In Summation...

     Further commentary is unnecessary.

Quickies: Muscle Is As Important As Message

     Many gun-rights advocates found the late Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the famous Heller case to be bittersweet at best. Justice Scalia affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, which is supremely important. However, the good Justice made a critical mistake toward the end of his opinion by sanctioning “reasonable regulations” on firearms ownership by state and local governments. That word reasonable has been the bane of rights advocates for many decades. No two persons agree on what it means.

     But wait: there’s more! Supreme Court decisions sound…well…supreme. But in practice they have only as much de facto authority as other jurisdictions, and other levels of government, show them. The executive branch of the federal government has ignored Supreme Court decisions about firearms rights in several important ways. State and municipal governments have flagrantly ignored such decisions when it suited them – and in Scalia’s “reasonable regulations” language, anti-gun states have found the golden key to denying their residents’ rights without even admitting that they’re doing so.

     If a regulatory regime is instituted with the power to decide who may own a gun of some type, then there will be a “process” of some sort for making such decisions. That process will take a nonzero amount of time to reach its decisions. Who decides what factors may be included in the decision making? Who decides how long that process may be protracted? Who decides what is “reasonable?”

     When I thought to apply for a pistol permit two years ago, the police sergeant who had been made the point man for applications in my county told me not to hold my breath while I wait, albeit not in so many words. What he did say, as accurately as I can remember it at this remove, was that the wait would be at least eight months and had been known to exceed that. And by the way, the permit-process fees, which totaled to more than $100, were non-refundable.

     That police sergeant wasn’t kidding. A dear friend who applied for a handgun permit three years ago is still waiting for a decision. Reasonable? You decide.

     It gets worse yet. The Supreme Court has no way to enforce the decisions it makes. Enforcement authority was denied to it deliberately, as a Constitutional constraint on its effective power. So even if the Heller decision were a flat denial of all regulatory power to the states and municipalities, the Court would still have to deal with being ignored by other jurisdictions and levels of government. There’s no effective penalty for it.

     If there’s a way out of this maze – that is, a way that doesn't involve hanging the majority of those in high office – I haven’t found it yet, and not for lack of effort.

     Delay is the deadliest form of denial. – C. Northcote Parkinson

Quickies: The Militarization Of America’s Police Forces

     Alex over at Ammo.Com has invited my attention to this compendious, very detailed piece on the subject. I was toying with the idea of condensing it, but that would strip it of much of its virtue. If you’re interested in the topic, please read the whole thing. It’s more than worth your time.

     Ammo.Com has an extensive set of essays online in its Resistance Library. Read a few. You’ll soon understand perfectly why I’ve allowed Ammo.Com to have an ad at previously ad-free Liberty’s Torch.

F. O. G. - Fear of Guns

Many people have this dread disease - which is made worse by 'statistics' that bolster their beliefs.

Instead of the truth - that possession of gun is negatively correlated with murder.

For those whose understanding of math is a little shaky, a negative correlation is one in which, as one factor declines, the other goes up.

Like this one.

F. O. G. doesn't apply to ALL guns.

Not the GOOD kind of guns, of course.

• Those that nestle in the hips of high-priced security guards protecting the celebrities or politicians.
• Those that keep nutcases from pursuing the Elite into their homes, offices, or vacation grounds.
• Those that protect the celebrities from having physical contact with the Proles - or even asking for an autograph.
• Those that allow the Elite to wear expensive clothes and jewelry in public places.
• Those that keep them - and their families -  from being kidnapped.

No, these would be guns owned by:

• Off-duty cops, who are never truly off-duty.
• Domestic violence victims, after the last beating occurred during the time between the first punch and the time the cops showed up.
• Small business owners or their employees, depositing the day's cash in the bank after hours.
• Night-shift workers - often women - nurses, bartenders, waitresses, gas station attendants.
• People living in rural areas, more than 1/2 hour away from armed protection.

You know, the kind of people who don't need high-powered guns. Who would be able to hold off an attacker with a little 'lady' gun that could be tucked in a purse. With a gun lock on it. And biometric ID that keeps the gun from being used by anyone else. Inside a gun safe with a combination lock.

Unloaded.

Yessir, a totally SAFE situation.

Except for the victim.

I found this via an Ace of Spades mention. It's the 1st person account of how a reporter tried to buy a gun - QUICK - as a way of making it clear to the rubes just why we need gun control.

He wasn't able to actually buy one - for reasons that would appear obvious. But, not to him - he immediately comes up with alternative scenarios that PROVE that gun shops are Big Meanies Who Hate Journalists - for NO reason whatsoever.

You decide.

WARNING: The Stupid is so strong in this piece, that it might just get past your doorstop, invade your living spaces, and enstupify you, turning you into a Progressive Zombie.

You have been warned.

Did Texans get out-foxed by anti-gunners?

 

I can't believe this development never even crossed my mind. Guess I'm just not as devious as I thought I was.

