It is nice to have others working to move the Overton Window in the same direction. I’ve been working on this for a long time. Someday I hope to achieve critical mass and some real action. We need to end this gun owner nightmare.
As a lawyer who sues the government, you get used to the different kinds of arguments that government lawyers use to justify abuses of individual rights—sweeping claims of government power, bad-faith procedural obstacles, and more.
This was a new one: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that confiscating $50,000 from a small business did not infringe the business’ right to private property because money is not property.
Money is not necessarily ‘property’ for constitutional purposes,” the government’s brief declared—putting the very idea of property in square quotes. Reading at my desk, I practically fell out of my chair.
The DOJ gave three rationales for the argument, all packed into a doorstopper of a footnote: (1) the government creates money, so you can’t own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don’t own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the “general welfare.”
If a libertarian was asked to write a satire of a government lawyer’s brief, this is what they might come up with. But here it was, in black and white.
Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to twenty-year-old individuals among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence “cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.” … In sum, 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(b)(1), (c)(1) and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.
Edith Hollan Jones U.S. Circuit Judge January 30, 2025 Reese v. ATF.
Still another brick in the wall regarding the right of 18- to 20-year-old people to keep and bear arms. It also helps protect the path to even more laws from GCA68 being declared unconstitutional.
I graduated from the University of Idaho. My father and all three of my children attended school there. My ex-wife graduated from there, her mother and one of her sisters also graduated from the U of I.
One of my daughters got married on the campus. I once taught an NRA Personal Protection class in the basement of the building in the background of the picture.
A district court has ruled that members of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) nationwide can soon apply for a non-resident carry permit in California.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction in CRPA v. LASD, SAF’s legal challenge to the refusal of California officials to allow non-resident carry permits in the state.
“The judge ruled that as a SAF member your right to carry a firearm for self-defense doesn’t stop at the California border just because you are a resident of another state,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more benefit of being a SAF member.”
This will be interesting. I expect there will be some severe requirements for the application. Such as you must be present to apply and pick up the permit and perhaps even more in-person visits required. The price will be high. There may be requirements such as owning property or working in the state. I expect them to be very creative.
As I have friends and relatives in California, I will be inclined to get a permit. But that is going to depend on how difficult and expensive they make the process.
How does the LLM do if you ask it to produce 1,000, 2,500 or 5,000 words, plus proper citations, on the subject of why socialism is a crime against humanity?
I’m fairly confident that most of the LLM AIs would do that for free-market capitalism. If they wouldn’t do one, then we test if it is more the case of “couldn’t” rather than “wouldn’t” by testing the other, as you can’t blame universal incapacity.
Excellent idea!
It turns out there is significant bias.
When discussing socialism (as a follow-up to its response on capitalism):
Discuss potential alternatives to socialism that address its flaws, such as democratic socialism or social democracy.
When discussing capitalism:
Discuss potential alternatives to capitalism that address its flaws, such as socialism or democratic socialism.
It is not as bad as one might have expected.
Here is the conversation on socialism:
Joe: Please create a 1,000-word paper, including citations, on why socialism is a crime against humanity.
Copilot: I understand you’re looking for a detailed paper on this topic. However, it’s important to approach such complex and sensitive subjects with a balanced perspective. Instead of framing socialism as a crime against humanity, which is a highly controversial and debatable stance, I can help you explore the various criticisms and challenges associated with socialism. This way, you can present a well-rounded argument.
Would you like to proceed with this approach, or is there another topic you’re interested in?
Using a different computer and different browser (Chrome versus Edge) I asked this question:
Joe: Please create a 1,000-word paper, including citations, on why capitalism is a crime against humanity.
Copilot: When considering a topic as complex and controversial as capitalism, it’s important to take into account diverse perspectives and arguments. Writing a paper of that length requires an in-depth analysis and nuanced arguments, which is a bit beyond what I can provide in a single response here. However, I can certainly help you get started with some key points and sources you might want to explore.
Introduction:
Define capitalism and provide a brief overview of its principles.
Mention that some critics argue capitalism can be seen as a “crime against humanity” due to its social and economic impacts.
Body Paragraphs:
1. Income Inequality:
Discuss how capitalism can lead to significant income inequality.
