The true purpose of Critical Race Theory

The common argument from Democrats to downplay Republican opposition to Critical Race Theory is that the detractors don't even know what it really is.

That may be true, but honestly Democrats don’t understand Critical Race Theory either otherwise they wouldn't be defending it. Ignorant they may be, at least Republicans are on the right side of history.

Critical Race Theory [1] is rooted in Critical Theory [2], which is a Neo-Marxist philosophy developed at the Frankfurt School in Germany during the 1930’s. The difference between a Marxist and a Neo-Marxist is that the former believes a workers revolution will inevitably occur in industrialized nations, whereas the latter acknowledges it will never happen organically in a prosperous capitalist state where the population is content and happy [3]. To undermine these societies, the thought process of Critical Theory is to inject “Repressive Tolerance” [4] into academia. The purpose is to no longer present lessons in a format that allows students to think for themselves, but instead present them as arguments filled with logical fallacies to convince the listener to reject Western Liberalism. Repressive Tolerance is a rejection of everything and anything to do with the idea of Western Liberal thinking around the idea of "Tolerance" and related concepts like "Freedom of Ideas" and "Freedom of Speech". It is a rejection of the Civil Rights movement.

By seeding a deeply flawed belief that we are evil, and teaching young impressionable people to hate themselves, the goal is to destabilize and erode our society. There are also other angles of attack such as the “defund the police” movement and other law changes pushed by self-described Neo-Marxists [5], designed to increase crime and create further instability [6][7] that aids their objective of destroying our system. We see it with a dramatic swing in public relations over the last decade (see the attached public poll below). We see it with rising support of ANTIFA, historically associated with militant communism, that uses “anti-fascism” as intentional misrepresentation of their true purpose [8]. We see it with leftists trying to twist the American flag into a hate symbol [9]. We see it with leftists celebrating murdered police officers [10]. In just 20 years we have gone from Democrats and Republicans both proudly cheering our nation, to a substantial portion of the population denouncing patriotism and our founding principles. This is Critical Theory working as intended – and Democrats have become their vessels (“useful idiots” [11] ). 

Supporters of Critical Theory desire for our nation to become another Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, USSR, and former Eastern Europe - which were ruined by an ideology responsible for more than 100 million deaths throughout the 20^th century and humanities worst atrocities [12]. Democrats need to stop supporting this.

[1] https://archive.org/details/critica_xxx_1995_00_1144

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

[4] https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html

[5] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/san-francisco-shoplifting-epidemic.html

[7] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-gun-violence-historic-levels-what-are-solutions-the-story/283-18a20c88-8760-4386-979b-dab9d8330700

[8] https://digitaledition.orlandosentinel.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=39427b4c-6add-4b4c-ade6-f9899dd81812

[9] https://kutv.com/news/local/black-lives-matter-utah-hold-to-claim-flying-american-flag-is-racist-with-one-condition

[10] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1419017430672814081

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

 

 

Small actions, big changes

Little things we’ve been doing go a long way. Sanctuary cities, individual calls, personal emails, etc. all have an impact on preserving our rights and liberty. For the naysayers, or those who feel the government is an unmovable force, let me hopefully bring some motivation…

There is something called the “Trimtab principle”, which is the idea that small actions are necessary for big changes. We all know how a ship changes course in the water, right? Ordered from a ship's helm, the rudder underneath a ship swings from left to right, which then determines the direction of the ship.

But is it really that simple? Look at a massive commercial ship, and their rudders can be over 10 stories tall and weigh hundreds of tons. How do you get such massive pieces of metal to move underneath the water? The answer is the trimtab. It’s a much smaller controllable surface attached at the end of the rudder (the yellow portion of the picture below). The bridge controls don’t actually move the rudder, but instead move the smaller trimtab which creates a suction and force that causes the rudder to swing.

It is a small action made in the right place that ultimately alters the direction of a massive ship.

Lets look at another example. In the 1980’s, crime in NYC subways was out of control. Violent assaults were through the roof and nearly 20 people a year were being killed in the tunnels. Big solutions like increasing police presence were attempted, but none of those efforts worked. After much debate, it was actually two small acts that made a big change:
1.) They created a turnaround process to remove graffiti off of the trains.
2.) They reduced police presence, and instead just prioritized cracking down on people jumping the tolls.

These two small actions caused an 86% reduction in violent felonies happening a day.

https://nypost.com/2016/08/06/how-brattons-nypd-saved-the-subway-system/

The point is, we’re up against opposition with an unlimited budget and no love for the Constitution. However, this does not mean we need big money and major backers to win. Small actions and creative solutions can swing what seems like an unmovable object.

3D Printing

NOTE: This is a guide for 3D printing of unregulated parts, such as magazines. Certain parts are regulated, and illegal to manufacture without proper licensing.



The ability to manufacture firearm parts at home has always existed, but traditionally required hands-on skills that have grown rare in the United States. Modern manufacturing techniques are rapidly changing the skills story. It is now possible for anyone to buy a 3D printer to create a wide range of firearm parts and accessories with little to no hands-on skills for building or repairing physical goods. Adequate barrels are made using electrochemical machining without requiring serious machining skills. Remaining components, outside of those that are regulated, can be printed. Printed components are reinforced with metal rails where necessary. This text briefly overviews 3D printing firearms and firearm accessories, focusing specifically on magazines. Magazines are easily printed and require no special effort to achieve adequate durability in many cases (e.g. no rails required).

What do you need to 3D print firearm magazines?

- A 3D printer. There are many on the market, but this is a category where you get what you pay for. Fortunately, even a high quality 3D printer is less than the cost of a high-end firearm. For the busy, narrow your search to two options:

-- Budget: The Creality Ender 3 is a popular budget printer than can be purchased for $200 or less. While the printer generally works well, it provides less automation and convenience out of the box than the premium option and is more likely to suffer problems that require tinkering to fix. Fortunately, this printer has a large, supportive online community for troubleshooting printing problems.
-- Premium: Prusa (https://www.prusaprinters.org/) is widely considered to be the best manufacturer for non-industrial 3D printers. Their current-model printers (the MK3S is recommended as of this writing) are highly reliable, automate many tasks that are manual with cheaper printers, produce high quality prints right away with little effort, are easy to use, and come with high-end support when something does go wrong. Including shipping, the printer kit, which you must assemble into a printer yourself, runs about $850. You can buy a fully assembled printer that comes ready to print for a few hundred dollars more. However, assembling the kit is easy enough for even a keyboard jockey to finish the job in about 10 hours, and the understanding of how the printer mechanically works gained by doing so is worth it. There is one common but easily fixed problem with this printer: The grub screw holding the gear on the extruder motor's shaft often vibrates loose unless you use a thread locker (purple Loctite is recommended for this). You can diagnose this problem easily because your printer will be "printing" in the air, with no material actually coming out of the extruder, yet there will be no clog.

