Category Archives: politics

Rifles and the 2nd Amendment

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday editorial, AR-15 Rifles and the Constitution, is centered on the potential for the Supreme Court to take up the question of whether AR-15s, and semi-automatic rifles in general, are protected by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. My commentary here is centered on Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, who wrote the 4th Circuit’s en banc opinion upholding a Maryland law that bans the sale and possession of “assault weapons.” He wrote that such rifles

fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.

He’s both factually wrong on this, and he, like activist judges before and alongside him, distort the 2nd Amendment’s protections to reinterpret that Amendment to say what he wants it to say rather than what it actually says. Here’s the actual text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wilkinson’s factual error: AR-15s and the like are not at all military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations. They were developed around the same time as the Army’s then-new M-16, but the latter was designed for full automatic use, whereas the AR-15s of the industry were designed explicitly for civilian use in civilian environments and are wholly incapable of (full) automatic operation. They require a brand new, subsequent, trigger pull in order to fire a second round—it’s a new trigger pull for each individual round that’s fired. The only automation in the sequence is the same as with any other semi-automatic firearm (pistols, for instance): it automatically chambers the next round.

Now for Wilkinson’s cynical redefinition reinterpretation of what the Amendment says. The amendment says in so many words—and in only those words—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There is not a syllable in that bar, not the veriest minim of a pen stroke, that gives the government any authority at all to say what our needs are in our keeping and bearing Arms. Wilkinson’s writing is nothing more than a power grab for government and an attempt to amend our Constitution from the bench by an activist judge.

But Wilkinson wasn’t done.

Compared to a handgun, the AR-15 is heavier, longer, harder to maneuver in tight quarters, less readily accessible in an emergency, and more difficult to operate with one hand[.]

This is wholly irrelevant and only cynically offered in his effort to rewrite our 2nd Amendment from his august bench. To repeat: Wilkinson, nor any other judge, has any authority to tell us what our needs are and to presume to limit us to those judge-manufactured needs.

On the other hand, Wilkinson’s entire argument in that last is an argument for legal keeping and bearing Uzis and machine pistols: those weapons are most assuredly lighter, shorter, easer to maneuver in tight quarters, more readily accessible in an emergency, and easier to operate with one hand than those judge-hated rifles.

This is an appellate decision that badly needs reversal by the Supreme Court and a stern admonition by that Court for judges who persist in entertaining such quibbles and outright distortions of our Constitution.

Irrelevant

Posted on by
Reply

Or it should be. Biden administration folks, on the way out the door, are jumping to employment at the special interest groups and lobbyists who influenced their decisions while they were in office, and they’re doing it at a higher rate than prior administrations. For instance:

Even though Trump has vowed to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s climate agenda, these relationships will be maintained and could be strengthened as former federal employees under the current administration go to work for climate groups that will continue to lobby the agencies in support of the activists’ preferred policies.

Not necessarily.

If the incoming Trump administration personnel are true to the terms of their selection for nomination, and if the kitchen cabinet DOGE group, with their goal of reducing the size of the Federal government work force (among other goals), has sufficient influence in Congress, those lobbyists and special interest groups should have little influence, especially with fewer bureaucrats available to be…lobbied…and so easier to keep under control by their government bosses.

In an ideal operation, they should be irrelevant altogether. Especially, they should be ignored if they’re employing ex-Biden administration officials, given those worthies’ utterly failed, damaging even, policies.

Go Ahead On

Posted on by
Reply

A person asked MarketWatch whether it would be all right to wear a MAGA hat to work, given that some coworkers had worn Kamala pins to work. Quentin Fottrell’s response was weak. He began with this:

You may be seeking likeminded coworkers, but you could end up creating division instead.

Not at all. Any division associated with wearing the hat or those Kamala pins is “created” solely by the political hysterics who manufacture objection to anything they don’t personally approve.

Then he added this, after a long dissertation on matters only tangentially related:

For you, a MAGA hat could mean more secure borders, but to someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum, it could represent an anti-immigration stance. Similarly, for you it may represent Trump’s survival after he was grazed by a would-be assassin’s bullet, but to a coworker it could bring to mind that the president-elect is, whether you agree with the verdict or not, a convicted felon.

