Psychiatrists Agree: Red Flag Laws Are B.S.

David Codrea has an analysis of so called "red flag" laws at Ammoland entitled Psychiatric Diagnoses Study Cast Reasonable Doubt On Red Flag Laws Here's the money quote:

In other words, they can’t justify their political biases scientifically but they still want the government to pass citizen disarmament laws over everybody. That’s even though they admit the problem is minimal and the latest findings conclude what they’ve been doing all along stigmatizes.

Red flag laws are dangerous because rather than relying on proper due process to strip someone of his or her rights, these laws rely on the ancient system of j'accuse. Someone accuses a person in secret. A court holds a hearing in which the bias will be to find that the individual, who may not know that he is in fact on trial, sufficiently "guilty" to take away his guns.

The first problem is that the individual "flagged" is left to walk around on the streets.  The second problem is that if, and that is a big IF, he wanted to commit a crime, guns are not the only weapon at his disposal.  For that matter, again if he intends to commit a crime, he can obtain a gun through illegal means.

The hard but undeniable truth is, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. In order to involuntarily segregate someone from society, full due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are called for. The say-so of motivated third parties who may have a conflict of interest may be enough to get an investigation started, but that’s all.

As always, go read Codrea's article. I have written several times about red flag laws because I believe they are a step in the wrong direction. No body is "flagging" gang bangers and known criminals. Instead, they are "flagging" innocent people because such people are harmless and won't cap the accuser if they can find out who did it. This is nothing more that security theater; looking like the politicians are doing something without actually having to do anything.  It's a way for politicians to harass the hated gun owners, who they look upon as putting a check on their power.

Something Different

So, today, let's do something different, shall we?  Over at the American Thinker today, Anthony J. DeBlasi has a piece entitled Love of Music. Quite often, we get wrapped around the axle worrying about politics, and we forget what truly makes us human. I contend that the arts in general, and music in particular are one of the things that mark humanity as opposed to the other animals.  As I have grown older, I learn to appreciate more and more styles of music, but especially instrumentals.  While learning to play the trumpet, I discovered Baroque music.  While relearning to play the organ, I discovered Bach.  My latest passion is the guitar.  While it is used a lot in pop music for blindingly stupid purposes, the guitar actually has a long history dating back to the middle ages.  The genres of music played on the guitar range from classical and flamenco to jazz and county and rock.

Go read the article, and while you are doing so, listen to a master of the guitar, Mr. Chet Atkins here.

Defending others against edge weapon attack

Go read Scott W. Wagner's article at the USCCA entitled Defending Others Against Edged-Weapon Attacks. Wagner makes the point that in the hands of someone who has a passing knowledge of the use of a knife, and in close quarters, a knife is as, if not more, deadly than a gun.

Please go read Wagner's article.  It is short.  Of course, a knife is an indispensable tool for daily life.  You never know when something will need to be cut from lengths of string, to boxes, to rescuing someone in a car accident.  But it also doesn't hurt to learn how to effectively use a knife as a weapon as well.

Taking The Militia Seriously

Kurt Schlichter has a great idea in his article at Townhall.com entitled Let's Call The Liberals' Second Amendment Militia Bluff. What does Schlichter mean by calling the liberals' militia bluff? Well, his idea is to actually require each of us to own a real live assault rifle, not some semiautomatic look alike, and an actual service grade pistol, like...say...an M1911 pistol. Then, horror of horrors, everyone would have to muster out on designated days, learn useful skills such as first aid, and demonstrate proficiency with their weapons. After all, the law already specifies those who are members of the militia, it is just not enforced.

Frankly, Schlichter's idea is a good one for a number of reasons.  First, and foremost, we need a people who have some little training that can be called up if needed.  But the truth is that the militia is not likely under current circumstances to be called up at the federal level.  But States may need to call up the militia for various reasons.  For example, during hurricanes and other weather disasters a State might wish to call up the militia to perform rescue or evacuation operations.  The militia may also be useful as a sheriff's posse.  Having a, using the term in its original meaning, well regulated militia could be of great value to a State.

One thing Schlichter didn't mention, but I think it would be a good idea is one mention in his book Peoples' Republic. The idea is that in order to vote, one must serve in the military. But service in the militia would be a good substitute for service in the professional military. After all, if you want a voice in how we are governed, perhaps it is not too much to ask you to participate in your community in a positive way instead of just complaining and "protesting." Protesting and demonstrating should be a last resort, not your first response.

Go read the article.  I have to run, today, but I encourage a two of you gentle readers to read Kurt's article and consider some of his proposals.

Murphy Was An Optimist

In the James Bond thriller Skyfall Bond is issued a smart gun instead of his trusty Walther PPK. At an appropriate moment in the film, Bond loses control of his weapon, and is about to be terminated by an attacker who picks it up. But, the gun works as promised and will not fire for the attacker. Just before the attacker pulls the trigger, Bond utters "Good luck with that."

 For those who believe in the power of electronic technology, the film is a ringing endorsement of the so called "smart gun."  Our former Vice President, Joe Biden, appears to be one of these.  What Biden, and apparently a lot of people do not understand is that the "Bond" films are scripted by Hollywood writers who also believe in the smart gun idea.  These scripts are just wishful thinking, and so are smart guns.  The smart gun is pure Hollywood fiction.  Murphy's law, which states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible moment, is a more accurate assessment.  And Murphy was an optimist.