Fair warning. Prusa is a Czech company, which explains the price of shipping. However, you do receive the printer very quickly. With the DHL option, ordering on Saturday is sufficient to receive the printer the following Thursday in the US. Some banks assume a charge to an Eastern European company is fraud and will automatically block it and lock your card. Call them ahead of time to tell them you are making the purchase and it is not fraud.

This text focuses on the premium option. Anyone with the budget doesn't really need to look any further, just buy the Prusa. You'll love it.

- Filament. A spool of filament provides the raw material your printer will use to create the object you're printing. There are many, many materials on the market (Amazon is a convenient place to buy). When getting into firearm printing, there are three worth focusing on initially:

-- PLA: Cheap, very commonly used, and super easy to print with.
-- PETG: Stronger than PLA, but can be a bit more finnicky.
-- Nylon: Stronger than PETG but more finnicky than PETG.

Practice printing magazines with PLA to get the hang of the process, then switch to PETG. When you're ready for very tough magazines, switch to Nylon. Again, you get what you pay for, so buy quality if you can afford it. Fortunately, quality PLA and PETG spools can be purchased for about $30 each and the same company that makes the premium printer makes premium filament available on Amazon.

- Filament storage. Filament is hydrophillic, meaning it absorbs water from the atmosphere. Once enough water is absorbed, you will have to dry the filament on the spool in your oven or using a food dehydrator to get quality prints with it. To avoid this issue, or at least delay the need to dry filament, a dry box is handy. Get a storage box with a gasketed lid, some indicating dessicant, and throw the filament and dessicant in the box. Keep the box closed unless adding or removing a spool of filament and keep the filament in your box unless actively using it.

- A textured print surface. The premium printer comes with a smooth steel sheet as a printing surface. This works well for PLA, but PETG will not adhere to it unless the surface is prepared with a glue stick or similar coating. With the textured sheet you can print PETG without extra effort. It's worth it if you plan to print with a lot of PETG. The printer has to be calibrated for the different kinds of sheets (this is super simple, the instructions walk you through it), but the calibration settings are easily stored and switched between with the premium printer. This makes it easy to switch between the smooth sheet when printing with PLA and other materials that adhere well on that surface, while switching to the textured sheet for other materials.

- 3D models to print. Most public firearm-related models can be found in the FOSSCAD package. You can access it on GitHub, but this option is likely to disappear from the Internet eventually since big companies tend to love censorship: https://github.com/maduce/fosscad-repo. You can also torrent the entire package, which is far less likely to suffer permanent censorship. Here is a magnet link: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:359050EC1608F8FD8B0D9FBF66FFE7DC02672ACC&dn=%5Bmonova.org%5D+FOSSCAD+MEGA+PACK+v4.8+%28Ishikawa%29+%5BZIPPED%5D&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969.

- Magazine springs. There are basically three options for buying springs:

-- If you're just buying one set of springs, buy Wolff springs on eBay where the shipping will be free.
-- If you're buying multiple sets of springs, especially across multiple firearm models, buy Wolff springs directly from the manufacturer: https://www.gunsprings.com/.
-- If you're attempting to produce in mass quantities (1000+) or find 20-30 people to go in on a group buy with, you can get springs from China for pennies each starting with just a CAD design for the spring from alibaba.com.

If you're adventurous, there are jigs and instructions for making springs in the FOSSCAD package. This process takes several hours and a bit of patience.


How do I print a magazine?

Before trying to print magazines, try printing some simple items first to get the hang of the process. With the premium printer you can print each magazine in 4-12 hours depending on your settings and the magazine. However, it's easier to learn the ropes with smaller prints that can be done in a few hours at most. This allows you to quickly see the process end-to-end before switching to longer prints. Try printing something super easy in PLA, like a beverage coaster, first (there are tons of neat gun ones on https://www.thingiverse.com/). From there, try printing a small animal figurine to practice using supports (again, tons on https://www.thingiverse.com/, try your favorite dog breed, a moose, or horse). Supports are printed with the item to provide a surface to print the item on when a surface of the item would otherwise float in the air (think of a dog's underside when it is standing). These are easily pulled off of the item after printing.

Acquire the 3D models you want to print. There are several formats in this order or preference, but in reverse order of popularity:

- 3MF. While not quite popular yet, models in this format contain plenty of metadata (e.g. pre-configured settings) and can contain multiple models in one file. These are the most likely to import in a manner that is immediately ready to print.
- OBJ. More popular than 3MF, but not nearly as common as the most popular option. Models in this format often contain dimensional data not available in the most popular format to prevent wonky scaling.
- STL. By far the most popular format in 3D printing, not because it's the best but because it's the oldest and therefore has inertia. Some firearm and accessory models, particularly from DEFCAD, are scaled down dramatically and have to be re-scaled to print if using STL. Scaling is easily done in a slicer.

Once you have the models you want to print, open them in a slicer. For the premium printer the slicer to use is an easy to use graphical tool called PrusaSlicer. You'll open the model in the slicer, where you can view it and arrange the component (or components if you open multiple models) on a digital version of the print surface. If printing multiple models at once, use the arrange feature, which will automatically arrange the items on the print surface for maximum space utilization. From there you can configure the print. Recommended settings for printing magazines:

- Enable a brim to ensure adequate adhesion early on.
- Set infill to 100%
- If using Prusa's PETG, increase the bed and extruder temperatures by 5 degrees for the first layer. Magazines don't seem to work out with the default PETG settings.