That’s Fottrell’s—and those “others'”—dependence on the Left’s Newspeak Dictionary definition, and his projection of that definition onto the questioner. The actual definition, from American English dictionaries is simply Make America Great Again. Despite Fottrell’s claim, the hat and the slogan mean only support for Trump and for America, neither more nor less. Characterizations of Trump based on that, it bears repeating, are merely figments of the imaginations of political hysterics.

Then Fottrell closed with this:

Don’t jeopardize your paycheck or workplace harmony. You would miss either one after it’s gone.

The former, maybe, if there are actual employer repercussions, which would be illegal, whether or not resisted. Fottrell misunderstood the latter though: the existence of the question demonstrates that the harmony already is absent.

The questioner should go ahead on and wear the hat. On the other hand, it’s foolish to be provocative for provocation’s sake. Maybe the questioner could stick to Trump-supporting jewelry on a scale similar to those Kamala pins or use a Trump-supporting coffee mug.

RFK, Jr, and Vaccines

Posted on by
1

Robert F Kennedy, Jr, the HHS Secretary nominee, has a strong reputation as an anti-vaccine…person. That reputation may or may not be justified; he is skeptical of them. Related to that, his reputation for opposing to GLP-1 drugs also may or may not be justified. However, taking the particular case of those GLP-1 drugs, Kennedy’s actual position is obscured by this bit of journalist editorial foolishness:

[H]e thinks Americans should eat healthier and exercise to lose weight. That’s fine as far as it goes. But neither exercise nor dietary changes will cure diabetes, and hormonal changes make it difficult for severely obese patients to lose weight without medical interventions.

Both diet and exercise are Critical Items for the health of all of us, and particularly so for diabetics. These won’t cure diabetes? I’m aware of no one who claims they do. There is, though, a rapidly growing anecdotal body of evidence that changes in diet—particularly regarding carbohydrate intake in general and grains more specifically—do in fact beneficially alter individuals’ hormonal environment and mitigate, sometimes eliminate, the effects of diabetes. Those especially morbidly obese may well still need drugs, potentially of the GLP-1 variety, after having improved their diet and exercise regimens.

Or reducing/eliminating carbs, including grains, may not have any general population effect. Government bureaucrats with medical degrees need to get out of the way of science and let the research proceed to confirmation or refutation.

Is diabetes curable by diet and exercise? Probably not, but the metabolic health outcomes cannot be ignored by serious medically-oriented scientists. On the other hand, journalist editorial writings, especially when done completely absent any presentation of data supporting editors’ claims, can be ignored. And yes, that includes editors’ skepticism regarding political nominees whose positions might differ from the editors’.

“Numbers Under the Hood”

Posted on by
Reply

David Plouffe is a highly talented politician and political advisor, and he was a top aide to the Harris campaign. He says the cardinal sin of the Progressive-Democratic Party (my term, not Plouffe’s) this time around was in not having a primary to select a replacement for Joe Biden in the just concluded campaign and election.

Leave aside his eliding the fact that Party already had eschewed primaries early last winter when they actively blocked primary challengers to Biden, allowing even a token challenge only ‘way late in the primary season.

The more important part of Plouffe’s claim is this:

When I got in, it was the first time I saw the actual numbers under the hood. … [D]emographically, young voters across the board—Hispanic voters, Black voters, Asian voters—were in really terrible shape.

Young voters, those Hispanic, black, and Asian voters were in terrible shape. That was because they were switching in large percentages, and in smaller but significant percentages, away from Party and toward the Republican Party and Republican and Conservative candidates.

What utter oblivious arrogance. What deep contempt for us American citizens. Wait, a reader might say. He meant the polling figures, that’s what he meant.

No, he didn’t. Words are this talented politician’s and advisor’s stock in trade. If he’d meant that, he would have said that. Instead, he said what he said, and that’s what he so clearly meant.

This is Party’s arrogant contempt for us, and we need to be thoroughly wary of it in the next several elections.