Today, at Townhall.com John Lott has an article explaining all this entitled Democrats Keep Pushing Smart Guns.

These “smart” guns use a fingerprint or palm reader — something akin to what is available on smart phones. Or they can utilize a radio signal from a wristwatch worn by the owner.

...snip...

Imagine police arriving on a crime scene and finding that their guns can’t fire, because of interference with the radio signals. The German-made Armatix iP1 has been jammed with radio waves and hasn’t proved useful in preventing theft as it was hacked with $15 worth of magnets. Should police rely on fingerprint technology instead? The iPhone supposedly has state-of-the-art finger print scanners, but anyone who uses the device knows that the technology is far from 100% reliable. The phone won't unlock if your finger is positioned in the wrong way, or if it is slightly damp or dirty. For police, a few second delay may mean the difference between life and death.

In a life and death struggle, and that is the only time a potentially lethal weapon should be drawn, one is unlikely to be given the chance to go wash his or her hands.  Frankly, one is also very likely to not be able to get a firm firing grip on the gun.  Imagine that you are already on the ground, being pounded by a man bigger, stronger, and more youthful than you are.  You begin to realize that if you don't get this guy off of you, he is going to kill you.  But he is stronger than you are, and you can't.  You reach back and manage to draw your gun, turn it towards your attacker and fire, twice, three times.  He finally relents, as it dawns on him he has been shot.  Now, while he is distracted, you can push him aside and get up.  For the first time you can take a firm firing grip and proper aim, but of course, if your attacker has not reinitiated his attack, you do not shoot.

But what if your weapon was one of these so called "smart guns?"  Would you have been able to use it?  Murphy, remember, was an optimist.

The Great Reaction to the Newest Idea in Politics

Christopher Chantrill, at the American Thinker today calls out the Left for what it really is about in an article entitled Who Will Tell the Movement Activists To Go Home? Chantrill sums up what he is really talking about here:

See, my idea is that our Big Problem is that the left and all its works are a Great Reaction, a unconscious, instinctive nostalgia for the good old days of slavery, serfdom, conquest, tribalism. That’s why I say that socialism is neo-slavery, the welfare state is neo-serfdom, democracy is neo-loot-and-plunder, and identity politics is neo-tribalism.

And really, why be surprised? The Germans, particularly Jung, reminded us that we are mostly our unconscious mind and its archetypes. So of course we would have an instinctive hankering for the good old days of unfettered simian instinct.

Chantrill is definitely on to something. I have always wondered why the Left espouses not a new idea, but a very old one. Indeed, the latest and the greatest is the founding of the Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America. Of course, there had been democracies before. They failed. And there had been republics before. Rome started out as a republic. After the dictators (read Caesars) took over, they maintained the outward appearance of the republic, while providing bread and circuses to the masses to keep them mollified.  The Roman idea once the dictators took over was a giant Ponzi scheme in which there was a need to conquer more and more of the world.  Eventually they would have run out of world.  But instead, before they could conquer the world, Rome was brought down by the weight of its own tyranny.

The Founding Fathers had a new and revolutionary idea. A constitutional republic in which all the stakeholders had a say. The people got to vote directly for their representatives in the House.  The States got a say by choosing the Senators.  The President was elected by the electors based on the number of people in each State and who won that State.  The Supreme Court was originally supposed to make rulings on things that were in the domain of the Federal government.  That was a small list.  It was brilliant. But right from the start, the Left was out to get rid of this new idea.

Many don't know this, but the term, "The Left" comes from France, and it was the French revolution that set the Left in motion.  Just as the American revolution was successful, the French revolution was not.  And so it has been ever since. The Left constantly believes that one man can embody the yearnings of an entire people. It's absurd.    But some men will always want power.  The interesting thing is, like so many things in life, the more you want it, the less of it you will have.

The Department of Redundancy Department

Scott Morefield today at Townhall.com has the latest in a long long line of unnecessary and useless laws in The Absurdity and Futility of Distracted Driving Laws. The money quote is:

This law, like so many others, presumes citizens aren’t adults with adult judgement. Most of us can determine when it’s safe to glance down to do anything quickly in a vehicle and when it’s not. I’ve been switching podcasts on my phone for years, and have never once been cited for reckless driving because I’m extremely careful, you know, like an adult. People will say “a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch,” but why not simply punish those bad apples? If someone is doing ANYTHING in a vehicle that causes them to not operate it safely, they should be cited. And the result will be something police can easily observe and deal with - an erratic vehicle.

The police already have an excuse to pull over any driver whose driving is erratic. The driver might be drunk, or on medication for which he has been advised to avoid operating machinery. In any case, he can be cited or jailed. The need for a separate distracted driving law is entirely superfluous, and redundant.

How many laws on any State's books either have never been used, or have only been used once?  We are a nation of laws, alright, too many laws.  Start with a new law that any new law should be matched with two others to be repealed.  Of course at some point a State might get down to an irreducible number of laws, but it will probably take 100 years or so.  So have at it (I am looking at you, North Carolina legislature.)