Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

« Older Entries

More Flintlocks, Less Crime

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Don B. Cates, writing at Cal Guns:

[The following is from an article that Carlyle Moody and I are writing on the theory that more guns in a society will cause more crime. This part of the article was written by Prof. Moody an economist at William & Mary College.]

If more guns cause murder, and more guns cause more murder, it would seem societies with no guns at all should be the safest possible states. There are few gun free societies in the world today. However, if we look back in history to the time before the invention of firearms, we can judge for ourselves whether those societies were tranquil and safe. Remarkably good homicide data is available for England, beginning in the 1200’s. Those data indicate a pre-gun homicide rate in England of roughly 20 per 100,000 [roughly four times greater than the U.S. today]

Firearms were introduced into England in the 1400’s and were in wide use by the 1500’s, coincident with a decline in the homicide rate to 15 per 100K. However these early guns were predominately of the matchlock design. This design featured a slow burning fuse held in a clamp at the end of a serpentine lever. When the trigger was pulled the clamp dropped down so that the end of the lit fuse touched the powder in the flash pan, firing the weapon. The design was simple and the weapons relatively inexpensive. The major problem with the design from the point of view of personal defense was that, because of the need for a lit fuse, the weapon could not be kept and carried loaded and primed for quick use against a sudden attack.

The first firearm that could be carried loaded and primed was the flintlock, introduced into England around 1630. In this design the fuse is replaced by a piece of flint. When the trigger is pulled the flint strikes a piece of steel producing a shower of sparks that ignite the powder in the flash pan. This technology persisted through the early 1800’s. While matchlocks were almost exclusively long guns, flintlock technology was readily adapted to produce handguns, which were particularly useful for self defense. The flintlock pistol was relatively inexpensive, could be comfortably carried, was ready for action in an instant, and did not require a great deal of physical strength or expertise to operate. The flintlock could be fired in an instant, making it the ideal self- defense weapon. Armed with a flintlock, the physically weak found themselves on an equal footing with the physically strong in a confrontation.

The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.

The last hundred years of English history tells the reverse story. The first modern gun law in England was the Pistols Act of 1903 which required Englishmen to purchase a permit in order to acquire a firearm. Since 1920, the English government’s policy has been ever more restrictive. The Firearms Control Act of 1920 imposed a true permit requirement to possess rifles as well as all types of pistols and empowered local authorities to determine if the applicant would be allowed to purchase arms. This permit requirement was administered progressively more stringently and was amended to increase restrictions over time in an attempt to reduce the civilian gun stock. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967 redefined the right to self defense more restrictively making any act of self defense potentially criminal. The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1998 brought shotguns under strict regulation; the Firearm Act of 1997 effectively banned the private ownership of handguns and provided for the confiscation of all legally owned handguns.
According to the more guns more crime hypothesis, all this restriction of civilian guns should have resulted in England enjoying lower and lower rates of violent crime. Unfortunately, the facts reveal a pattern that is almost opposite. [as of 2000 England had twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.] and I are writing on the theory that more guns in a society will cause more crime. This part of the article was written by Prof. Moody an economist at William & Mary College.]

If more guns cause murder, and more guns cause more murder, it would seem societies with no guns at all should be the safest possible states. There are few gun free societies in the world today. However, if we look back in history to the time before the invention of firearms, we can judge for ourselves whether those societies were tranquil and safe. Remarkably good homicide data is available for England, beginning in the 1200’s. Those data indicate a pre-gun homicide rate in England of roughly 20 per 100,000 [roughly four times greater than the U.S. today]

Firearms were introduced into England in the 1400’s and were in wide use by the 1500’s, coincident with a decline in the homicide rate to 15 per 100K. However these early guns were predominately of the matchlock design. This design featured a slow burning fuse held in a clamp at the end of a serpentine lever. When the trigger was pulled the clamp dropped down so that the end of the lit fuse touched the powder in the flash pan, firing the weapon. The design was simple and the weapons relatively inexpensive. The major problem with the design from the point of view of personal defense was that, because of the need for a lit fuse, the weapon could not be kept and carried loaded and primed for quick use against a sudden attack.

The first firearm that could be carried loaded and primed was the flintlock, introduced into England around 1630. In this design the fuse is replaced by a piece of flint. When the trigger is pulled the flint strikes a piece of steel producing a shower of sparks that ignite the powder in the flash pan. This technology persisted through the early 1800’s. While matchlocks were almost exclusively long guns, flintlock technology was readily adapted to produce handguns, which were particularly useful for self defense. The flintlock pistol was relatively inexpensive, could be comfortably carried, was ready for action in an instant, and did not require a great deal of physical strength or expertise to operate. The flintlock could be fired in an instant, making it the ideal self- defense weapon. Armed with a flintlock, the physically weak found themselves on an equal footing with the physically strong in a confrontation.