Don't be shy about exploring the tool and switching it to Advanced from Simple mode right away. For computer literate individuals, this tool is extremely easy to learn and use. The Simple mode is only necessary for people who are uncomfortable with technology. It tends to work out nicely to print all of the parts at once, just right click the follower (typically the only component that requires supports) to manually add a support enforcer. Ensure you enable supports only for enforcers in the slicer.

Finally, slice the model and export the gcode to the SD card that came with the printer. You can now pop the SD card into your printer and start printing. Once finished, simply lift the sheet you printed on off of the printer, flex it, and the parts will pop right off.


How do I make magazine models?

You will need the magazine you want to model, CAD software to create the model, and calipers to accurately measure part dimensions. There are many CAD options, but parametric CAD software is your best bet. Unless you already have software you like, check out Fusion 360 or FreeCAD. FreeCAD works just fine and can be learned in less than an hour if you stick to the Part designer. There are a wide range of cheap calipers that will get the job done on Amazon. If you want nice calipers that will last for years, can be used for high precision applications where it matters (e.g. reloading), and from a brand that can be counted on, buy a pair of Mitutoyo calipers directly from Amazon (Mitutoyo counterfeits are common from other sellers on Amazon). This blog post is a helpful guide to getting started reverse engineering physical products: https://hackaday.com/2018/03/27/how-to-reverse-engineer-mechanical-designs-for-3d-modeling/. Many magazines have quite a few complicated features you can simply ignore when modeling while still producing a working magazine.

Think carefully about how you layout and orient the parts you design. Generally, only the follower should require supports when printed.


Where do I learn more?

There is an active community working on new homemade gun designs in general, but with a focus on 3D printable firearms. Check out Deterrence Dispensed at:

https://keybase.io/team/det_disp (encrypted group chat)
https://spee.ch/@Deterrence-Dispensed:2 (hosted files)
http://deterrencedispensed.com/ (more information to on 3D printing guns)
https://gunstreamer.com/@IvanTheTroll (videos from Deterrence Dispensed's figure head)

Supreme Court on the 2A

The latest myth to address is the false statement that District of Columbia vs. Heller is modern revisionist interpretation, and altered existing precedent on the position of the 2nd Amendment being nothing more than a collective right. Truth is, only one of the previous cases ever addressed the 2nd Amendment in this manner, and it affirmed that it was in fact an individual right (Presser v. Illinois, 1886). Heller was the second broad review on this question, which re-affirmed that individual right and established self-defense as one of the intents.

Before we get into actual cases, it's worth noting that early state and federal supreme court justices commented on the 2nd Amendment. St. George Tucker, a Virginia State Supreme Court justice, published the following in his 1803 addition of Blackstone's "Commentaries":

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally under the specious pretext of preserving the game; a never-failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure. . . . True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy; but their right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words “suitable to their condition or degree” have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, by any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Joseph Story, a US Supreme Court justice, also recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Back to cases, United States v. Cruikshank – A case involving the KKK, where minorities were being denied their 2nd Amendment rights (just like rich elitists are trying to deny that right today). It did not address the scope of the 2nd Amendment, but did affirm that the 14th Amendment prevents States from restricting the right to bear arms. The court only overturned the charges against the racists on grounds that suppression of rights needed to be addressed on the State level and not Federal, when suppression is being inflicted by an individual and not by State law.

Presser v. Illinois – This was the first time the 2nd Amendment was questioned as either an individual right or a collective right. The court affirmed the position that it was an individual right. The only established restriction was that citizen military organizations can be restricted from drilling within cities unless authorized.

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

…

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

United States v. Miller – A case involving a sawed off shotgun. The court ruled that it was not “ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to common defense.” They went on to state that the intent was for ordinary men to be able to bear arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES for defense, which was used as further justification in the Heller case. Where the court had made an error, was that the defense had not appeared and never explained that sawed off shotguns were in fact used during WW1 – meaning the basis for their decision allowing regulation in this case was incorrect. It’s also important to note that this ruling does not justify banning sawed off shotguns, but only their regulation through a tax stamp.

District of Columbia v. Heller – A case involving a handgun owned for personal protection. Re-affirmed Presser v. Illinois, and addressed the individual right to bear arms includes self-defense.

McDonald v. City of Chicago – Affirms that the 2nd amendment is protected from local laws by the 14th amendment.

Caetano v. Massachusetts – Affirms that rights are protected even for technologies that have advanced.

Anti-rights mythology of the "well regulated militia"

The first argument against a citation of the 2nd Amendment seems to always be a curt, cherry picked quotation: "well regulated militia". The implication is that if you aren't in a designated organization that trains and drills, then the 2nd Amendment does not apply to you.

Lets break this down in two parts - "well regulated" and "militia". The use of "well regulated" was used frequently during this time period, and is perfectly explained by Brian T. Halonen:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The key point being, "well regulated" was directed at assuring functionality, and not instruction to enforce strict limitations.

As for "militia", at no point do these individuals question what a militia was to those living in the 1790's or early 1800's, but instead ignorantly cling to an assumption of it either being the National Guard or other government structured entity.

This is the historic context of militias in early America: A militia was not a well-trained, government controlled army. It’s a body, that if needed, can be called forth on the peoples terms – and not always of a specific list. In many cases, simply the assumption of being able-bodied met the obligation to answer the call. Only the strictest forms involved conscription, and even those cases involved bearing a personally owned firearm rather than something that was issued. Militias were also led by one of their own whom they personally selected rather than being anointed by officials. This is one of the purist forms of self-determination from government, and why the 2A was one of the most strongly phrased with “shall not be infringed”.

Interestingly, the Pennsylvania constitution from the same time period doesn't contain any militia phrasing. From Article IX Section 21:

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE,

(snip 20 sections)

Section 21. That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Those that still cling to the myth that the right to bear arms applies only to those serving in a militia often ignore the definition in the Militia Act of 1903. Given this definition, if I were to concede that the 2nd amendment refers to a collective right (I do not), men between the ages of 17 and 45 would still have a right to bear arms without infringement. See the relevant text in the US code here:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I suspect collectivist clingers will make up reasons this doesn't matter. In any case, it's not relevant to understanding the intention of the amendment, since the founders established no such age limitation.