Creating children vs. protecting them

Thanks to a post a few days ago at Western Rifle Shooters, which revealed the Nanny-Statist mentality to me in a whole new way, I reacquainted myself with the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" four step gun-safety program. Here's where I discuss the UK's "Stay Safe," guncrime safety program. All the pertinent links can be found below the YouTube video.

Quickies: RKBA And Armed Guards

     “There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other eleven?” – gun-runner “Yuri Orlov,” played by Nicolas Cage in the movie Lord of War

     It’s likely to be a very busy day, in which I’m all but completely away from this infernal device – have to squander the vast wealth amassed via the new button, y’know – so I hope this will serve for now.

     This article notes one of the ironies of the weapons-rights contretemps:

     Senate Democrats gathered Thursday on the steps of the Capitol surrounded by about a dozen armed guards to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.

     The officers from the U.S. Capitol Police, who carried sidearms, were in addition to the regular detail paroling the Capitol ground due the large number of elected officials attending the event, according to a officer on the scene.

     Frequently enough, weapons-rights activists will ask, sarcastically, “After the gun control measures you’ve proposed are in place, will you disarm your bodyguards, Senator?” No, the question is never answered, at least not with any degree of candor. But another question of greater importance is never even asked: “Why, Senator, do you have armed guards?”

     An armed guard is a man with a gun, not a man with a shield. He’s highly unlikely to take the bullet for his protectee. Indeed, he doesn’t protect his protectee in any sense of the word. His function is deterrence: to frighten potential attackers away with the presumed probable consequences of their intended actions.

     But deterrence, as I’ve written before, is an economic concept. It assumes ab initio that there is some maximum price the putative attacker is willing to pay, and that if you can make the price greater than that, he will refrain from attacking. The use of an armed guard implicitly assumes that the attacker’s death is a higher price than he would be willing to pay.

     But this is not always so. Consider a few well publicized mass shootings: Columbine; Sandy Hook; Anders Breivik; Jared Lee Loughner; Aaron Alexis; Charlie Hebdo. In all these cases, the perpetrator was obviously willing to die if before doing so he could kill a few others.

     If you were sufficiently prominent to keep an armed guard, would you feel that the death of a potential assassin is a sufficient recompense for your life? If not, then why keep an armed guard? Why not simply don the best bulletproof vest you can afford and leave it at that?

     More to the point: In a world awash in guns – see the quote at the head of this piece – and in which psychotics and sociopaths are known to walk abroad unrestrained, what possible argument is there that “gun control,” however defined, could or would save anyone’s life?

     Food for thought.

Quickies: Those Maddening Christians!

     The Democrats are pissed. The mass murder in Charleston isn’t inspiring the necessary outrage required for new gun-control legislation. Where’s the crisis they were hoping for? You can practically hear them whining “What’s wrong with those people?”

     You can count on Muslims. Execute a Muslim terrorist and Muslims go on a worldwide rampage. Hell, publish a few cartoons of Muhammad and they’ll give you all the rioting and carnage you could want. But Christians? Expect Christians to get uppity over an atrocity perpetrated against them? Please!

     Democrats spent the weekend trying to get the focus back on Obama and their agenda, where they think it belongs. Congresswoman Donna Edwards on Fox News Sunday lamented that it would be a shame if all that came out of the Congress after this event was “a moment of silence,” while on Howard Kurtz’s Media Buzz, Joe Trippi lamented at the unlikelihood of any legislation coming from this.

     And while the Sunday hosts were uncomfortable directly addressing concepts of Christianity (even as they broadcast the church service at Emanuel), they too tried to turn the topic to politics with the family members who were their big “gets” for the day as interview subjects.

     But it was to no avail. “Today is not about politics,” came the firm answer in one form or another from all of them. And while the families of the murdered Charleston Christians meant it for the glory of God, it was unintentionally directly opposed to the agenda of Barack Obama.

     That’s from the congregation of a black church, Gentle Reader. A church where a white racist gunned down nine innocent people who had come there to pray. When I wrote in 2007:

     If there's a central irony here, it would be this: despite everything, the great majority of American blacks are devout Christians who strive with all their might and main to live according to their faith. If you're a white Christian, used to the tenor of the religious services that white Christians normally attend, you'd be blown away by the fervor of a service at a Southern Baptist or Church of God in Christ meeting. There's no hypocrisy there: these folks are passionate Christians who really mean it, in all particulars.

     How much greater an injustice could we do than to group these good and gentle people with the thugs who exploit black class privileges to the hilt, cynically and ruthlessly, to the detriment of all of American society? But the thugs and grievance-mongers have their race's microphone; it's they from whom and about whom we hear. There's no redress for it except that the privileges themselves should be withdrawn, leaving blacks and whites equals before the law and the opinions of their fellow men. Yet that is the exact opposite of the stance of American left-liberals.

     ...these are the people I had in mind.

     Honor their generosity of spirit. You won’t find it in many other venues.