Don’t you think you might have bigger problem than guns and people putting more than 7 rounds in a magazine when your legislature can apparently draft legislation in smoke filled rooms, vote on the final product with 30 minutes notice, and get everything all wrapped up before the public has had a chance to sip their morning coffee? I mean, I get we’re not a democracy, but don’t you think there’s something vaguely wrong about lawmakers passing a bill before the public even has an idea what’s in it because the Governor says it’s an “emergency?” I would think this is something the left and the right can agree on.
And what does it say about their confidence in gun control that they feel they need to accomplish everything quickly, before the public has a chance to mobilize, and, I don’t know, maybe carefully consider the bill? Hear all sides? This wasn’t a conversation on guns. They don’t want a conversation, and that has been abundantly clear since this whole farce began.
Tam describes the phenomena here. I haven’t been covering the James Yeager issue very much, because on one hand, I think such pronouncements are unhelpful, but on the other hand, there’s a lot of folks out there on the left that don’t realize the seriousness of what they are proposing. I much prefer the Wyoming approach for pushing back against the feds than I do actions by lone wolves or private militias acting outside any lawful authority.
There are many people out there who feel the same way James Yeager does, even if they exercise more judgement than to put it on YouTube, and probably would not seriously follow through on their anger. But the anger is there, and not all of them are suffering from Elvis Syndrome. Like I said earlier in the week, I’ve seen some ordinarily serious people talking about things are getting uncomfortably close to their line in the sand, and it may be worthwhile for people on the left to know these people are out there. How many Americans are you willing to jail and murder to achieve your fantasies about a gun free society? How many?
I ultimately endorse the Wyoming approach because I think the answer for most people is “none.” They aren’t serious enough to escalate this to that level, so I don’t believe it’ll be necessary. The Wyoming approach provides a lawful framework for a confrontation, which does not necessarily have to escalate into violence. It is far more responsible than the approach originally advocated by Yeager. The first step is to beat gun control back politically at the federal level, and failing that, to beat federal gun control back through our state governments by demanding they nullify a clearly unconstitutional law. The Second Amendment may not have its own tanks, but the Federal Judiciary doesn’t have them either. Our federal system works through cooperative action between the federal government and fifty separate sovereigns. Mutual cooperation is fundamentally essential for the scheme to work. If that cooperation is withdrawn, it becomes nearly impossible for the federal government to maintain enforcement of an unpopular law, even if the states do nothing at all other than withdrawing cooperation. States that have recently legalized pot should also take note of this.
But not on guns, on precious metals. Yeah, the tin foil hat crowd is going to love that one.
… is often just plain stupidity. Every town, including the small borough I grew up in, had a cop where everyone thinks, “I can’t believe they let that guy walk around with a gun.” In big cities there are more people, and much bigger departments.
Some of the guns turning up in Mexico are tracing back to 4473s filled out by ATF Assistant SACs, using a false address. I’m surprised people aren’t going to jail. But hey, the I guess the Administration is too busy trying to ban our guns to clean up his own house before soiling mine.
Kevin has a hilarious example. Constitution? I do not think it means what you think it means. The sad part is, I’m going to be willing to bet this person is actually considerably higher on the information rung than your typical low-information voter, but the ignorance of the Constitution burns with the heat of a pool full of Sriracha sauce.
Glenn Reynolds notes the silence from the mainstream media. Most of the media bias comes in what they choose not to cover. I’ve always been a bit ambivalent about right-to-work, because in an ideal world, if employers and employees wanted to get together and negotiate a closed shop, they should be free to do so. But the fact is that Unions enjoy significant government protections. Employers are forced to collectively bargain with employees if employees vote to do so. Without right-to-work, Employees who don’t vote for collective bargaining can be forced into unions under threat of their jobs.
In most right-to-work schemes, which were authorized under the Taft-Harley Act of 1947, employees who opt out of the union are still covered by collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the union, and the unions are required to represent workers who opt out. This is the free rider problem the unions have so eloquently pointed out (with shouting and fists). If they weren’t acting like violent thugs, they might have a point. I tend to think you should not be forced into collective bargaining against your will, and I agree with right-to-work from that point of view. But I also think the unions have a point about the free rider problem. If you leave a union, you should be required to independently bargain with your employer, and the union should have no obligation to represent you as an employee.
Pretty much. The big four items are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. If you’re not talking about cutting any of those you’re not serious about balancing the budget. The solution is probably going to end up being younger workers paying into a system they will never collect from, in order to cover their parents checks and old age medical care.
The problem with that equation is that there are not enough jobs for young people, because the economy is hobbled by a massive government that is doing too much and has become unpredictable. I believe the current debts we’ve already run, including the debts not generally counted (in promises the government has made), will result in a reduced standard of living for the next several generations, as the rest of us pay off previous generations who did not save enough to enjoy the type of retirements they demand, nor have enough kids to make up for not saving.
My real fear is the burden will become substantial enough it will be impossible for younger people to save, and when they hit the point where they can no longer work, the government will be too broke to do anything about it. That will be called Generation-Screwed, and I’m not convinced it won’t be my generation. Hopefully when I get old and grumpy I can vote to kick that can down the road to the Millennials, who had a chance to put a stop to this shit, but decided they wanted eight years of hope and change.
So says an article at LinkedIn. We can only hope. If the Republicans had any guts they’d abolish the agency, along with the entire Department of Homeland Security.