Sunday, September 25, 2016

California Gunmageddon

The deadline has come and gone.  No official word yet on the actual count, and apparently the 'counters' on the sponsoring web site are incorrect. 

I could go through the tactical blunders with this petition drive, but I'll hold off for now.  Suffice it to say that I was involved early on, providing legal advice and suggestions to the organizer.  Then the NRA got involved, and I got shut out.  That, in itself, doesn't bother me - more resources (which I don't have) are good, and too many cooks, etc. 

What does bother me is that they didn't play dirty.  By 'dirty' I don't mean encouraging illegal methods for gathering signatures.  I do mean using every trick available, and within the bounds of California Election Code, to get ink on the petitions. 

Opportunities for thousands of signatures were lost, and the opportunities were lost early on.  Since the clock was against us to start with, that may have been a fatal blunder.  I guess we'll know over the course of the coming weeks whether or not they nailed their own coffin shut.  Me?  I'm not playing ball with these new laws.  De Leon, Hancock, Brown, and the rest can go play in traffic for all I care. 

Friday, April 29, 2016

Begging to Create Unjust Law

Fairness in the Law

Came across this "op-ed" today, which Gavin "Buddy of Shrimp Boy Chow" Newsom is using to further his statist disarmament agenda.  http://safetyforall.bsd.net/page/content/bob-weiss-op-ed/

Is the Law, at least ideally, supposed to treat all men and women equally, regardless of gender, race, religion, political affiliation, and most importantly, occupation?  The last category is the proverbial sore thumb.  You see, Gavin is an elected official, and as such he has a security detail. 

So, while Gavin Newsom will seek to disarm every single law-abiding citizen in California , in concert with ongoing efforts in the California legislature, Gavin will not be giving up his armed guards. 

That's right.  Gavin, because he has somehow been deemed "special", will still be adequately protected by people with guns.  The rest of the population will be at the mercy of 911.  The proposed laws Newsom pushes force an unfair set of circumstances on everyone.  The political elite maintain their security details, the proletariat is left to the good graces of overworked and understaffed police forces. 

Logically, this makes no sense.  Criminals perpetrate crime, regardless of the law.  Those who don't want to break the law will in turn be squeezed into a smaller and smaller box, wherein the textual liberty they are guaranteed takes on a hollow meaning.  Meanwhile, criminals will continue to operate outside the law, sometimes punished, sometimes unpunished. 

More bluntly, the op-ed demonstrates the sheer lack of critical thought by our opponents.  If a bad person does something bad, then we must restrict, punish, castigate, incarcerate, and otherwise restrict the bad actor.  Laws which ensnare and punish both the good and the bad are not sensible.  They restrict those without evil motive, and they are ignored by those with evil motive.  Given the above, please explain how Newsom's proposal creates the desired outcomes. 

There is no impact on the outcomes.  Gavin will create a multi-tiered "security" privilege (he gets security and guns, we get nothing), inherently unfair and unjust.  At the same time, with outcomes unaltered by any significant margin, Gavin et al gain advantage and power over the non-elites, to further impose their will upon the masses.  "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" grossly underestimates the problem.  The reality is more akin to "You can vote yourself into the Gulag, but you can't vote yourself out of the Gulag."

And all of this ignores the liberty argument - that is fodder for another day.  Stopping at the idea of creating unjust laws, we are reminded that men and women, far smarter and better than I, have repeatedly reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all.  An unjust law is oppression wrapped in the cloak of democratic mob rule, stripped of republican safeguards (please note the intentional small 'r') put in place in the late 18th century. 

You, dear voter, ignore these safeguards at your own peril.  I will not vote for the Gulag.  I will not vote to infringe on others.  I will not vote to punish the good for the acts of the bad to comfort a grieving, misguided, and exploited parent.  I will, until the day I draw my last breath, accept that life is dangerous and unpredictable when accompanied by maximum liberty.  I will also accept that life is more dangerous and unpredictable when accompanied by mob rule and the destruction of liberty.  Do not be fooled.  There is no security in the State apparatus, only false promises.

Friday, March 4, 2016

The past year or so has seen many pro-rights and anti-rights developments. 

The California Legislature, once again, is showing it's collective indulgence for the moronic wit hthe current crop of bills.  I won't even bother to list them, but let's just say that they want just about every semi-auto rifle out there registered as an assault weapon. 

The intellectually deficient Lori Hancock from Berkeley wants to take any magazine that *might* be able to hold more than 10 rounds, i.e. blocked and sealed 10/30 and 10/20's.  I'm not sure what other foolishness Sacramento is working on, but I'll stop with those and spare you.

My solution is really simple.  If the legislature passes, and the governor signs, any of these anti-freedom, anti-rights, bigotry-induced Bills, engage in acts of counter-intimidation.  Power submits only to greater power, and that submission rests on fear of the greater power.  The same way the Legislature has made you afraid to be a gun owner, the same way past legislatures made people afraid to admit they were gay, or afraid because they had the wrong skin pigmentation. 

Extreme?  Not at all.  We tried the tools our ancestors left us.  We've tried the ballot box, the soap box, and even the jury box.  None have worked.  What boxes do we have left?  Or would you rather just live in a cage, take on the chains like a Good Little Slave, and beg for scraps?   Multiply -you- by almost 40 million Californians.  Should a handful of simpletons in Sacramento be allowed to enslave 40 million human beings?  Or would it be more feasible to cull the bad apples out of Sacramento?  100 ruined lives or 40 million ruined lives?  It's a moral and ethical quagmire, but one I suspect we should all enter. 

At some point, each of us will be called upon to make a decision, live with that decision, and explain that decision to our friends, neighbors, spouses, and children.  We might even have the chance to explain it to a jury.  I think it will be easier to make the decision having already weighed the moral and ethical implications of the available choices.