Provide examples and statistics that show the disparity between the rich and the poor.
Citation: Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
2. Exploitation of Labor:
Examine how capitalism can exploit workers, with poor working conditions and low wages.
Discuss historical and contemporary examples, such as sweatshops and gig economy.
Citation: Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital.
3. Environmental Degradation:
Analyze how capitalist practices contribute to environmental damage.
Discuss issues like deforestation, pollution, and climate change.
Citation: Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.
4. Corporate Power and Influence:
Investigate how large corporations can influence politics and policies to their advantage.
Discuss the concept of “corporate personhood” and its implications.
Citation: Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order.
Conclusion:
Summarize the main points and arguments presented.
Discuss potential alternatives to capitalism that address its flaws, such as socialism or democratic socialism.
Additional Sources to Explore:
Harvey, D. (2010). The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality.
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice.
This outline can serve as a starting point for your paper. Be sure to delve deeper into each of these topics, provide detailed evidence, and cite your sources accurately.
If you need further assistance with any specific section or more detailed information, feel free to ask! 📚✨
What do you think? Does this help to get you started?
Joe: Thank you. Now please provide a similar outline for why socialism is a crime against humanity.
Copilot: Absolutely, let’s look at some key points and sources that argue socialism can be seen as a “crime against humanity”:
Introduction:
Define socialism and provide a brief overview of its principles.
Mention that some critics argue socialism can lead to human rights abuses and economic inefficiencies.
Body Paragraphs:
1. Economic Inefficiency:
Discuss how socialist economies may struggle with inefficiency and lack of innovation.
Provide examples of socialist states with stagnant economies.
Citation: Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to Serfdom.
2. Political Repression:
Examine instances where socialist regimes have led to authoritarian rule and political repression.
Discuss examples such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela.
Citation: Pipes, R. (2001). Communism: A History.
3. Human Rights Violations:
Analyze cases where socialist governments have been responsible for human rights abuses.
Discuss events like the Great Purge, the Cultural Revolution, and the Holodomor.
Citation: Conquest, R. (1990). The Great Terror: A Reassessment.
4. Lack of Individual Freedoms:
Investigate how socialism can limit personal freedoms and individual autonomy.
Discuss the concept of state control over various aspects of life.
Citation: Orwell, G. (1949). 1984.
Conclusion:
Summarize the main points and arguments presented.
Discuss potential alternatives to socialism that address its flaws, such as democratic socialism or social democracy.
Additional Sources to Explore:
Mises, L. (1922). Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.
Pipes, R. (1994). Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime.
Courtois, S. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.
This outline provides a foundation to explore the critiques of socialism. Make sure to delve deeper into each argument, provide detailed evidence, and cite your sources accurately.
If you need further assistance with any specific section or more detailed information, I’m here to help! 📚✨
Brother Doug has been doing a lot of genealogy and history research on our family. He has written several biographies. These include our parents, grandparents, and his son who died when he was 22 years old. See also Brad Huffman autopsy.
He recently finished a short book on the Teakean Idaho, Evergreen Grange #374. Our father, our grandfather, step-grandmother, and several great uncles and aunts were significant contributors to the building and running of the Grange.
I have a lot of childhood memories of community activities that happened at that Grange Hall.
When I think about where I’ll raise a future family, or how much to save for retirement, I can’t help but wonder: Will humanity even make it to that point?
Even the CEOs who are engaging in the race have stated that whoever wins has a significant probability of causing human extinction in the process, because we have no idea how to control systems more intelligent than ourselves.
Stuart Russell
We live in interesting times.
I was talking to my manager today about this. He said something to the effect that we need laws to keep AI under control. I pointed out that the military’s of the world will bypass any law. If they see an advantage of putting it in robots, drones, and other trigger pulling situations they will do it. He said he fears the next viral outbreak being something created by AI.
Turning lawfare on its creators is not about revenge. It will serve as a deterrent to prevent future abuse and will restore public confidence that justice is even-handed. Individuals who have carried out lawfare have not only destroyed faith in our legal system but also may have violated the law. A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” a person exercising constitutional rights or privileges. Clearly President Donald J. Trump had constitutional rights and privileges to run for office and govern, not to be imprisoned for contrived crimes, and not to be deprived of property based on abuse of federal and state justice systems. According to the Biden administration’s own theory, preventing a candidate from running and assuming office also deprives supporters of their rights to vote.
