Friday, December 31, 2004

 

And furthermore...

While we are at it on gun control, we should note what is well-known to most writers on the subject, that is, that logical argument about the law, the second amendment, natural rights, public safety and all the debate points that usually come into the discussion actually have next-to-nothing to do with the real reasons for efforts at gun registration and gun prohibition. It is a matter of power. It is a matter of control. It is the refusal to accept the ability of the people to say no. If all the arguments were won by the people who want to be armed, the people who want to control would still try to disarm them because that is the only way that they can be assured that they may have their way unhindered. Article like this one are cogent, thorough and persuasive that a populace armed for self-defense is a natural right guarded and preserved in the Constitution. That however will not matter to those who want to rule, or perhaps reign is the better term. They want that degree of control because they fear the time when opposition to their programs arises and they have no way but force to make them happen. Debate is a great part of the process but the winning of arguments does not address how we shall respond to those who want to rule over us whether we want it or not. No matter how good the argument or how skilled the debater, don't expect to convert a lot of the opposition. They did not reason their way to where they are and they will not be reasoned away. In fact, I think that the well-marshalled arguments of Kopel, Polsby, Levinson, Kates, Lott and the rest are more useful in reassuring the faithful than in converting the lost.

 

A fleeting glimpse of reality

Sometimes the actual facts of a matter become so starkly obvious that they cannot but be acknowledged. It seems that the government of New Zealand is choosing not to seek to register firearms because it doesn't work.
The chairman of the Council of licensed Firearms Owners, John Howat, agreed with the decision.

"There's no evidence, anywhere in the world, that registration systems assist police in generally controlling firearms," he said.

"It is incredibly costly. We don't want to go down that track, it's a waste of money."
Can you believe it? Maybe the Australians, Canadians and British will observe and learn. If Canada had looked at the issue that realistically a few years ago they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars that now lie at the end of the tube. Clayton Cramer observes:
I do hope that this isn't a surprise to anyone. People that commit trivial crimes like murder, rape, and robbery, tend to be a bit careless about obeying the really important laws, such as gun registration.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

 

News from the battlefield of education

The notes of a real college professor on the state of American public education are here. The Handle Institute often posts on matters relating to the instruction of the young. We should not hold our breath for those in the failed system to provide a solution. The bureaucrat will always seek to enhance his own significance, even in the face of signal failure. Kim Dutoit's remark is on the money:
Here's the dirty little secret that the public schools don't want you to know: no matter how badly you screw up your own kids' education, they'll still be better-educated young adults than if they'd gone through the public school system.

 

Why not West Virginia?

Perry DeHavilland at Samizdata is looking for a new home in the U.S.
It is now the law that ID cards will be imposed by force in Britain, with the support of the Leaders of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. They have won and as far as I am concerned, the guttering flame of the culture of liberty in Britain just blew out.
He's talking about New Hampshire which I'm sure has a lot of good points but he doesn't really sound enthusiastic. I see there are others suggesting a variety of states. You could do a lot worse than West Virginia, Perry. Montani Semper Liberi.

Friday, December 17, 2004

 

Current developments

It appears that firearms are in the news in a couple of instances. Undaunted by the signal failures of others, the county supervisors of San Francisco, CA have placed a ballot initiative for next year to make the possession of handguns completely illegal there. Sure, that'll work. If you were worried, I forgot to say that the angelic forces for good in society, the police and private security guards are not included in the prohibition. Clayton Cramer covers the matter here and there is the usual good legal background here. Jeff at alphecca.com sums the whole thing up here and here.
Here we go, folks, another city decides to violate the Second Amendment and to deny residents the right to defend themselves from the mutants. If SF has such a high crime rate now, what on Earth makes the city supervisors think that completely disarming the law-abiding will make it any better?

It hasn't worked in Chicago, it hasn't worked in DC, it's a total failure in England and Australia. And showing what complete morons they are, the San Francisco tyrants think that somehow it will be different in their town? Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

And given the liberal make-up of the city, the vote will probably pass.

California already HAS tough gun control regulations in place and that hasn't worked.

And if this ban is enacted, is it even constitutional? Unfortunately, the hyper-activist Ninth Circuit Court will probably rule that it is.

Criminals in San Francisco must already be activating their grass-roots "get out the vote" machine cranked-up! *Sigh*


On the brighter side, just in case you were feeling there was no hope, the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department has affirmed that the Second Amendment describes an individual right. Details here, with a link to the document itself. This may get interesting.