The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.

The last hundred years of English history tells the reverse story. The first modern gun law in England was the Pistols Act of 1903 which required Englishmen to purchase a permit in order to acquire a firearm. Since 1920, the English government’s policy has been ever more restrictive. The Firearms Control Act of 1920 imposed a true permit requirement to possess rifles as well as all types of pistols and empowered local authorities to determine if the applicant would be allowed to purchase arms. This permit requirement was administered progressively more stringently and was amended to increase restrictions over time in an attempt to reduce the civilian gun stock. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967 redefined the right to self defense more restrictively making any act of self defense potentially criminal. The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1998 brought shotguns under strict regulation; the Firearm Act of 1997 effectively banned the private ownership of handguns and provided for the confiscation of all legally owned handguns.
According to the more guns more crime hypothesis, all this restriction of civilian guns should have resulted in England enjoying lower and lower rates of violent crime. Unfortunately, the facts reveal a pattern that is almost opposite. [as of 2000 England had twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.]

[Emphasis in the original.]

Here it is again: the key tactic in any argument with a gun control advocate is to demand the citing of any instance where relaxing gun control laws has increased crime. And, I suspect, you can also do well by demanding the citing of any instance where imposing gun control on the general population has decreased crime. (The “on the general population” proviso is aimed at excepting closed, tightly controlled areas such as prisons. Presumably, most gun control advocates would not be willing to voluntarily live in a prison.)

===

Ack, I’ve lost the via.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Bill of Rights, Cool Stuff, Guns and Ammo, History, Island Off French Coast (England), Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Throwing Out the Trash | 2 Comments »

Thomas’ McDonald Concurrance, Digested

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

The Richmond Times-Dispatch has done the hard work of editing it down, presenting “The Ugly Racial History of Gun Control”.

Via Arms and the Law.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Bill of Rights, Cool Stuff, Law, McDonald, Right to Keep and Bear Arms | Comments Off

Civil War on the Border

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Speaking of Sipsey Street, Mike Vanderboegh reminds us of what we’re talking about when we talk about taking our country back by force of arms:

Pictures from the War on Drugs, by the way, over in Mexico. This is what an open border policy invites in.

Posted in Constitution, Dammit!, Drug War, Fighting Back, Government Idiocy, Military, The Fall | 1 Comment »

Prager On America

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

I don’t know anything about Dennis Prager. I don’t know if he’s a politician, a radio host, or an agent of the KGB.

I only know that this is something that has to get out there, that as many people as possible need to hear Prager’s message.

0:30
The greatest threat to America?
“We have not passed on what it means to be an American to this generation.”

3:00
“The fact that the United States of America is about to confirm to the U.S. Supreme Court a woman who banned the military from her campus gives you an idea of how deep this problem is. That that is not disqualifying — to Democrats! To Democrats! — That it is not disqualifying is a moment of darkness in American history.”

4:15
“This is not a Presidential election, and is the most important election in modern American history, this November. This November is a referendum on what we want America to be.”

That last…Yes, I know. “We are not going to vote our way out of this crisis.” I hear you, Beck, Vanderboegh, Venlet, I hear you all loud and clear, and I agree.

But we are not ready to take our country back. Too many of us don’t understand what it is to be an American. We need time, another two years at least, to get folks up to speed. The biggest thing about McDonald is not that the Supremes found against Chicago, but that all over the land, Americans found that they agreed with McDonald, and agreed that Baron Daley looks like a thug in his petulant moves to regulate the right to death.

It’s a great start, but it’s just a start. Two more years, and then the socialists can do anything they want, because by then, folks will know enough to ignore them, or fight back.

I’ve been thinking about not voting this fall. I take it back. I will vote. I will even campaign, if only at a Tea Party office. I will not work for a specific candidate, but I will work to spread ideas, and to call candidates for both parties out.

I have no hope, no hope at all, that any candidate that wins in any race will “take back” Congress, or any other office. That’s not the point. The point is gaining time, to throw the people who are paddling like mad for the waterfall overboard, and settle for those who will do no more than let us drift.

Two years of charade, two years of blogging, two years to teach, and train, and stock up.