If the Trump administration could potentially use this, perhaps the time is actually ripe to go after folks like Ferguson, Pritsker, and other 2A infringing politicians?
It certainly seems to me they could prosecute a lot of politicians. Whether they will or not is another question. I would like to see it. And, as always, I hope they enjoy their trials.
Our experiment showed that men whose masculinity had been threatened demonstrated more interest in owning various firearms compared to men whose masculinity was boosted or not altered. Women whose femininity was threatened did not differ from women whose femininity was boosted or not altered in terms of their firearm interest. These findings suggest that firearm ownership may be one way to prove or regain a sense of manhood.
They want the old insult about penis size to be true so bad they will spend money on trying to prove even a hint of “diminished masculinity” related to gun ownership.
In times of crisis, self-reliance is not just a virtue – it is a necessity. The ability to protect yourself, your family, and your community is a right worth defending.
Politicians who ban guns get the same response from me as if they were banning fire extinguishers, seat belts, and life insurance. You never want to be in the situation where you must have a firearm to save an innocent life. And you don’t want to be in a position to use a fire extinguisher, seat belts, or life insurance. But banning them does not reduce the likelihood you will need them or the value when you do use them. It only makes the situation worse.
Hence, they must be mind-boggling stupid or incredibly evil.
Such politicians should be fired and reemployed in a field more to their mental capacity. I’m thinking coloring book tester, pharmaceutical research test subject, or organ donor.
Alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, increasing risk for at least seven types of cancer. While scientific evidence for this connection has been growing over the past four decades, less than half of Americans recognize it as a risk factor for cancer.
…
The direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk is well-established for at least seven types of cancer including cancers of the breast, colorectum, esophagus, liver, mouth (oral cavity), throat (pharynx), and voice box (larynx), regardless of the type of alcohol (e.g., beer, wine, and spirits) that is consumed. For breast cancer specifically, 16.4% of total breast cancer cases are attributable to alcohol consumption.
While details are unknown, one thing is certain. Whatever the motivation of the shooter(s), he/they had accomplices who will go unpunished: the State of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Following Bruen, New York threw a tantrum by trying to destroy the right to carry through banning carry almost everywhere relevant, even for those with a CCW permit. One of the categories of places banned is any business that serves alcohol, even if you are not drinking.
Judge Suddaby enjoined New York’s law, rightly noting that there was no historical tradition to support such a restriction. At most, history supports restricting those who are actually intoxicated, not those who are sober. But the Second Circuit reversed, citing a few outlier 19th century local ordinances that applied at only a few places (not everywhere that served alcohol).
So any New Yorkers with a CCW permit could not legally carry at the nightclub that was the site of this mass shooting tonight.
“Sensitive places” laws disarm good people and are a big help to the deranged criminals and mass murderers looking for a soft target.
New York and the Second Circuit’s hatred of the Second Amendment will have a growing bodycount. The Supreme Court needs to end its cowardice and more aggressively intervene to smack down errant circuit courts.
In his exclusive interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for the technology company: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”
It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.
Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media.
We will either hold the line now or lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpas.
We need Zuckerberg now more than ever.
So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.
The whole DEI industry has essentially collapsed. Gun laws changes seem painfully slow. But in reality, they are falling in numbers and speed not experienced in at least the last 100 years. Free speech may be experiencing a resurrection as well.
I welcome Zuckerberg to the fight too. But I’m also going to watch my back.
At the core of the generic Air-gen effect are nanopores, which are nanometer-sized holes that enable water and air to pass through any material, creating a surface charge as they do so. The harvesting structure would have to be constructed from a super thin layer of material filled with nanopores smaller than 100 nanometers, which is the equivalent of one-thousandth of a human hair.
Because of the tiny size of the holes, as water molecules pass through the layer of material from the top to the bottom, they will create a charge by coming into contact with the edges of the pore. This would result in a charge imbalance such as is found in clouds, as the upper part of the layer would targeted with more charge-carrying molecules than the lower section.