Richard Henry Lee refuted the notion that the militia referred to a select corp, now known as the National Guard:

But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expense, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenseless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all pro-miscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
                                   -R. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

He reiterated this stance again:

No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state. . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.        
                                     -State Gazette (Charleston) (8 September 1788)

If you want further proof of intent behind the 2nd Amendment then refer to the Federalist Papers, which were written and distributed by the Founding Fathers in order to justify and convince the original member states to ratify the Constitution. In “Federalist No 46”, Monroe contrasts our newly formed nation to Europe, where the people are not trusted with arms and therefore would be unable to shake off the yokes of tyranny if imposed. He wrote this after having just risked everything in a war against an oppressive ruler. The first shots of this war, by the way, were fired when British troops marched towards Lexington and Concord to confiscate firearms.

Samuel Adams also clearly stated that the constitution is not intended to prevent citizens from keeping their own arms:

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”                                                   
“Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I could go on like this for an entire book. It is trivial for anyone willing to spend a little time researching the topic to determine that the founders intended that every man be armed on their own volition.

The Supreme Court relied on these same primary sources and many more in the Heller (2008) opinion when it held that:

(starts on page 570)
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it con­notes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576–595.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595–600.

Note the page citations lead to the details within the linked document that support the court's conclusion.

At this point it should be clear that it is at best ignorant and at worst propaganda to peddle the idea that the constitution only protects a collective right to bear arms.

A Safer Pennsylvania!

Except not really, because nine of the twelve proposals recently published by the PA Auditor General are biased trash that’s narrowly focused on an agenda and not an actual solution.

Proposals 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 – These proposals would be good for helping prevent violence of any form. My frustration with this is that it’s never addressed as the broader issue that it really is, but instead tunnel vision on something that’s not even the underlying issue. This just flows with the rest of the report, which is littered with repetitive talking points to convince people that a particular inanimate object is somehow a unique threat and public health crisis. This is unhelpful as it draws attention from the real issue with mental health and violence, and what motivates so many individuals to commit mass murder. The instrument is irrelevant, as it’s just one of a million different options. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, was convicted for 48 murders and confessed to 71, and yet the way he strangled his victims rightfully never caught the crazy fixation of a political agenda.

Proposal 3 – MD’s are not qualified to discuss the topic of gun safety, and falls well outside their swim lane (the NRA was right). It’s the equivalent of your car mechanic lecturing you on how to avoid a car accident. Their technical expertise does not make them an expert on physics, driving techniques, or human behavior. If this is the standard that we’re setting, then do it across the board and be prepared for the longest “health” surveys of your life: Do you own a car? Do you ride a motorcycle? Do you own a swimming pool? Do you own sharp objects? Do you have any OTC medications or items that are toxic? Do you have access to a tall building or roof? Do you have any stored gasoline or propane? (this list could go on forever) All great safety talking points, but to cherry pick firearms for discussion in a clinic is blatantly biased. If I were asked this question in a doctors office I would tell him/her to go fuck themselves and that it’s none of their business. I’ll talk to a SAMI if I want an opinion from someone who actually matters on this subject.

Proposal 5 and 6 – A training course with qualified firearm experts is a great way to teach safety, but it makes no sense to waste tax dollars to create a new voluntary program with such a narrow subject that few people will attend. Valuable courses already exist in the private sector, and teach way more than simple fundamentals of safety. They expand into a wide range of topics, that even involve live fire training (I have a feeling Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). The encouragement of safe storage is good, but this is a bigger problem than education – it’s financial. If anyone really supports these proposals, then give people their hard earned income back by offering tax credits to create an incentive and make it affordable. A single safe that offers actual security can greatly exceed the value of the average homeowners firearms. Additionally, you can also donate to the NRA because training and safety programs are what they already do (again, I bet Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). If you’re concerned with lobbying, campaign funding, or legal actions that the NRA is involved in, that is a separate pot of money collected by the NRA-ILA.

Proposal 9 – Bureaucracy at its finest. Create an additional expense and administrative burden to tell us that thieves steal things, and might commit even more crimes later. When we read the reports, we’ll all pretend to be surprised that criminals don’t care what the laws are.

As for the other proposals that are decent, #4 is something I'm sure is already practiced by FFL dealers, but it doesn't hurt to offer insight. Proposal 10 does offer the opportunity to connect individuals to multiple crimes, which would help ensure criminals are being held fully accountable. Finally, proposal 11 is what every law abiding gun owner has been advocating from the beginning - enforce the laws already on the books! 

Rich white people are telling us we don’t need guns

Did you guys hear that? It was the voice of an overpaid, white Hollywood actress. From within a nook of her million dollar home, situated inside a gated community with private security, she assertively denounces the choice you’ve made to protect your home with an AR-15. Her criticism spews hatred for how you conceal carry in public, while she pays someone else to do her grocery shopping and makes arrangements for her bodyguards to drive her to a gun control rally.

At the rally, she convinces suburbanites whom live in neighborhoods with high property values to vote for magazine capacity limits. They’re easily convinced, because why would you need 30 rounds to feel safe if they feel they don’t need any rounds at all? After they drink the kool-aid, they go back to their lives in regions void of low-income housing that attract crime, and wave to police patrol units that their town can afford due to above average property tax revenue. The Hollywood actress, feeling good about herself, leaves the rally with her security entourage and heads off to an audition for a multi-million dollar role in a new action film where she’ll shoot people with guns.

But of course, this isn’t just limited to rich Hollywood types preaching in your ear. It could be billionaire Michael Bloomberg having it printed in the newspaper he owns... or the “man of the people” Bernie Sanders tweeting from one of his three mansions... or Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama while they travel the world with their lifetime taxpayer funded Secret Service…

Translation of their sermon: “Either you decide to get rich and live safely the way we do, or you decide to have no security at all… The only way you’re allowed to be protected by a gun is if you can pay someone else to carry it for you. The value of your life, family, or property is measured in who you can afford to protect it.”

For those in the gun community, these are arguments that need to be made. These rich people aren’t necessarily detached from reality per se, but they are certainly detached from OUR reality. They are oblivious to our insecurities, and therefore they take a stance on gun control that contradicts three fundamental views that leftists have of themselves. One is that they’re the righteous opposition to rich, white elitism, second as a bastion for the working class, and third as stalwarts of victim advocacy. The fact that on this particular issue they take a stance that's the polar opposite of what they claim to be shouldn't go unnoticed or without refute. Feeding them their own poison may be one of the simplest ways to get a point across.