That has to be enough, because I deeply fear the next Presidential election, no matter who stands for office, no matter who wins.

update: OK, I looked him up. Prager’s a radio host, among other things.

Posted in Constitution, Dammit!, Philosophy, Politics & Politicians, Right to Keep and Bear Arms | 1 Comment »

McDonald

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

So, yesterday the big McDonald case came out, confirming that, yes, the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and yes, it applies against state and local governments as well as the feds.

But I posted nothing. Why the hell not?

Because it’s weak and wishy-washy. Because it says, in effect, no, you can’t ban guns, but you can regulate them to death. Because it’s another crack in the wall, and not a general tearing down.

Mostly, though, because it doesn’t apply to me, or you, or any citizen.

The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, down to the Second Amendment, have nothing to do with what We the People are allowed to do. The Constitution is directed at the government, the State, giving it structure, defining its (few and strictly limited) powers, and listing things it is forbidden to do.

We, the People, can own private property, including tools, including printing presses and telephones and guns. Period. We can defend ourselves against crime and tyranny.

We can do those things whether the State, or the states, or petty little town hall dictators like Daley, say nay or yay.

That’s what a right is: a declaration that you can act according to the dictates of your own conscience, subject to the imposed will of no one, no legislator, no executive, no judge, no uniform or badge.

So, yeah, I’m interested in McDonald in the sense that it’s good to see that the Supreme Court is slowly rousing from its long slumber, that it realized that if it tried to take that right away, it would have a real, honest-to-blood-in-the-streets fight on its front steps. It’s interesting to see the twisted logic four out of nine Justices used to try to deny a plainly written limit on their power. Scorpions and wasps are interesting, even beautiful, in their way, too.

But McDonald does not give you the right to own or carry a gun. It will only, over the long run, perhaps make it a little less legally risky to do so. It is a harbinger of change. It acknowledges that The State has pretty well gone about as far as we’ll let it, which is a good sign.

And it chips away at the cover that gun-grabbers have been hiding behind for decades, although again, it’s only a chip, not even a whole brick, much less the tumbling of the prison walls.

Daley’s scared. But not scared enough.

Personally, I won’t think he’s scared enough until he leaves town under cover of darkness, stinking with panic and warm piss running down his leg.

And frankly, not even then, not until he hits the road block, and armed citizens drag him out of his car and march him over to the nearest wall.

[update]

John Venlet “takes no pleasure” in McDonald, either:

…because the Second Amendment has been so obfuscated by the poetic license musings of the ruling class over the years that individuals no longer trust their own knowledge and understanding of the words within the Second Amendment, as presented to them by the founding fathers.

The Second Amendment, runs a total of twenty-seven (27) words, which are as follows.

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

These twenty-seven (27) words have been mashed, bashed, pureed, and mouthed with a baby’s zeal for a zwieback, resembling not so much a learned discourse of knowledge and wisdom, but a bunch of college freshman in an American Lit 101 class analyzing a Shel Silverstein poem, and not understanding it.

I suppose, if an individual is content to waive their inalienable rights, kneeling as a supplicant before the power of the State, pleading for the right of property ownership, the SCOTUS decision will appear as a victory over the State, but it would be an unprincipled victory, as illustrated in these words from Billy Beck:

I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased—the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts”—my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them. I own firearms because I have a right to private property. That is the First Thing.

…Keep….Bear…infringed…
These three (3) small words were not misunderstood by individuals when The Constitution of the United States was written. “To keep” meant exactly what is implied, “to retain in one’s possession,” ownership; “to bear” meant exactly what is implied, “to carry or possess;” and “shall not be infringed” meant exactly what is implied, the State shall not violate the right to own or carry arms, yet today these three (3) small words are so misunderstood that Justice Thomas Clarence required fifty-six (56) pages worth of words to support SCOTUS’ decision that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms in the City of Chicago.

Individuals can slice and dice the Second Amendment all they want, but the fact remains that any law restricting ownership or the carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. Period.

And let me riff for a moment on Beck’s “right to private property”. That right is also not granted by the Constitution, which says,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated….

Again, that does not does not grant us the right to private property, or our right to defend our privacy. I don’t care what the courts say, I have that right, and the Constitution prohibits the State from violating it.

What’s more, there’s no “Congress shall make no law” limitation. No one can violate my security, no one, and I take that to mean thugs crackheaded as well as jackbooted.

And if I’m going to defend my person, house, papers and effects from whomever, I must have the tools necessary for that defense. And I may use those tools to defend myself and secure my privacy against both crackheads and jackboots.

Infringing the Second Amendment, then, violates the Fourth as well.

