Sunday, December 21, 2014

John Lott explained

The odd thing is that John Lott was a pariah a while back, but he has come back with a vengeance while the other guy who did this still tends bar since his academic career was trashed (well, he does teach).

But the really annoying part of all this is that US gun policy is not only based upon ignorance, it has been run on bullshit.


See also:


Would you be upset if one of the governmental branches acts outside of its listed Constitutional powers (i.e., it does something which it does not have an explicit grant to do)?  For example, the Congress set up its own special court system or the president makes laws.

Would it upset you even if the action was something you agreed with?

Should students carry guns on campus?

Taylor Woolrich


A former beauty pageant contestant from California, 20-year-old Taylor Woolrich is the first to admit she's not your usual guns rights campaigner.

She's fighting for the right to carry a weapon on campus, for a very personal reason. For years she's been stalked by a man she first came into contact with while waitressing at a cafe.

He would turn up to see her every day and began to track her down outside work. An emergency restraining order failed to deter him. Things became even more terrifying when she moved across the country to study at Dartmouth college in New Hampshire.

"It wasn't even on my mind, and then he contacted me via LinkedIn and used social media to continue to contact me - sent me various very frightening messages, making it very specific he knew where I was," she says.

One summer, when she went home to California, he turned up at her parents' doorstep. She says police found what they call a "rape kit" - rope tied as a slip-noose, gloves, duct-tape, flash light, and a sweatshirt - inside his car.

Taylor's stalker is currently in jail. His sentence will soon be up.

He's due to face trial soon on further charges relating to her case. Still, Taylor is desperately frightened that he could be released, or allowed out on bail. She's certain that if that happened, he would be able to find her.
For that reason, she wants the right to carry a gun on her university premises, arguing it's the only way she could overpower him if the pair came face to face.

Dartmouth College has refused to comment on this specific case due to privacy laws, but says the safety and security of all students is a top priority for them. Any student who reports being stalked is given personalised and heightened protection. On top of this, safety improvements are made, as and when they are needed, says a spokesman.

Start Quote

Your rights shouldn't change once you step inside the campus.”
Crayle VanestStudents For Concealed Carry
Like the vast number of colleges and universities across the country, Dartmouth has a policy which prohibits handguns on campus.

The laws on guns on campuses vary from state to state. In more than half of the country, it's up to the universities themselves to decide weapons policy. In New Hampshire, where Dartmouth is located, the decision is left to the college, which chose to keep its campus gun free.

Many institutions believe that allowing weapons on campus has the potential to inflame tense situations, rather than diffuse them.

Australian Lawmaker says Tyrannical Gun Laws made a “Nation of Victims” & it’s “Unforgivable”

Australian Lawmaker says Tyrannical Gun Laws made a “Nation of Victims” & it’s “Unforgivable”
Sen. David Leyonhjelm of Australia’s Liberal Democratic Party

D.C. Clothesline

In the wake of the jihadist taking hostages in a Sydney café earlier this week and murdering two of them, and Australian lawmaker blasted the tyrannical gun lawssimilar to those in England, that led to the citizens he serves being turned into a “nation of victims.”
Sen. David Leyonhjelm of Australia’s Liberal Democratic Party said that if the hostages had been allowed to carry guns concealed there would have been someone who would have been able to stop him.
“That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn’t have known that they were armed and bad guys don’t like to be shot back at,” Senator Leyonhjelm told ABC radio, according to the Guardian.
“We are all disarmed victims,” Leyonhjelm added.
He then spoke about Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson, who were reportedly shot by the Islamist just moments before police entered the café and shot him dead.
“It would have been illegal for them to have a knifea stick, a pepper spray, a personal Tasermace, anything like that for self-defence,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.
“To turn an entire population into a nation of victims is just unforgivable,” the Senator concluded.