Effective Pennsylvania Gun Rights Advocates

My impressions are based on watching who is getting things done. It could be simply a PR issue, but from where I am sitting:

Firearm Owners Against Crime is currently the most effective and visible group keeping on top of the issues and advocating for gun rights in Harrisburg.

Joshua Prince is currently the most effective litigator defending gun rights in the courts.

It's entirely possible my opinions are biased towards those good at self-promotion. However, it's difficult to argue with results. In recent memory, FOAC played what I believe was the biggest role in getting an unfortunately doomed bill passed to strengthen state preemption. Prince followed this up with a series of suits that got many municipalities to drop their illegal anti-gun ordinances.  More examples are easily found online.

FOAC and Prince are typically the source of information about what is going on in Harrisburg when it comes to gun rights. They deserve your support.

Here are Pennsylvania bills poised to degrade and destroy gun rights

Remember that in Pennsylvania governors may only serve two consecutive terms, after which they cannot run for governor again until they've waited a term. This means that a second-term Wolf, who is openly anti-gun, can go ape shit on guns knowing he won't face re-election again -- if he even wants it -- for 5-8 years depending on when he starts the push. The previous post presents data suggesting this push will begin immediately.

HB 2227:

This is an Extreme Risk Protection Order bill. Joshua Prince summarized the issues with it for FOAC. Essentially, anyone who has ever met you can have your guns confiscated with effectively no due process. The burden is entirely on you to clear your name and get your guns back.

HB 1400 (and its several variations):

Universal background checks.

SB 17:

This is an assault weapons and large capacity magazine ban. If passed, you'd have 120 days to register all "assault weapons" or turn them in. Registration requires an application process where you must submit the same information you do for a LTCF in addition to pictures of yourself and information about the item you are registering. Assuming you pass the background check and an investigation of your character and reputation, you will pay $15 and receive a certificate to possess the item that is good for 5 years. The renewal fee is also $15.

"Large capacity" magazines include any magazine (fixed magazines count!) with a capacity greater than 10. The proposal implies you can register your magazines using the assault weapon process, but does not explicitly state this and the information required for the certificate application doesn't appear to apply to magazines. This may be an outright ban. Rim fire pistols are treated the same way as center file pistols in this bill.

The Coming Post-election Push for Gun Control in PA

From this reddit thread:
















































As is pointed out in the thread, the only poll that matter is on Tuesday, but the predictions aren't encouraging for gun rights.

Relevant thread from PAFOA with additional information about the issues and a planned protest in Harrisburg.

The shockingly simple math behind time off...

Advocates of socialism often tout how generous government-mandated paid leave is in socialist-leaning countries. France, for example, mandates a minimum of 36 paid vacation days per year. In this post, I argue that this benefit simply trades flexibility for rigidity when compared to the US. However, that flexibility in the US requires an ingredient in short supply: Personal responsibility.

In the US, the 4 percent rule of thumb is often applied to determine the amount of funds required to last a thirty-year retirement with no active income (income earned through working). Essentially, if you need $40,000 a year to live in retirement that means you need to save $1,000,000 in diversified stocks and bonds to have a reasonable shot at your funds lasting for 30 years of no income. Let's be more conservative and use 3 percent: Our retiree needs more like $1,400,000 saved to retire.

Assume our retiree started saving at 22 years old and made a salary that remains at exactly $80,000 their entire career. In reality, this salary is easily obtained for a present day retiree-to-be that's willing to start a career in an in-demand field (their choice!), and can grow well beyond that figure. Assuming a 25% tax rate, this individual can save $18,000 a year assuming they spend $42,000 each year. This is a reasonable spend rate considering the retirement goal, better learn to stick to the expected budget early! This individual has saved enough to retire by age 52 based on a reasonable Monte Carlo simulation.

Assuming our retiree is a man, his life expectancy is 78 years according to the World Bank. Due to his diligent saving, he can enjoy 26 years of not having to work for money. This assumes no gap in employment, but, hey, his income also never grew so we'll call it a wash! It's also reasonable to expect no major employment gap considering he chose a high demand field of employment. This retirement has a very high probability of success given that we are shooting for less than 30 years of retirement and chose a conservative 3% withdrawal rate.

Let's image an average Frenchman. In France he can retire by 62, but only assuming he worked for a minimum of 42 years. If our Frenchman started working at 22, he can't retire until age 64! Since his life expectancy is 82 years, that leaves 18 years to not work. But wait, don't forget he gets 5 work weeks off a year! That's (42 * 5) / 52 = 4 years off while working.

Our US retiree has the ability to enjoy 26 years of not working while our Frenchman gets 22 years. But wait, there's more!

- The US retiree will likely be able to retire even earlier assuming income growth that keeps up with inflation (assume 3%). This one tweak allows the US retiree to quit paid work at 42 instead of 52. That's 10 extra years of retirement! What's better, 36 years of no work or 22? 36 years is longer than the 30 year horizon, but we also dropped the withdrawal rate a solid percent to be more conservative.

- Given his choice to work in a high demand field, the US retiree will likely be able to command no less than 3 weeks off a year if my own career trajectory has any say in the matter. (20 * 3) / 52 = 1 additional year off in his 20 years of employment (assuming the pay increases). That's a total of 37 years of not working!

- Our US retiree leaves the workforce early enough to avoid most age-related health issues. How many years of good health does our 62 year old Frenchman have left?

What are the primary differences? The US individual isn't taxed to death and can choose to stop working whenever he can live on his savings without risk to a pension. Notice that these calculations assume all savings were after tax. Those funds aren't locked up in a traditional 401k or IRA. In reality, our retiree seems smart enough to build a portfolio with tax diversity (e.g. some funds in tax advantaged accounts and others in taxable accounts).

However, the US individual must diligently save and control spending (buy less shit, save more -- good for the environment, good for you!), which requires real personal responsibility. This implies traits we might miss in some socialists.

Latte Liberalism and Cognitive Bias

This 4^th of July I found myself asking an obvious question, which I'm sure many in the pro-rights community have already asked themselves. How is it that so many anti-gun people could be celebrating a holiday that's based on a war waged by citizens who refused to disarm?