That the State has so egregiously infringed and violated both rights doesn’t mean that I do not have those rights; it means that the offending State is illegitimate by its own founding charter, and may no longer command my respect, or even my obedience, except by raw force.

I’ll say it one more time: I follow these cases to take the measure of those who would rule me, not determine the limits of my own actions or conscience.

Posted in Bill of Rights, Democrats, Government Idiocy, Guns and Ammo, Liberals, McDonald, My Principles, Politics & Politicians, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Self-defense | 1 Comment »

Obama, Do Your Damn Job

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Hey, you think that “Declaration 2.0″ thingie a post or two down is a joke?

Here’s a bill of particulars with references to the Constitution.

Mexican gangs with lookout posts IN ARIZONA??? Mexican snipers?? What in Hell is the matter with you? Are you so intent on “fundamentally transforming” this country that you will allow this? An ARMED incursion across our southern border and death threats to law enforcement and YOU ALLOW THIS???

If so, then you are a traitor in the purest sense of the word and should be treated as such. You are in direct violation of the Constitution by denying the citizens of Arizona the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” as outlined in the Fourth Amendment, in addition to your failure to respect Article IV Sec.4 of the Constitution regarding the “guarantee to EVERY (individual) state a republican form of government and shall protect each of them (including Arizona) against INVASION”.

AND your failure “To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS” (Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution)

You are also in violation of Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution in that, by allowing these outposts to exist you are indirectly giving “Aid and Comfort” to an invading force, the enemy. You have, at the very least, allowed a potential state of war to exist on our own sovereign soil and have done nothing to defend or support those in the line of fire. Abandonment and persecution of the people you were sworn to protect makes “Traitor” seems appropriate.

I must add, you are not only a traitor but a seditionist as well. That you are IN FACT, guilty of “overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order” We The People being the legal authority and states rights being the “established order”.

“Subversion of a constitution” and “incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority” which you have done by demonizing the people of and filing suit against, the state of Arizona. You have, in fact, created a “commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws” (of the state of Arizona) all of which are part of the very definition of sedition. You have, in essence, declared war on one of our own states by these actions and you WILL be held accountable.

Read it all, every word.

And you leg-tingling “Journo-lists” who acted as this thug’s mouthpiece during and after the election?

Right up against the wall with him. You’re not the independent, free press protected by the Constitution; you’re his shills, and if he starts bailing out your worthless puppy trainers, you’ll be his paid shills, his co-conspirators.

Anybody out there willing to admit they voted for him? Still proud of it? Here’s your rough-hewn rail, have a nice ride out of town.

Feeling a bit duped?

Too. Fucking. Bad. You deserve everything that’s about to come down around your poor little ignorant innocent socialist peacenik ears. We’ll do our best to keep it from killing you, but remember: we don’t feel sorry for you, we blame you. We’ll let you in if you promise to work, but expect a lot of rough words and angry glares while you dig the latrines.

Via Sondra K. Again.

Tags: , ,
Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Bill of Rights, Communism, Constitution, Dammit!, Democrats, Fighting Back, Government Idiocy, History, Immigration, Liberals, Military, Political Correctness, Politics & Politicians, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Socialism, The Fall | 1 Comment »

Delegated Powers

Friday, June 18th, 2010

The Geek with a .45 adds another piece to my political principles puzzle. I’m going to have to think about it for awhile, but it looks right:

Since the right of preventing peaceable drinking does not exist, it cannot be delegated to government.

The 18th amendment is a perfect example of how a supermajority of humans can and will form to throw the minority, and ultimately themselves, under the bus.

It is, so far, the ultimate case study in how our Constitution, a tool forged for the good of liberty, can be perverted to serve the evil of stealing from another his rightful prerogative.

In fact, that leads me to a good rule of thumb for considering any public policy or act of legislation. Any and every act of legislation is a delegation of *my* personal right to do or support a thing. Forget asking where government’s Power to do the thing comes from (though too damned few even ask that….) Ask where does *my* power/right to do such a thing come from? Would it be a rightful act as an individual? What are the just limitations on my personal right or power to do such a thing? And if such can’t be found, what in the name of $DEITY, makes people think that government magically gets the ability to manufacture such a right out of thin air?

In simpler words, if it would be wrong or unethical for you to do, it would be wrong for government to do on your behalf. Being government isn’t magical, there’s no property of government that renders ethical or moral any act that would be unethical for an individual.

As Marko Kloos once said about “collective rights”, there are no rights you can gain as a consequence of joining a collective group.