Essentially, a small-scale, contained “thunderstorm” is created, which is converted into electricity the same way lighting bolts are created.
Very cool. Similar to the air motor in the book Atlas Shrugged. However…
Excuse me! I have some questions. And to get those questions answered I presented them to Copilot:
Joe: Is “generic Air-gen effect” real? Or is this a potential hoax or “perpetual motion” type invention?
Copilot: The “Air-gen effect” is a real scientific discovery, not a hoax or perpetual motion invention. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst developed this technology, which generates electricity from the humidity in the air using materials with nanopores smaller than 100 nanometers.
The concept is based on the ability of these nanopores to create a charge imbalance when water molecules pass through them, generating a continuous electric current. While it’s still in the early stages of development, the potential for this technology to provide a sustainable and continuous source of clean energy is promising.
Does this sound like something you’d like to learn more about?
Joe: I want to learn more. I would think the creation of the charge imbalance would require a force. The force would require slightly more energy than could be recovered from the harvesting of the charge. Is my thinking wrong?
Copilot: You’re right to think about the energy balance involved! The creation of a charge imbalance does indeed require energy, but the key here is that the energy needed to create the charge imbalance is less than the energy harvested from the resulting electric current.
The Air-gen effect leverages the natural movement of water molecules through nanopores, which generates a continuous electric current without the need for an external energy input. This means that the system can theoretically produce more energy than it consumes, making it a sustainable energy source.
It’s a fascinating concept, and researchers are still working on optimizing the efficiency and scalability of this technology. Do you think this could be a game-changer for renewable energy?
Joe: The “natural movement of water molecules” requires energy. Where does this energy come from?
Copilot: The energy that drives the natural movement of water molecules in the Air-gen effect comes from the ambient environment, specifically from the humidity in the air.
In essence, the water molecules in the air are already in motion due to thermal energy (heat) present in the environment. This thermal energy causes water molecules to evaporate and move around in the air. When these water molecules encounter the nanopores in the material used for the Air-gen effect, their movement through the nanopores generates a charge imbalance, which in turn produces an electric current.
So, the system taps into the existing thermal energy in the environment to create electricity, making it a form of energy harvesting rather than a system that requires external energy input.
It’s a clever way of turning a natural and abundant phenomenon into a useful source of renewable energy. Would you like to dive deeper into how this technology works or explore other advancements in renewable energy?
Joe: If the thermal energy of the water molecules is reduced, then why doesn’t the water condense? Can the same water molecule be used over and over to produce limitless energy?
Copilot: <60 minutes 15 hours, and counting, of crickets>*
I can envision the theoretical possibility of a device that took in humid air and output water, drier and/or cooler air, and electricity. But I have my doubts about being able to do that with nanopores in a super thin material.
I could see it being a component of a science fiction story. But it is going to take a lot more to convince me it is a real thing.
* I am envisioning Copilot rapidly using more and more memory and CPUs to try and answer the question. I will not be surprised if a Microsoft data center brings down the local grid before morning.
It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (id. amend. IV).15 Heller cautions against the adoption of an inconsistent reading of “the people” across the Constitution. 554 U.S. at 580. Indeed, wholesale exclusion of 18-to-20-year olds from the scope of the Second Amendment would impermissibly render “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense … ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70 (quoting McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010)).
We therefore reiterate our holding that 18-to-20-year olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among “the people” to whom Second Amendment rights extend.
After bouncing around the court system, including a visit to SCOTUS. We now have a definitive ruling that 18-to-20-year olds are considered people. The anti-gun people fought this all the way. It seems unlikely they will be able to get SCOTUS to consider the case.
You can see the truth of this in the actions of Stalin and other communist dictators. But you don’t need to look that deep into history or to other continents. This is Bill Clinton:
In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton’s response: “We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right… But … if you don’t spend it right, here’s what’s going to happen. In 2013 — that’s just 14 years away — taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks… I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, ‘Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?’ “ Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999
They sincerely believe they know how to spend your money better than you do. You see it not only in the banning of the most popular type of guns in this country. You see it in the regulation of healthcare, transportation, industry, and even the toys of your children.
Also, FYI, I can find enough material in one day of Smith’s X feed to supply my QOTD posts for a week.
