Suicide Pact

Now The Wall Street Journal has joined the bandwagon.

Gun rights need to be protected, but the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact.

Indeed, they do, and it is not. But violating the Second Amendment as a matter of routine, or gutting it as the Progressive-Democrats want to do (background checks? Where would the Progressive-Democrats stop? They refuse to say, they refuse to articulate their limiting principle) certainly would be national suicide.

…those in the gun lobby who claim that denying access to guns from those with a history of mental illness violates individual rights.

This is a cynically offered straw man. No one in the gun lobby argues that denying access to guns from those with a history of mental illness violates the individual rights of that person with that history. Their argument is that the definition of such a history is too vague for practical applicability. More broadly, their argument is that the laws don’t adequately protect the individual rights of those surrounding or otherwise associated with the individual in question.

Overreactive “Professional” Investors

Some folks think Fed President Jerome Powell is “in over his head” in terms of communicating Federal Reserve Bank policies to the general public (read: to “professionals”).

Here’s Krishna Memani, OppenheimerFunds Inc’s Vice Chairman of Investments:

As a central banker, you don’t want to give people the opportunity to interpret things how they want to[.]

This is backwards. The Central Banker—Powell—says what he says, and he does so clearly in today’s improved environment over the last century’s deliberate obfuscation in that era’s misguided attempt to avoid confusion.  It’s on “people”—professional investors—to take Powell at his words and not interpret things “how they want to,” or desperately over-parse them, or look for meanings hidden in backward-playing recordings of his statements

Investors must act only on what he actually says.