Wednesday, December 15, 2004

 

Fred reads the paper

Fred reads the paper. And perhaps also the handwriting on the wall.

 

We're Famous!

Via Overlawyered.com we learn that West Virginia continues to excel in one area, a plaintiff-friendly court system. Golly, #4 in the whole country! Here is the press release. The whole report, complete with quote from former Justice Richard Neely is here (requires Acrobat Reader). A quote:
West Virginia is the only state where people can collect cash awards in these suits even without showing that there is a reasonable probability that they will become ill and there is no medical benefit to the check-ups. Also cash is awarded to the plaintiffs to use as they please. The award is not reserved for medical monitoring purposes.
In September 2004, DuPont was forced to settle a medical monitoring claim class action even though the plaintiffs offered no evidence that the substance at issue — C8, which is a by-product of Teflon production — is even dangerous or has the potential to cause any ill health effects. DuPont is spending $70 million up front, which includes funds for a panel to see if there is a link to health effects — something the plaintiffs generally have to show before filing such a suit. If so, DuPont will spend up to $235 million more on a medical monitoring program. The plaintiffs attorneys are guaranteed $22.6 million regardless of what the study shows.

While you're at it, be sure to check out the Loony Lawsuits link. I really liked this one.

Monday, December 13, 2004

 

Religious topics

I am not sure why I am finding material of a religious nature and particularly material of a Roman Catholic nature lately. Perhaps it is a byproduct of the holiday season. Continuing on the religious training of children posted on earlier, this writer calls on the natural law basis of the Roman Church to explain the necessity of education for the good of civilization.
We find ourselves in a time when religious belief is considered a menace to democracy. A series of judicial decisions elevated a Jeffersonian obiter dictum on the wall of separation between church and state into a dogma, interpreting it to mean that the state must be forever vigilant against the encroachments of religion. A constitutional stricture against the establishment of a state religion was read as the need to disestablish religion and so privatize religious belief that it had no place in the public square. Moreover, what until yesterday was the common morality of the nation is now seen as the arcane deliverance of a religious sect. School children must be protected against the display of prohibitions against theft, lying, fornication and murder, the Decalogue now seen as a set of rules that some few might choose to accept but which have no claim on the wider society.
It would seem that prohibitions against theft, lying etc. have to be more than obscure "values" if they are to be transferred to the next generation.
It is absurd to think of the free individual as an autonomous unit, naked before the state. Even Justice Kennedy knows where babies come from. They are born into families without whose nurture they would not survive a day. This dependence, materially, lasts for nearly two decades; spiritually, it marks us for life. Man is a political animal, but he is first of all, and essentially, a family animal His very existence depends upon the family. Political theory has toyed with the idea that states are formed when individuals come over various points of the horizon and converge on Philadelphia. Doubtless they are all feral, raised by wolves, as fit as Romulus to found a city. Save as a heuristic device, contract theory is absurd, and even as a device it is pernicious. Because people come to think it is more than a device and take from it the false assumption that our original position is as fully constituted individuals, without histories, without a culture, without families.


At the very least, these remarks can remind us, as we all enjoy what family we have, of how much it means to be a part of a family and to enjoy a heritage that was passed, not in a school or a church, but around the hearth and the table.

 

Hyperdictionary

On the order of Wikipedia is Hyperdictionary, an online dictionary and thesaurus. Looks pretty good.

 

Spirituality

It is a cause of continuing interest at the Handle Institute how often people acknowledge the value of religion, ethics, morals and systems of values in general. I remember hearing in a sales meeting how customers want to deal with companies with "values". Here is an article about how to nurture spirituality in your child. It is with the specifics and definite elements that they find occasion to balk. I can certainly agree that the pursuit of the spiritual brings life to bloom. I am not so sure we must avoid so studiously any specific content in the practice. C. S. Lewis said,
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

 

Bishop Sheen

For those who think that it is a novelty of the Twenty-first Century to have religion rear its head in public, here is an article about Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who outdrew Frank Sinatra and Milton Berle on TV in 1952. I think I heard Berle quoted saying, "If I have to lose, I'd rather it would be to Him." I remember seeing him (him, the Bishop, not Him from the Berle quote) on our little black-and-white set with his flowing robes drawing on a chalkboard as he spoke. One of my professors said that he had the eyes of an actor. Notice the photo of the TV Guide cover here. He radiated concentration and genius.
Life Is Worth Living was given a Tuesday night spot where it went up against Milton Berle on one channel and Frank Sinatra on another (known in the industry as an “obituary spot”). No fear: Sheen knocked them out. By April 1952, he was on the cover of Time magazine. He won the 1952 Emmy Award for “Most Outstanding Television Personality,” beating out giants like Jimmy Durante, Edward R. Murrow, Lucille Ball, and Arthur Godfrey. (In his predictably witty acceptance remarks, he said, “I wish to thank my four writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”) A nationwide poll of radio and television editors named him TV’s “Man of the Year.” Vice President Nixon thanked him for his “outstanding contributions to a better understanding of the American way of life.” President Eisenhower invited him to the White House.