I’ve essentially quoted the punchline; go read the whole thing for the context.

The thing I like about this is the framework it provides for answering collectivists who claim that their opponents are anarchists who don’t want any government at all.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Constitution, Cool Stuff, Me, My Principles | 1 Comment »

Presumption of Competence

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Son of a gun.

No sooner had I posted my “elevator pitch” for liberty, but Billy Beck points me to Wendy McElroy’s excellent expansion of the idea, “A Legal Presumption of Competence.”

A core principle of the Nanny State is that people do not know their best interests and must be treated like children with the State acting as guardian. Indeed, that’s where the word “nanny” comes from. The Nanny State proceeds from the presumption that you are incompetent to administer your own life. Even fully-functioning adults are deemed unable or unwilling to make wise decisions and, so, the state rushes in to fill the void with extensive regulation of every individual’s personal health and safety.

How much transfat or salt can be in your fast food burger? You are too obese, too nutritionally ignorant, too addicted to McDonalds to be trusted. Should you smoke, drink, or chow down on sweets? Of course not! But if you do, then, like a good parent, the State will force you to bear the cost of irresponsibility by uber-taxing your minor vices and imprisoning you for the major ones.

The “wise parent” list scrolls on and on: wear a helmet while bicycling, don’t use saccharine, no public nudity, don’t loiter in parks, monitor your words to coworkers, don’t download porn, take a urine test at work, don’t drive too fast, take only approved drugs and only in the prescribed fashion, strap on your safety belt, pay a tax for the error of fast food, no smoking in public places, register your handgun, don’t use incandescent bulbs, recycle, homogenize all milk, buy health insurance. . . . And, recently, Maine was pushing to eliminate sex-specific bathrooms because separate “men’s” and women’s” rooms discriminate against your gender rights. Yes, where you take a piss is now a matter of state to be debated by legislatures, and all because they want to protect you. Happily, Maine has backed away from politicizing toilets.

It gets better. Read it all.

But especially read this:

There is a word to describes the situation in which another party claims ownership over the body of another: it is “slavery.” As such, the Nanny State is misnamed. Although it would like to project the image of a wise guardianship of children — a sort of stern Mary Poppins who uses a “spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down” — a more accurate image is that of a slave owner. One hand of the Nanny State may be wagging an admonishing finger at you but the other hand is holding a whip at-the-ready.

Slavery. That’s really what we’re talking about here.

Oh, and that’s not all from Beck:

The entire effect — if not the purpose — of a jaywalking statute is to strip the individual of that which he is born with: the principal device with which humans are able and naturally authorized to make their ways through the world.
…
Me? I know how to get across a street. My parents saw to that at an early age.

As usual, Beck gets right to core of the thing, and you should read every golden word.

This was his comment over at Radley’s Agitator article concerning a woman who got punched in the face by a cop over a jaywalking ticket.

John Venlet was talking about “Fort Sumters”, and I was talking about small individual actions, “candles not forest fires”.

This, folks, is what candles look like.

Also notice in the video that damn near every person in the crowd had a phonecam out. No effort to arrest the guy making this video, it would have been futile.

Imagine the woman quoting the Constitution, the law, the Declaration, Locke, Paine, Henry, Jefferson, or, hell, Beck, making a principled stand against a minor tyranny.

Now imagine everybody in that crowd with a gun on their hip, nodding their heads at every word she says and scowling at the cops.

Imagine that freedom, liberty itself, was politically correct.

Hahahaha! What a ridiculous idea! I slay myself sometimes.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Bill of Rights, Cool Stuff, Cops, Dammit!, Edumakashun, Fighting Back, Law, Photography, Press | 1 Comment »

Hard To Believe

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

“Did you know Obama just signed an executive order trying to get people to stop living unhealthy lifestyles?”

Mom looked at me with something like skeptical pity.

“Now, Dave, not even I believe that.”

Believe it, Mom. Please note that this is from “whitehouse.gov”; that makes it officially-for-real official, really.

d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;

and

address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;

He is doing this to begin filling in the woefully thin regulatory skeleton strung together as the more than two thousand unread pages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Dear The One: Do you have any idea how close you are to triggering a transformative behavior modification program for you and your buddies on the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (NPHPPHC)? It’s item number two in an obscure little document I doubt was covered in any of your conlaw classes at Yale. Its initials are “RKBA”.

Did you know, Mr. President The One Sir, that my speel cheker doesn’t even recognize “transformative” as a word?

And seriously? The pee-pee-pee council? Seriously?

