabilities to execute urgent and immediate takedowns of such content.
Human and automated systems should be developed to seek out and remove legacy content, the Five-Eyes nations said.
Capabilities to counter foreign interference and disinformation are also to be developed.
And about the “disinformation” topic. One can be fairly certain this is not aimed at, or be enforced against, those lying anti-gun people. Who does history tell us these tools will be used against? Minorities and those who are out of political power.
If they go down this path it will not end well for anyone. Regarding my encryption keys… molṑn labé.
I recently finished a book where I found eerie parallels to the current left-wing violence in America (Days of Rage):
Probably the most time in the book was spent on the Weather Underground (also known as Weathermen). But there was also the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and others. The author interviewed many of the leaders and participants of these violent “revolutionaries” in the writing of the book which was published in 2015. They set off thousands of bombs, robbed dozens of banks and armored cars, broke people out of prisons, and engaged in murder and kidnapping.
What I found most interesting was the white middle class students who formed the Weather Underground, for the most part, had never held jobs, and were incompetent at many basic tasks such as organizational structure, simple electrical wiring, and fixing cars. This held true when they started building bombs and blew up the house they were living in. The home was owned by the parents, away on vacation for a few weeks, of one of the members. They did know how to riot and have orgies, so, they weren’t total incompetents.
Their political philosophy and manifestos were non-sensical to most of America. In several cases people came together because they all “knew” a violent revolution was necessary because the the oppressive U.S. government had to be overthrown. They then sat around trying to figure out what cause they were taking up to rebel about. Most of the groups which where primarily white decided they were rebelling because of racism. They would have participated in the revolution because of the Vietnam war but when the U.S. pulled out they needed to find another cause. The Weather Underground political philosophy ultimate morphed a Marxist/Leninist view of utopia.
The primarily black groups thought unfair police treatment of blacks was a good cause but didn’t want much, if anything, to do with the white groups unless they had black leaders. They did allow a few white women into their groups which were useful. The women could go places and do things (for example, place bombs inside buildings) which would have drawn attention if a black had tried to do the same thing.
As is the case now, these young, naïve, idealists were financed by wealthy individuals who were sympathetic to their cause. The Weather Underground got most of their money from radical left-wing lawyers.
Also interesting was that the leaders of the Weather Underground, such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, lived in nice homes and ate well while “underground” but their followers lived lives of crushing poverty. One guy, at a meeting at Ayers home, opened the refrigerator and saw butter. He became enraged. He couldn’t afford biscuits to put butter on and this guy had butter. Ahh… yes. Under communism some animals are always more equal than others.
Interviewed decades after their revolutionary days they marveled at how naïve they had been. With hindsight they could see it was folly that they believed their revolution could succeed. But at the time, they just believed it.
I think there are lessons for many people of many political persuasions in this book. Political revolution requires a change in the culture of the society. If you can change the culture you don’t need the violence component. If you can’t change the culture the violence has a high chance of failure. The political left learned this in the 60s and 70s and it is long past time for others to learn this lesson too.
If you need a gun to protect your property you simply have too much property and lost your life already aquiring [sic] that property.
August 27, 2018
Comment to EXCLUSIVE: 3D Gun Proponent Defiant Offers Firearm Blueprints For Sale.*
[Ahhh… yes. The true nature of an anti-gun person comes to light. They are opposed to private property as well as being anti-gun. Apparently they want us all to be part of the collective.—Joe]
* Bonus: There is a humorous typo in the URL to the post:
I don’t really have a need to download them.
I’m just downloading them because some black robed cocksucker in Seattle doesn’t think I have the right to do it.
August 1, 2018
Comment to Gun Controllers, Politicians and Judges Think They Can Stop the Free Flow of Information. They’re Wrong.
[Further developments here and here.
You can also get everything you want here.—Joe]
The private defendants raise the more substantive argument that a preliminary injunction will impair their First Amendment rights, a loss which, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976). The First Amendment argument raises a number of challenging issues. Is computer code speech? If yes, is it protected under the First Amendment? To answer those questions, one would have to determine what the nature of the files at issue here is: are they written and designed to interact solely with a computer in the absence of the intercession of the mind or will of the recipient or is it an expressive means for the exchange of information regarding computer programming and/or weapons manufacturing? Are the export controls of the ITAR a prior restraint giving rise to a presumption that they are unconstitutional? Is the AECA a general regulatory statute not intended to control the content of speech but only incidentally limiting its unfettered exercise? Or is the government attempting to regulate distribution of the CAD files because of the message they convey? Depending on which level of scrutiny applies, does the regulation advance important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and avoid burdening more speech than necessary or is the regulation narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest?
The Court declines to wade through these issues based on the limited record before it and instead presumes that the private defendants have a First Amendment right to disseminate the CAD files. That right is currently abridged, but it has not been abrogated. Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States. The Court finds that the irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the States are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The federal defendants and all of their respective officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from implementing or enforcing the “Temporary Modification of Category I of the United States Munitions List” and the letter to Cody R. Wilson, Defense Distributed, and the Second Amendment Foundation issued by the U.S. Department of State on July 27, 2018, and shall preserve the status quo ex ante as if the modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued until further order of the Court.
I’m on the side of Code Is Free Speech and suggest you get your 3-D printed gun CAD files there.
Many civilians saved lives during terror attacks and in an era of ‘lone terrorism.’ The more skilled civilians carrying weapons, the greater the chance of thwarting attacks without causalities and reducing the number of casualties.
Israel Public Security Minister
Eradan eases gun-control rules
[Anytime, anyplace, gun regulation is reduced as well as improving the lives of the innocent directly affected it makes it more difficult for our opponents in this country to make their case.—Joe]
You know, it’s a little bit frustrating to be sitting in this chair as a United States District Court judge and seeing this is an issue that should be solved by the political branches of government. And I really hope and wish that the executive branch and Congress would face up to this and say, it’s a tough issue, but that’s why you got into public service to begin with.
U.S. District Court Judge
August 21, 2018
3D-printed guns: Federal judge in Seattle frustrated over case, could make decision by Monday
[My initial response was, “The issue was resolved long ago and is still resolved. There is no Federal law against 3D-printing a gun. Therefore there isn’t anything the court can say except, ‘Case dismissed.’”
But reading a little closer it appears the argument of the anti-freedom people is a little more twisted:
The legal dispute before the court centers on ITAR, a law that involves regulating the export of certain weapons — not the potential dangers that may result if criminals print out guns and later use them to commit offenses.
Okay, unless ITAR is directly challenged, which it is not, the court has to assume ITAR is valid law. And then the question, “Is the Federal government following the letter of that law?” is a fair question that is a valid for the court to get involved in.
Wilson’s lawyer has to be scoring some points with this argument:
Chad Flores, a lawyer representing Wilson, also raised the arguments that other files for 3D guns are already available online, and Wilson could simply disseminate his plans legally by other means.
My client could mail the files at issue to everyone in the country and violate no law.
Next week we find out which side is more convincing to Judge Lasnik.—Joe]
Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal — and men have legal protection against him.
Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors — the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions — perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.
POV: Man’s Rights; The Nature of Government
[Via email from Stephanie.—Joe]