 

Sermon for Doubters

Donald Sensing has today's sermon up. It deals with the question of John the Baptist from prison, commonly used to illustrate the failure of doubt. Mr. Sensing helps us understand that it may not be the failure we have been led to believe. I like this part:
"Life," goes an old saying, "is what happens while you're making other plans and dreaming other dreams." Most of could recount a litany of broken dreams, of plans never carried out, expectations never met and goals not reached. Some of us came this close to attaining them and then watched them brush past us like strangers in a crowd. Maybe we thought there would be other days, not knowing then there would be no other days. A tragedy? I don't know.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

 

Hope springs in Great Britain

In the U.S. support for firearms rights and self-defense has always been strongest among the citizens at large and among the police, who understand that they are at best able to serve, but not often to protect. It has been weakest among politicians, lawyers and judges. The situation appears to be the same in Great Britain, but glimmers of hope are breaking that the British may return to seeing self-defense as one of the "rights of Englishmen".
While you visit, notice the Gadsden flag on the wall in one of the photos in this post. The snake was a well-chosen symbol for early American flags because snakes are always non-agressive. West Virginians and other mountain folk know that nobody ever gets run down by a snake and attacked. For the most part, snakes are shy creatures who only want to go about their business unmolested. They only attack when intruded upon. Apt.

 

Journalists

Speaking of journalists, an interesting discussion of exactly what that means and exactly who is qualified to call themself one is going on here. A clipping:
What some people seem to forget is that "the press" is only a metaphor for journalism. By giving freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech, the probable "intent" of the framers of the First Amendment and their probable "public meaning" was to recognize the freedom to publish without prior restraint and with broad (though not absolute) protection against later suit or punishment. If I'm right, then the "press" phrase of the First Amendment doesn't give more rights to journalists than to any other profession or sort of people who publish. It provides protection for whoever uses a publishing press, not a protection for a profession, like journalism. (To the extent that any states deviate from this basic First Amendment approach by privileging journalists only, they are acting unwisely in my opinion and contrary to the idea of the First Amendment.)



 

Birthday wishes

Clayton Cramer is 48 today. He is a writer who, as neither politician nor journalist(in the official sense)has contributed tremendously to the cause of firearms rights and particularly concealed-carry reform all over the U.S. with books, columns and a popular blog. Middle age is the time when all of us, should we be spared so long, must pass from youth, when everything is possible, to age, when possibilities, uh, taper off, as it were. Older people are more fun and probably more useful after they get over trying to be great and start trying just to be good to those around them. His meditations on the day are worth reading here.
There are also good posts on self-defense in Great Britain, and an extraordinary woman in history whose story needs to be told more often.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

 

Kant and Transcendental Thinking

A new article on the influence of Kant on von Mises the economist is here. The article includes an interesting comparison of the different methods of investigating cultural and physical phenomena.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

 

What's a conservative?

Charley Reese has a new article up at Lewrockwell.com. It's about what makes a conservative. Some people think they know and don't. I say Mr. Reese is pretty close. We should not mistake plainness of language for shallowness of thought. Here's his take on what makes a conservative:
So, let me explain what a conservative is. A conservative believes that not only should the Supreme Court strictly construe the Constitution, but so should the president, the House, the Senate, governors, mayors and everybody else. A conservative does not approve of wars, except in defense of the land and the people, and only upon a declaration of war by both houses of Congress. A war to liberate somebody else from a nasty government is unconstitutional, illegal and immoral.

There's something here for the religious too:
A conservative Christian believes that his own soul is not imperiled if other people down the street decide to do some sinning. A conservative Christian recognizes that he is commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick and dying. He is not commanded to shift this responsibility to government. He is not commanded to judge other people's lives and to regulate their behavior. A conservative Christian recognizes that something does not have to be illegal in order for him to refrain from doing it.

The whole thing is worth reading.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?