Hypocrisy is usually never intentional, so how is that they overlook such an obvious fact? This led me to an article by a psychology professor who threw his two cents into the gun debate, where he discussed cognitive bias. This is where your own experiences or perception of events will drive decision making, even if not backed by evidence or hard facts. Example: “I personally have never felt unsafe in my home. I have never viewed the actions of my government to be tyrannical. Therefore these threats aren't real enough to be concerned with, and nobody else should feel otherwise unless they're just paranoid.” A different perspective doesn't become rational in ones eyes until it's experienced.

This circles back to a previous blog I've written discussing socialism. “No guns” and “economic equality” might sound good for those that have viewed school shootings or poverty on the news, but the negative aspects of what they're asking for haven't been felt.

A psychologist would need to explain it, but I find it difficult to understand why you would have to personally experience something for it to become “real”. How are lessons in history not real enough? The only thing I can think of is that there's always a way to reinterpret the story or realign it with the position you've already decided to take. Taking the earlier point of our Independence Day being a celebration of citizens waging an armed revolt against tyranny, one opposed to gun rights might say “Armed citizens didn't win the war, though. The French government intervened and won it for us.” This is called “proof texting” or “confirmation bias”, where details of a story or well established facts can be twisted for your own narrative and make you feel better about the decision you've already made.

These biases fuel the modern Latte Liberalism that has swept into our politics. Comfort and complacency leave many to overlook the value of individual liberty, and the importance of the 2^nd Amendment that at one time was viewed as a necessity. Sipping on a watered down, overpriced beverage during a day off from work they ponder solutions to societies remaining problems, while completely failing to appreciate their own quality of life and how it was achieved. The pleasure of a “warm and fuzzy” feeling from speaking out on behalf of those less fortunate blinds them to the reality that they are a beneficiary of the very system they've begun to oppose. Overstepping the lessons of history, they gleefully march towards the repeatable offenses and mistakes made by others.

In a euphoric state of self-righteousness, the “flaws” of individual liberty and personal accountability are somehow expounded as threats to equality and human rights. The ideals that have offered them opportunity and protection from oppression, become twisted and viewed as chains that have shackled progress. The very document that guarantees our freedoms through limitations of government is viewed as outdated and an embarrassment.

The aforementioned biases and latte liberalism are a combination that share the effects of a hallucinogenic drug, where it leaves those taking a dose to live in an alternate reality. History and hard facts need to be used to help restore American politics to centrism and away from the sharp turns it has been taking... because after 242 years of independence, it turns out that the greatest risks to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are revisionism and memory loss.

Socialism and Discrimination: An incompatibility with the Bill of Rights

Younger generations have always had that group trying to be “edgy” with their support for socialism, but it's becoming more mainstream in liberal politics. You have viable socialist leaning presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, a full blown socialist in the Seattle city council, and democratic socialists running unopposed for legislative seats in several states.

To be fair, I don't think of socialists as red devils running around with a nefarious agenda, or just crying for “free” stuff because they're too lazy to work. Their intentions are legitimately noble, wanting to establish equality by giving everyone the same access to life's necessities regardless of differences such as demographics or economic class. The idea of achieving equality and putting safety nets in place affords everyone the chance to live their lives mostly worry free.

In application, however, socialism devolves into exactly the kind of system they'd claim to be championing against. Their naivety conveniently overlooks that in practice socialism's objective of establishing equality ends up being achieved through a sadistic elimination of those very differences that a free society can learn to value and appreciate.

A hard pill to swallow: Socialism is one of the most discriminatory examples of governing there is, as it is required in order for the model to survive. It requires like-minded thinking that shares the same goals and collective thought process in order to be achievable, which necessitates state sanctioned discrimination to preserve sustainability.

Consider this - The only successful models of socialism, such as the Nordic Model, have been in homogeneous societies lacking diversity and multiculturalism. Take Norway as an example:

Ethnicity: 91.5% white (83.2% being specifically Norwegian)

Religion: 71.5% Lutheran (another 6.7% being other Christian)

Urbanization: 81% urban population

Religion being one of the biggest factors, as Martin Schroder argues “Lutheranism promotes the idea of a nationwide community of believers and it promotes state involvement in economic and social life. This allows nationwide welfare solidarity and economic coordination”. Immigration also being key, as (despite some rhetoric) Europe in general is fairly xenophobic in comparison to the United States.

In more diverse societies, sustainability of socialism becomes far more complex as compliance isn't naturally afforded like you would find in one where ideals are mostly shared. In order for the model to survive you have two options – become selective with who can be apart of your society, or use force and manipulation to gain compliance. This leads to common traits or practices found in these systems of government:

-Heavy censorship

-An information bottleneck through nationalized networks

-Suppression of organized religion operating without state sponsorship

-Violent elimination of political opposition

-Labor Camps or Gulags

-Civilian disarmament

This requirement for selectiveness and compliance was also learned repeatedly on a smaller scale during the 1960's and 70's with hippie communes. Open admission and group infighting were the leading causes for financial ruin and failure. Taking the longest self-sustaining secular community in North America as an example – the Twin Oaks Community – their system has required rigid rules, labor requirements, and selective membership. There's further examples of writers providing personal tales living in communities, where they discuss the rigid life style and removal of folks with mental illness. Other longer running examples could include monks and monasteries, that are sustainable through like-minded religious faith and strict order. My favorite example being Dieter Duhm who had become disillusioned with socialist communities, as they ultimately failed for being far too open and indiscriminate in invitation.

Efforts to mix socialism into a free society are just disasters in the making. Why? Well, you have the above examples of what happens when people fail to contribute... but there's also the problem of having people like me that are vehemently opposed and will fight your policy tooth and nail to ensure you don't force something on me that I don't want. That ultimately means most efforts for creating socialist policies are doomed to failure with heavily flawed legislation and little cooperation to keep it afloat. Take the Affordable Care Act as an example. If this were in a society where everyone generally thinks the same, this is something that could have been tweaked and perfected (or just completely shifted to universal healthcare). However, in a society where everyone thinks differently, this legislation was born without a chance for survival. It was severely flawed, and rapidly became unsustainable without collective cooperation for a solution to fix it.