Your Guns are Worthless Against the New Superweapons of the Globalists

darpa gun behind grass Yamamoto-Japanese-Admiral

D.C. Clothesline

Americans have an estimated 300 million privately owned hand guns and some people present this fact as the reason why no foreign power, or even our government, could ever subjugate the people. I am compelled to disagree with this notion. Once upon a time that may have been true as World War II era Japanese Admiral  Yamamoto refused to invade the United States following his attack upon Pearl Harbor because there would be “an American with a gun behind every blade of grass”. However, if our government everbecame abusive enough that the people felt the need to rebel, there is a new generation ofsuper weapons being developed and deployed as I write these words, which would doom any rebellion that did not have the full support of the military.

The new generation of super weapons has made America vulnerable to enemies, both foreign and domestic. As a result, the window to resist martial law occupation and even an invasion is virtually closed.
Recently, I made the point that Americans were being surveilled in “Police State” America with a new generation of spy devices that were totally unimaginable. Today, America is on the verge of being suppressed by an equally sophisticated generation ofweapons that the general public would only believe would exist in the science fiction dramas of the future. Only these weapons are right here and right now!

Saturday, December 20, 2014

It's about Civilian Control of the military, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't

In this case, the Second Amendment analogue comes from Virginia.

Delegate Mark Cole has proposed to amend the Virginia Constitution, to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right", not connected with militia service. This would align with the new SCOTUS decision in Heller, where they argued that the first part of the 2nd amendment was not connected to the second part. HOWEVER, the language of the Virginia Constitution on this subject is much more difficult to dismiss:

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Look carefully and you will see the word "therefore" between the militia reference and the right to keep and bear arms. Not sure how they can be separated when they are joined by a very explicit "therefore". In addition, the explanation would reference "self defense", "hunting" and "any lawful purpose" - all things that are not mentioned, or even hinted at, in the VA Constitution. Just look at the title and tell me that the writers were thinking of individual self defense, etc.

If Delegate Cole wants to explain Section 13, he could start by explaining why we have totally ignored the phrase: "that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty"!!!!!

The problem is that the issue of civilian control over the military is a major topic in democratic societies, with it having a healthy debate during the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries (and even now).  People who supported militias believed that they would not be turned into standing armies; however, history has shown that militias usually become an army if there is a long term conflict (e.g., English Civil War and American War for Independence).

As I have said before, the militia system was moribund by the time of the American War for Independence as Adam Smith pointed out in his Wealth of Nations:
A militia, however, in whatever manner it may be either disciplined or exercised, must always be much inferior to a well-disciplined and well-exercised standing army.
It is poor policy to take an obsolete section of the US Constitution which was intended to deal with matters of the common defense and turn it to the detriment of promoting the general welfare.

How much bullshit are alleged DGUs anyway?

In this case, the DGU that turned out to be false, when someone in Doylestown claimed that the Souderton mass shooter, Bradley Stone, had tried to carjack him.  Instead of making himself a hero, this claim diverted police attention and resources from the manhunt.
"We contend that he performed an enormous hoax that cost taxpayers a lot of money," Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said at a news conference Friday night. "This is terrible conduct. This is unacceptable conduct."

However  the police officers were suspicious about the claim, according to Heckler.

And well the officers should have been suspicious since the two locations are about 13 miles apart.  Mapquest says it would take about a half hour to drive this, which is probably optimistic given the stop lights and traffic.

Of course, the pro-gun side is happy to look at these incidents as proof that ""guns save lives" when the reality here was that it wasted police resources.

I have to admit curiosity as to how many DGUs are actually verifiable incidents: especially now that the Get Away With Murder laws have stopped any inquiry as to the actual events when someone claims "self-defence".  Short of a major amount of evidence to the contrary, the claim of self-defence stands.  In fact, even with evidence to the contrary, the claim can pass (e.g., Trayvon Martin).

Breaking, it seems that Bath Township detectives believe they have “overwhelming evidence” to prove a former Navy SEAL, Chris Heben, lied when he claimed he was shot during an altercation with three black men outside of a popular shopping center.

"We have overwhelming evidence based upon video, cell phone records and interviews that the shooting did not occur in the West Market Plaza and that Mr. Heben made false allegations to us," said Bath Township Police Chief Mike McNeely.

George Zimmerman recently pointed out that you should have insurance if you are going to go around shooting people due to the legal costs.

Nothing I haven't been telling you, but you all know the law better than I do.

Yeah. right.
See also: