Tag Archives: freedom

Gun Rights vs Gun Controls

Posted on by
Reply

In a Sunday Wall Street Journal piece about red flag laws as a means of gun control, Zusha Elinson asked whether there are any (other) measures that could unify gun rights and gun control supporters.

I say there are none.  Full stop.

Gun rights supporters want the 2nd Amendment honored as it’s written. That’s it, and it’s that simple.

Gun control supporters, though, don’t care about the 2nd Amendment, except to the extent they’re willing to go to the trouble of repealing it rather than simply ignoring it. This is demonstrated by a couple of things central to their position.

One is their demand to dictate our purpose in having this or that weapon—”Why does anyone need an assault weapon” and “You don’t need that for defense” and “You don’t need that at all.”

The other is their flat refusal to identify their limiting principle on their controls. Where would they stop? What natural condition in our Constitution would set a limit? Gun control supporters refuse to say; they just natter on about “just this sensible control,” or “just that sensible control,” or “common sense controls” generally.

And, of course, it’s their common sense, not anyone else’s.

Concerning Elinson’s main thesis, red flag laws allow authorities to seize, ostensibly temporarily, firearms from people someone has accused of being threats.

The problem with red flag laws is that they have no protections against the flag being raised falsely because the complainer has an axe to grind; or a grudge to push; or someone is oversensitive or overreacting, vis. a grade school teacher who doesn’t want to hear little Sally talking about granddad’s pistol so the teacher denounces granddad; or….

Nor are there any mechanisms beyond pretty words for returning confiscated weapons to the owner once the false flag is identified or the legitimately raised flag’s concern satisfied.

And this: they leave no means of protection for anyone else in the household from which the weapons have been confiscated. Those members are left completely defenseless.

Those last two are consistent with (though by themselves not dispositive of) gun control advocates’ desire to disarm us.

Yewbetcha

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Clarence Thomas, on the matter of judicial precedent, as quoted by Myron Magnet in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” Justice Thomas observes in [Franchise Tax Board v] Hyatt. He has said elsewhere: “I think that the Constitution itself, the written document, is the ultimate stare decisis.”

What he said.

Trade Wars are Taxing

Posted on by
Reply

Indeed, they are, and the one the People’s Republic of China has been inflicting on us for years is especially so.  For the duration of the PRC’s economic war—of which its trade “war” is just one campaign—they’ve been conducting cyber espionage, stealing our intellectual property, extorting technology transfer as a condition of doing business inside the PRC, demanding government-approved backdoors into our companies’ core software as another condition of doing business there, even poisoning the powdered milk, pet food, and plywood they sell to us.

I sympathize with Farmer Blake Hurst and his fellows, but the sad fact is that no war is bloodless for either side, and often the winner suffers, in the near term, the greatest damage and casualties.  Beyond that simple fact, too, is this: the damage done Hurst, et al., is done by the PRC with its assault on our economy, it is not done by our resisting that assault.

So I ask: what’s the alternative? What would Hurst—and Progressive-Democrat naysayers (of which Hurst is not at all one)—have us do instead?

What if we lose this economic war?  How well does anyone think it would work out for us were the PRC to win and so to dominate?  What does anyone see as the benefit of a dominant PRC dictating terms to us?  Demanding not the transfer of our factories to them, but the transfer of our intellectual property and our technology to them?

Great Britain’s Retreat from Liberty

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps they’ve been routed by the forces of Government Knows Better.

This incident occurred last January, but there’s no evidence since that the Brits—their government, anyway; there are pockets of concern, as this incident also indicates—have regained their spine.

A man has been fined after refusing to be scanned by controversial facial recognition cameras being trialled by the Metropolitan Police.
The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods.

Here’s Detective Chief Superintendent Ivan Balhatchet, Scotland Yard’s lead for facial recognition:

The technology used in Romford forms part of the Met’s ongoing efforts to reduce crime in the area, with a specific focus on tackling violence.
As with all previous deployments the technology was used overtly.

That’s utterly disingenuous.  Being open about dragooning citizens to give up their privacy for the convenience of Government does not at all mitigate the fact of being forced to surrender individual privacy to Government for no reason other than that Government is…curious.

A man declined to be tracked by a warrantless government, and he was punished by that government for his effrontery.  Never mind that warrants and the requirement to have them were invented by the English centuries ago.

A Ban on Facial Recognition

Posted on by
Reply

San Francisco is about to ban the use of facial recognition by city agencies.

I agree with the sentiment.

However, good luck enforcing this sort of ban. There’s also a general ban on lying under oath, but in the end, all perjury laws can do is attach liability to the lie; they can’t prevent the lying. The primary difference is that lying under oath is easier to detect than is using facial recognition, and so the ban on lying under oath is easier to enforce.

What’s needed more is the ability to detect the use of facial recognition.  Banning it and applying sanction to its illegal use, whether shaking the city’s finger very firmly at the misbehaver or applying heavy fines and serious jailtime, is an empty gesture without that.