You place these examples on a grander scale, and you see why multicultural socialist governments become oppressive over time in order to maintain their system. The model can't afford to have people like me in it, therefore the only option is to exclude me or force my compliance. Forced compliance has been the trend, which is why most socialist takeovers follow a formula of *Step A) Revolution, Step B) Take away the guns, Step C) Run the propaganda machine*

All this considered, people are oblivious to that fact that identifying as a “democratic socialist” means you're a walking oxymoron. Rights you'd expect in a free and fair society can't sustainably coexist with collectivism in a place that boasts significant diversity.

A Myth For Justifying Regulation

When trying to push unconstitutional gun control legislation, it's common for advocates to perpetuate a myth that just won't seem to go away:

“Even the first amendment is regulated! You can't falsely yell “fire” in a theater!”

First off, lets ignore the fact that the 2^nd Amendment is already the most heavily regulated right we have.

But yes, the 1^st Amendment is regulated, but not in the way these folks claim it is. The truth can be summarized as “you don't have the right to victimize others”. For example, you cannot use free speech to commit libel, defamation, or perjury. You can, however, yell fire in a theater and it not be a crime. For it to be a crime, you would have to incite chaos or a disturbance where people, property, or business are harmed.

The point is that there are no words, terms, phrases, etc. that are illegal. It's someone/something being victimized that is... That does not justify banning specific firearms or making it nearly impossible to exercise your right to own or carry one. To draw a comparison to 1^st Amendment regulation, it would only justify limiting you from shooting an innocent person (already illegal!). The act of simply owning or carrying a firearm (of any type) does not have any negative affect on anyone or anything. It would require specific actions to do so.

Do Something(TM) vs. #DoSomething vs F@#$ing Doing Something

There's political motivation behind a lot of the debate and strategy … but do some solutions really need to be political or have an agenda?

-Do Something(TM): This is a political tactic, and a Twins of Liberty brainchild that acknowledges the guns rights community has not been proactive and been caught off-guard by the anti-rights movement. The idea is that gun control measures are emotionally driven by sensationalism in liberal media that's backed by billionaire Bloomberg, and people act as sheep by being coaxed into temporarily wanting this restriction placed in their lives. One of their motivators is the idea that they're the only ones offering a solution to an ongoing problem... which is kind of true, because all the guns rights community has offered is angry dissent, rather than their own ideas. Do Something(TM)'s premise is to offer legitimate alternatives in order to expand discussion beyond gun control measures. Turning it into a discussion counters the passionate wave the gun control movement relies on, and acts as a delay tactic for measures that are intended to strip us of our rights. It's a win-win approach that prevents stupid laws AND supports credible solutions.

-#DoSomething: An agenda, not a movement. This is not about actual solutions, but taking advantage of an opportunity granted by the death of children to pursue a gun ban. They don't care about actually protecting schools and decreasing violence. A real movement would be proposing a hundred valid solutions, yet they're only pursing one flawed idea. In fact, here's a good example of them ridiculing a perfectly legitimate security practice because it doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to produce - Texas official blames school shooting on too many exits and entrances. They took the Lt. Governor of Texas out of context, and made him sound like a complete fool. Controlled access points into buildings that can be monitored and have random bag searches is a well established practice in nearly every major office or government building. The idea of armed security or teachers is also treated as a joke, as if somehow active self-defense is more ridiculous than lying in a fetal position kissing your ass goodbye when faced with a threat. The fact they'll try to discredit valid solutions is proof of what they really care about.

One of the things that has me beating my head into the wall is “How do they get away with blocking actual solutions, yet still rally people under a #DoSomething banner?” The fact is, the typical liberal is not the intellectual that they pretend to be. They're very shallow and concerned about an image, which has to do with the fact that its majority is a younger demographic (I was even one of them before shifting towards libertarian ideology as I matured). They have excellent marketing that sells an image of being the good guys... being the ones with the only solution, being the ones that care, and holding a moral high ground. Image trumps actual logic and reason.

-F@#$ing Doing Something: This is one of my frustrations... We have easy ways to fix this. We could stop sensationalizing these actions in order to prevent copy cats that want to be immortalized. We could put School Resource Officers in every school, or train teachers that are willing to be armed if funding is an issue. But what about solutions that fall completely within the control of our own households?

I can't ignore the fact that irresponsible gun owners contribute to the problem. We're all quick to criticize someone in a picture that isn't practicing trigger discipline, or muzzling their friends in a video... but we don't say anything to those folks in our lives who we know keep a loaded gun in their closet that's accessible to a child. I don't care how well trained you THINK your children are, they shouldn't be anywhere near a gun without direct supervision. It's negligence to not lock up your firearms. Does punching in a digital combination add a few seconds to your reaction time for home defense? Sure. But is it logical to introduce a new threat in order to counter another? The added reaction time is worth the elimination of this realistic consequence. It's a fact accidents and many mass shootings could have been prevented with parents using a gun safe that their children don't have access to. F@#$ing do something to ensure it's not your child shooting up a school.

It's different after Santa Fe...

... because the parameters are all wrong. Look around. There are ten dead and ten injured from an attack on a school. The attacker unsuccessfully planted bombs and copied other Columbine elements. Yet the royal wedding is at the top of the headlines. The usual suspects have seemingly nothing to say. Some people in the gun rights crowd are trying to make hay out of Esquire going full gun grab, but come on, they were blatanly pro-repeal years ago.

After Parkland you couldn't go anywhere without hearing about it. Social media was full of people tripping over themselves to support confiscation afterwards.

This is the best evidence I've seen yet that:

• Gun grabbers don't cares about dead children unless the story is politcally convenient
• The media is required to make people care about the gun grabbing cause
• People are sheep with generally no opinions outside of those handed down from above
• Smoke screens work, doesn't matter what form they come in

Got any more of them royals to marry off?

The bar for labeling one's self a firearm "expert" is stunningly low

Fake firearms experts lurk in many forums and newspaper editorial sections. Here's one in the form of a likely unemployable liberal arts graduate at the time* former US Army Reserve Intel analyst. Mr. Diamond feels his unimpeachable credentials provide great sway to his opinion. Unfortunately, his opinion is that the dictatorial (and often completely asinine) rules imposed on military personnel are proof US firearms laws are not restrictive enough for civilians.