I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t tell Mom that the EPA is telling farmers they have to store milk according to the same rules as petroleum. No difference, says the recently re-empowered EPA. She’d never believe a wild, paranoid conspiracy like that.

Having watched the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, dairy farmer Frank Konkel has a hard time seeing how spilled milk can be labeled the same kind of environmental hazard.

Stupid ignorant farmer hicks. Just because one of these is a delicious, nutritious beverage produced by other mammals and is consumed daily by millions of humans, including children and even babies; and one of them a heavy, toxic mineral brew of volatile fuels, solvents, and tars that would kill you if you ate it over cereal or even drank it with pancakes — pancakes, mind! — doesn’t mean they’re not the same thing, obviously. Thank heaven we have expert government bureaucrats to remind us of these simple scientific facts.

Thank heaven they’re now going to be advising us directly on what we should eat and what kind of exercise we should. And remember, boys and girls, if you don’t take their advice, they’ll just have to make you.

And about that “recently re-empowered EPA”. When are you folks going to get around to re-empowering we the people again?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Bill of Rights, Dammit!, Democrats, Dr. Evil, Economics, Food, Government Idiocy, Health, Law, Liberals, Politics & Politicians, Socialism | 1 Comment »

Lawyer Show: The Defenders

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

Mark Bennett at Defending People points to The Defenders, a show from CBS about two Las Vegas Defense lawyers. Looks to be pretty entertaining:

Bennett comments:

Once upon a time there was Murder One, but realistic TV dramas with innocent defendants have been thin on the ground lately. The problem with the government getting it right all the time on TV (well, one of the problems) is that the people who watch TV get conditioned to assume that the government gets it right all the time in real life. (I once asked a jury panel what their favorite lawyer TV show was, and weeded out the Law & Order watchers while keeping the Boston Legal fans.)

I have to wonder what he’d do with me. I’ve pretty much given up on cop and lawyer shows because depending on the show, I can predict whether or not the defendant in the dock is innocent or guilty. As Bennett correctly points out, most shows are from the cop/prosecutor standpoint, and the defendant is therefore guilty; if he gets off, it’s because of unscrupulous trickery on the part of the defense. In the rare shows and movies standing on the side of the defense, the very existence of the police and courts is an affront to the innocent, and indeed, to “justice and liberty for all”.

I want a show that looks at the whole system, where at least 50% of the time, I cannot know which way the jury decides until the verdict is rendered. On the same damn show, I want cops fudging evidence to close a case; defense and prosecution warring over technicalities without regard to defendant or victim; innocent people getting railroaded because they didn’t know the Magic Dance needed to deal with the police, or tried to act pro se; obviously guilty people getting off because the police acted badly; people being convicted of crimes they’re actually guilty of, but had no idea that their (seemingly reasonable in the circumstances) actions were in fact illegal; juries being held in contempt for attempting nullification or being shocked to find that nullification was even possible for an offense they regarded as fundamentally unjust; judges occasionally being obtuse, arrogant, and vindictive, although mostly patient, learned, wise and just — the whole range of American jurisprudence, good and bad.

Oh, and two more things:

Every now and then, I want to see armed but unlicensed citizens protecting themselves against both thugs and tyrants with unregistered firearms. They can land in court, but I want to see the issue honestly discussed — I am sick to death of disgusted cops rolling their eyes at freely armed citizens, with the implication that of course only cops should be armed. Instead, I want Sir Bobby’s dictum that “The police are the people, and the people are the police” to be a regular mantra.

Finally, and most important, every show, every damn show, should teach the audience something about living under American law and protecting themselves under the Constitution. I am sick to death of learning that honest citizenssubjects help the police with their inquiries by answering every question, and consenting to searches; only crooks remain silent or withhold consent. I want the underlying philosophy of the show to be that citizens are capable of running their own lives, and are competent to understand and exercise their rights and responsibilities if given half a chance; that our current legal system does its best to render citizens helpless children; and that, yes, bad people are out there, on all sides, and game the system for their personal benefit, but that most cops, lawyers, and judges honestly want equal justice under the law — they just forget, sometimes, that liberty for all is the best path to justice for all.

I’ll watch that show religiously.

I seriously doubt I’ll ever see even one movie, much less a regular TV show, taking that stance. I’ve never heard of one.

[update]
No, wait, I just remembered one: Judge Bone on Picket Fences. I didn’t always agree with the man, but he tried, by golly, to judge fairly in very hard cases.

Tags:
Posted in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Law, Movies and TV | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries