Assault Weapons Ban

 

My Rifle, My Pony and Me

It's time for a cowboy to sing
Purple light in the canyon
That's where I long to be
With my three good companions
Just my rifle, my pony and me

Is the cowboy singing about  an ASSAULT rifle?

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional”.

This is the opening paragraph of the decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego in Miller v. California.  It almost makes me want to throw away my venerable old Swiss Army Knife.  The decision goes on further to say that AR-15s should not be banned because it is protected as a weapon that serves a well-regulated militia.  You are NOT a militia because you say you are a militia. Groups that decide that they are a militia are in fact nothing more than vigilantes and IMO not well-regulated vigilantes at that.

The decision goes on to say that there is a purpose for banning “bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”.  The judge is making an opinion that an AR-15 is an ordinary popular rifle.  If Bazooka, howitzers, or machine guns also become popular, does this mean that they also should not be banned?

It goes on to state that “In 1989, most judicial thinking about the Second Amendment was incorrect.” This is a statement of opinion, not one of fact.  The judge clearly disagrees with the thinking.  He can not say that it is incorrect. He is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

The decision states that “ Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”  I do not think that the Attorney General sees it differently.  The State of California, in its National Guard, has constituted a militia.  There is no other militia in California that has been authorized to my knowledge.  It should not be the plaintiffs or a federal judge who can overrule the State of California and decide that it can constitute a militia and how it chooses to arm that militia.

The decision goes on to say that “Modern rifles have become immensely popular in the United States. Even in California, despite being banned for 20 to 30 years, according to the State’s own evidence, there are 185,569 “assault weapons” currently registered with the California.  …. Californians buy a lot of firearms. In the year 2020 alone, residents bought 1,165,309 firearms.” I can hear my late mother chiding me that just because something was popular that does not make it right.  She would say “If the popular kids all jumped off a bridge, would you?”

If the National Guard of California decided that an AR-15 is required for its arms, which it has not, and its decided that members of the National Guard, arguably the only authorized militia in California, should possess an AR-15 at home, which it has not, then perhaps one could say that there would be a reason  to overturn the ban to regulate this militia.  But the ownership of a popular weapon, by individuals who are not members of a state regulated militia, should not be decided especially by federal law.  The Second Amendment prevents congress from imposing laws on states, such as California, with regards to arming its militia.  It does not protect individuals who are not part of a well-regulated militia from California law.

The Second Amendment was a restraint on the US Congress from enacting laws that supersede a state's authority to arm its militia.  To have that Amendment used to overturn, not an action by the US Congress, but a state law would appear to be the world turned upside down.

On behalf of all of the citizens of the US, this decision should be appealed. The regulation is not on all rifles.  Only on assault rifles  It does not regulate regular rifles .....or ponies.

Caste IV

 

Coat of Many Colors

But they didn't understand it

And I tried to make them see

That one is only poor

Only if they choose to be

Now I know we had no money

But I was rich as I could be

In my coat of many colors

My momma made for me

Made just for me

Did the Confederacy win the Civil War?

The Confederacy lost the military campaign that was the Civil War.  But it may have won by protecting the caste system.  A caste system is a system that ranks members of society according to some characteristics.  Chattel slavery was the lowest rung on the system and chattel slavery was abolished after the Civil War, but the caste system remained.  It is called the caste system in Isabel Wilkerson's wonderful book Caste: the Origins of Our Discontent.  Caste can be defined as racism, sexism, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or any sorting of members of society by any characteristics.  Yes, it is used in Hindu culture but caste there is imposed on members of society that can not otherwise be distinguish.  They look the same, have the same nationality, have the same religion, have the same ethnicity, speak the same language, etc.  The difference is the occupations and wealth of their ancestors.  Thus caste seems a fitting name for any system that ranks members of its society by some characteristics, even if those characteristics seem to be arbitrary to others.

Heather McGhee in her book, The Sum of Us, documents that there is a cost to society of racism, and by extension of casteism.  Public services are not supported if those services are consumed by those who are in lower castes.  If there are no public services ( e.g. health care) then when we need those services, such as during the current pandemic, those services are not there.  After the Civil War slavery was abolished, but the caste system it promoted still endured. The Jim Crow laws were promoted and enforced by many including the Ku Klux Klan. Slavery was only the lowest rung of that caste system.  Public services are not offered because of that caste system. This is why it suggested that the promoters of that caste system, the Confederacy, might have won the Civil War even if they suffered a military defeat.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany, who modeled their own laws after the caste system and laws in the United States, no monuments to Nazis were allowed.  After the Civil War, monuments to Confederate officials were erected, promoted, and are protected today.

If the someone tells us that there is a caste system and we are in the middle rungs, that there are those who are lower castes than us whom we should despise, and those in castes above us whom we should protect, our response should not be to accept our rung, place, but question why they were allowed to say that there is a caste system in the first place. I will earn my place. You will not tell me what my place is. I’m only poor if I say I am poor, not if you say I am poor.

Nice versus Competent

 

No More Mister Nice Guy

No more Mister Nice Guy
No more Mister Clean,
No more Mister Nice Guy,
They say he's sick, he's obscene.

Is it better to be Nice than to be Competent?

I am replaying in my mind an argument with my late father-in-law from years ago. I wish he were here so I could tell him that he was right.  We both agreed that if a person were nice and competent, we would choose him.  We both agreed that if a person were nasty and incompetent, we would not choose him.  We disagreed over the other mixtures. My father-in-law argued for nice but incompetent, while I argued for nasty but competent. I said that I would choose a mechanic who was nasty and competent rather than one who was nice but incompetent.  I would like to change my vote.

A nice person is unlikely to lie about the answer.  A nice person is likely to admit when he originally gave a wrong answer.  I can not always judge a person’s competence.   A nice person will tell you when he incompetent.  A nasty person might tell you that he is competent even when he is knows that he is incompetent.  In my opinion, nice and incompetent IS better than nasty and competent.

Filibusters

 Swinging on a Star

And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo

Every day you meet quite a few

So you see it's all up to you

You can be better than you are

You could be swingin' on a star

The Oscar best picture  Going Places had an Oscar winning song, Swinging on a Star.  'Nuff said

In a two-player game, you can assume that the other player is your enemy. You can assume that it is a zero sum game. You can also assume that the game will not be repeated, or if it is repeated that it will always be against the same player. Which is why there are handicaps, ratings, etc.  The second player would be silly to agree to play in a mismatch.

In a multiplayer game, in any round it is NOT reasonable to assume that your opponent is your enemy, and it is NOT reasonable to assume that it is a zero sum game.  It is NOT reasonable to assume that the game will not be repeated (if a round is repeated, why would the game not also be repeated?) .  If by definition the opponent in every round is different, it is NOT reasonable to assume that the same opponents will be faced each game.

If everyone is not an enemy, then you should pick a multiplayer strategy.  If growth is possible, not a zero sum game, then you should pick a multiplayer strategy. If the game will be repeated (i.e. there is a future), then you should pick a multiplayer strategy.  Which is why there are 100 Senators.  It is time that we make them act as individuals, not as just as two political parties ( Democrats vs Republicans). Then we could be swinging on a star.

Ransomware

Marine Hymn

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battle
In the air, on land, and sea;

Millions for Defense, Not One Cent for Tribute!

Cyber attacks have been made on a number of United States firms and agencies.  These cyber attacks are to demand ransom for those firms and agencies.  Many of these attacks have been attributed to foreign criminals.  This is not the first time that citizens of the United States, their agents, or agencies have been attacked by foreign criminals.  " To the shores of Tripoli" refers to the First Barbary War, and specifically the Battle of Derne in 1805. The Barbary pirates seized and held ships and their cargo for ransom.  Among the ships and cargo the pirates seized were those belonging to US citizens. The United States had to decide whether its citizens should pay this ransom.  The United States had already faced a similar challenge when the French Navy seized American Ships.  It gave rise to the phrase, “Millions for Defense, Not One Cent for Tribute”.  Allowing for inflation this can be stated as , “Whatever it takes for defense, but not one cent for ransom.” 

What was true then is true now.  The Marines or their successors are ready.  But what is important to remember is that even though we fought on the shores of Tripoli, Tripoli is NOT, and never has been made part, of the United States.  The response to an injustice, should not be vengeance, but  retaliation.  If foreign countries will not act against criminals acting against the United States, the United States will take the required action, but ONLY that action.  The nation’s interest is to speak softly, but carry a big stick, but it is necessary to show that we are not afraid to use that stick. To the shores of Tripoli are not just words in a Hymn.  It is a statement of the nation’s response to any form of ransom. 

Malapropisms

 

Bad Moon on the Rise

Don't go around tonight

Well it's bound to take your life

There's a bad moon on the rise

If saying something is good, knowing what you are saying is better.

One of  college roommates use to say “It is a doggie doggie world”.  I will never forget the look on his face when he found out that the saying was “It is a dog eat dog world”.  Actually he had the same expression when he found that the Creedence Clearwater Revival Song was “There’s  a Bad Moon on the Rise”, not “ There’s a bathroom on the right” as he would sing it.

Don’t just accept and repeat sayings.  It isn’t just about not sounding foolish.  There is usually a story behind why those words are used, and it might make more sense after you find out how those words came about.  There is usually wisdom behind those words and it helps knowing why you are using words, not just merely repeating words.

Tarrifs

 

James K Polk

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump

Tariffs have been used by long been used by governments to ensure that price equations do not work against a nation’s interest.

Microeconomics teaches that at an equilibrium of supply, the price will be where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost.  This is only the first derivative of these equations though.  The revenue equation is:

Revenue = price  * quantity sold.

The cost equation is:

cost = fixed cost + variable cost * quantity sold

Tariffs are imposed when a producer will not be competitive in their own county.  A county might then decide that it is in their interests to impose a tariff such that the quantity sold in their country will be closer to the quantity produced in their county. This changes the cost equation to

cost = fixed cost + variable cost * quantity sold + tariff* quantity sold

This can happen because the combination of fixed costs and variable costs are  higher in one country compared to another country.  Even though variable costs are comparable, fixed costs can be higher in one county compared to another.  Technically since fixed costs are allocated among the quantities sold, the complete cost equation is:

cost =((fixed cost)/(quantity sold)  + variable cost) * quantity sold + tariff* quantity sold

The first derivative of this equation also supports the classical  equation of price. But for an individual producer, when the fixed costs are high and/or the quantity sold is low, the fixed costs can not be ignored.  That is traditionally why tariffs are imposed.  When the ratio of fixed cost to quantity sold is the same for every producer,  or are close to zero, the variable costs in different countries might still be different, and account for considerable different in costs excluding tariffs.  For example, variable costs  may include child labor, wage, safety or environmental laws and regulations in one country that are not imposed in another.  Tariffs are not often imposed to equalize  the differences in variable costs caused by various laws and regulations.  This mean that producers can move to another country to avoid laws and regulations to lower their own variable costs.  This defeats the purpose of those laws and regulations.  As long as producers can move to avoid  laws and regulations, if tariffs are not imposed, then these laws and regulations are meaningless.

Tariffs are often enacted to protect the fixed cost ratio,  because the fixed cost of starting up when the quantity sold will be low, won’t be zero.  If laws and regulations concerning variable costs are important, then shouldn’t tariffs protect them too?