I am sure his shooting resume is quite impressive. After all, the annual** break from shuffling papers at a desk can't be his only firearms experience. Right? He seems pretty confident!

In a way, the number of fake firearms experts is a good thing. This is a sign that firearms are still ubiquitous enough that it's normal for many people to be exposed to them. A small percentage of those people will convince themselves this exposure makes them an expert. A small percentage of those fakes will write absurd articles for media editorial sections.

I just wish they'd shut up already.

* Yes, this is super snarky. Sorry, everyone I knew from my time as an officer candidate (see, I am an "expert" too!) that ended up in Intel had unemployable degrees in the civilian world. Imperfect sample size, but my blog.

** I am not sure what it is for the Army, only the Navy.

It's Time for Something(TM)

I believed in the power of doing something(TM) long before the inagural post to this blog. Given another mass shooting at a school, it's once again an opportune time to push something that won't hurt our constitutional rights as fast as we possibly can. What to do?

It's obvious this time. SRO's work. An SRO got the job done in Dixon, IL a few days ago. SROs have done the job in the past. There are plenty of reasons to believe an SRO or another good guy with a gun will successfully get the job done in the future.

I am ready to get behind a school security spending bill. I hardly care what's in it as long as it doesn't compromise our rights. It does need to provide cover to prevent the serious attempt at a gun grab that's mere hours away. Federal funding for SROs is a possibility.

There are about 98,271 schools in the United States. Assuming it costs about $100,000 a year to pay, equip, train, etc. an average law enforcement officer, we could place an officer in every school for about $9.8 billion. That's about 1.5% of the DoD budget proposed for 2019 earlier this year. Certainly Democrats can get behind spending a mere 1.5% of the DoD's budget to create 98,271 strong union jobs to protect the children?

If they poison it with a gun grab or refuse to play ball, there is plenty there to make hay with.

Not willing to go that far? Fine, provide a smaller pool of funding for security spending as districts see fit. I am cool with that too.

Remember, after Parkland the House GOP refused to consider new gun control proposals because they already passed FixNICS. Friends, that's a successful smoke screen! We can do that again without eroding gun rights.

The Court of Public Opinion

On May 10^th, 2018 Emm poised the question “Which amendment would die after the second?”. He cited the 5^th amendment, however I'd propose this one is already effectively diminished. As one of our most valuable rights due process establishes the requirement of being innocent until proven guilty, but the close-minded mob that has entrenched itself in the internet and social media has almost effectively negated this. An accusation backed by a wall of text or a series of posts is all that's needed for a conviction. No evidence, no trial, no objective process for confirming guilt. We collectively read a story that appears to have merit and credibility, and attack with torches and pitchforks until a life is ruined. Is there evidence that has been properly and lawfully gathered, then systematically processed and reviewed by attorneys and judges qualified to do so? No one cares. They read what they want to without a sense of skepticism, and predetermine the outcome of ending careers, destroying families, and imprisoning the population based on beliefs that are void of facts! Worse yet, those in the judicial system cave to this peer pressure in order to preserve their own careers. It has become a repeat of 1950's McCarthyism, but without any clear opposition to end the practice.

Why is that? I believe it's like Roman gladiatorial combat. It's not about justice, but instead people enjoying bloodshed as a sick form of entertainment. We don't care about real justice, we just enjoy others experiencing misery that's worse than our own. This small minded mentality ignores that YOU could be the next man in the arena.

Is our Constitution Outdated?

Certainly depends on who you ask... If you were talking to a left-leaning hipster, they'd probably tell you it's 250 year old trash written by a group of slave owning racists and misogynists. They'd tell you the times and technology have moved beyond what the document can be interpreted and adapted to, and get annoyed how people hide behind it in order to stonewall their perception of “progress”. Conversely, if you were talking to a right-leaning Budweiser King, they'd probably tell you it's second in perfection to the almighty Christian Bible and should be treated as unquestionable gospel. They'd tell you it's not only worth fighting and dying for, but it should be forcefully spread to every corner of the globe...

I believe there's truth somewhere in the middle. Not one blinded with patriotism that's indoctrinated with dangerous nationalism, or one that has a statist obsession with achieving Utopian dreams through expansive government and tyrannical legislated “perfection”.

The constitution is an imperfect document, written by flawed men whom had a unique perspective of having to risk everything for what they were about to create. Intended to secure liberty for the people who wrote it, it has evolved over time with amendments that have both improved and weakened it. These changes have made it more inclusive to every one of our citizens (15^th and 19^th amendments), yet also has a history of changes that are regressive for individual liberty (16^th and 18^th amendments). The fundamentals, however, were carefully crafted with an acknowledgment of government being something that's necessary yet inherently evil. This framework defined limitations, checks and balances, and the role it's expected to play. It also ensured specific rights and protection for the people in order to place further checks on our government (2^nd, 5^th and 14^th amendments)

One thing we'll have to accept though, is that it's impossible to make it perfect. We live in a very diverse and opinionated society that'll never fully agree on what perfection really is. For example, my view of perfection would involve a document that specifies the exact roles of government and limits them to a very narrow list of functions they're allowed to perform. Its function should be no more than ensuring its citizens right to live a life free and unmolested of harmful or oppressive actions. However, I'm enough of a realist to know that what I just wrote would give an aneurysm to someone who would measure success in the number of new laws created each year. My point being that not allowing one specific agenda to completely overrule the other is a compromise. The alternative would be an Ochlocracy (tyranny by the majority) where we force others to live in our ideal world.

Should we accept it as good enough? I believe we've found a balance that more or less works for our specific culture. It's not impossible to correct major discrepancies or injustices, but adds layers of difficulty to enacting ridiculous sacred cows. The layers of difficulty tend to be the major frustration for those ridiculing the constitution as outdated, but there's a simple argument for why difficulty is important. As the power of government changes hands frequently, you won't always have your side as the majority. It's what prevented George W. Bush from ultimately banning gay marriage, or Barack H. Obama from defining healthcare as a rigid collective obligation, or more recently stonewalled left-wing activists from removing one of our most significant rights. The major con to this system is the never ending political drama, as no one side can ever be a clear winner and controversial issues are never fully put to rest. My view may be seen as complacent... but we have a comment section below, and I challenge you to suggest any major changes to our constitution that would improve our system of government without alienating those outside your ideology.