2011 – Page 176 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Life Without Adobe’s Flash

I’ve just installed a Flash blocking application into Safari, after having the browser begin to crawl for the umpteenth time, because I had 20 tabs open in various windows with Flash doohickeysÂ in them. I decided to take this route instead of an ad blocker, because I really don’t mind ads as long as they are unobtrusive, and some ad blockers tend to distort the rendering of the document.

One thing I’ve noticed on iPad is how much smoother browsing is without Flash. 99% of the time I don’t miss it, and most major web sites are starting to implement HTML5 to work better with mobile devices. So I figure I won’t miss it on Safari for the Mac either. The plug-in allows for me to override for certain sites, like NRA’s Flash monstrosity web site, or NRA News, for instance, but the default is blocked. YouTube works fine without Flash, as do most other embedded video services these days.

Flash has been, and continues to be, a scourge on the Internet, much like the Vikings were on 9th Century Europe. Flash rapes the batteries of laptops and mobile devices, pillages your CPU cycles, and murders your browser’s child processes. And just like Java, even when it does work, it’s just too damned slow. Flash, just say no.

Lamenting the Loss of Attention

It seems some groups are a little disheartened that the bigger media outlets haven’t picked up on gun control as a contributing factor in the Arizona shootings as much as they think it should:

And even though the central event in question was a grisly shooting, the media spent significantly less time on the gun control debate. During the same week, gun control factored into just 5 percent of Tucson coverage, a total that represents one-fifth of the time devoted to the political rhetoric debate.

Granted, I don’t agree with blaming political rhetoric or gun laws in this case. While I normally don’t fall into the “where the hell were the parents” group, I really have been asking that question in this situation. While they obviously didn’t pull the trigger, it does appear from many accounts that they willfully ignored many signs that their son was in need of serious help and was considered by outsiders to be a danger to himself and to others.

Also interesting to note: Only 12% of the coverage was labeled as “straight news account.”

Constitutional Carry Moves in Wyoming

It’s been tried before, but failed twice. It’s moving now, and in the Senate, where it failed previously. Let’s hope it happens this time.

Pacifism v. Non-Violence As a Tactic

Very good comment, rare for HuffPo, I think, over at Prof. Adam Winkler’s post talking about Dr. King’s guns:

Pacifism and non-violent activism have little in common, which perhaps explains the author’s confusions. Pacifism is a personal ethic adopted for a variety of reasons but generally not particularly well respected since it places a higher value on personal moral vanity than it does on making the hard choices in critical moments; no one appreciates the pacifist who stands by while you are attacked just because they don’t feel like doing anything that might sully their principles regardless of the consequences to others. Non-violence on the other hand is a conscious choice to refrain from violence even though it is a completely viable option; it is part of a deliberate commitment to risk oneself for the sake of accomplishing something for oneself and others, not merely a personal desire to be something for personal reasons. The key point is that non-violence is conscious restraint in the course of an active project whereas pacifism is just self indulgence and indifference to what’s happening around you. Non-violent activists make the decision from a position of strength and judgment while pacifists are just blindly adhering to an ideal which conveniently disguises their moral and physical weakness and indifference. There’s no problem with a practitioner of non-violence being *capable* of violence or even willing, should the situation force his or her hand, to forgo one principle in favor of doing something to ameliorate a bad situation even if it’s not the purest most special ideal response.

That’s an interesting way of looking at the distinction. The Civil Rights Movement was correct to be committed to nonviolence, but it was not a pacifist movement.

More On Blue Steel Dems

Commenter Noops took some exception to my post from yesterday about Blue Steel Democrats:

Look, they havenâ€™t always been great, and certainly that poster is a doofus. But the Blue Steel Democrats IS a group that, for the most part, here in Oregon supports gun rights. They are an actual caucus within the Democratic Party of Oregon. Now I may not be an Oregon Democrat, but these guys have actually had positive influence on the DPO here. Zack, who used to run it, unfortunately moved to New Hampahire and it has been less active since then.

Now I usually agree with you here at snowflakes, and the ASHA thing aside, And Sotomayer, your research isnâ€™t really that great and Iâ€™ll tell ya why. First is the fact that the DPO actually has an official caucus. They may not be as great as I like, but itâ€™s a damn good start. Does the Democratic Party of Penn. Have an internal caucus?

Second, and way more importantly, you are applying your rose colored lense to this. I grew up in Boston, and did the same when I moved to Oregon 11 years ago. But the fact is, a lot of democrats here in the NW would be Republicans in the NE. They are far to the right of your typical Massachusetts Democrat. And your applying and east coast lens to it.

I canâ€™t believe Iâ€™m actually defending Democrats on guns, but a couple of doofusâ€™s aside, these are people you should be embracing, not slinging mud at. I have, in fact, gotten a few formerly antigun Dems out here to start shooting, get permits, and even join this thing.

I don’t think I’m slinging mud at them. The concerns about how they are dealing with the issue are completely legitimate. I read enough of the site to see that some of their contributorsÂ are pretty unambiguously pro-gun, which is why I was reluctant to toss them in the same heap as American Hunters and Shooters Association.

Most states have some sort of pro-gun or pro-sportsmen caucus. Many of them have members who joined to be able to tout credentials in an attempt to cover up their true record. I am willing to accept the Blue Steel Dems as fellow travelers. I noticed I was on their blogroll, so they know where to find me if they want to talk about this. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest there are some issues here, first and foremost of which is one of their former members touting her association with their group to legitimize a ban on 11 round or greater magazines. That’s a pretty big problem, and one I’d like to see them address. I certainly would if I were them.

SHOT Show Coverage

If you’re interested in the latest gear coming out of SHOT show:

Bob Levy on Gun Control

Over at CNN. I’m guessing he wants to set the record straight after his statement about the magazine bans being constitutional. I am hoping he’s seen how quick our opponents pounce on such statements and use it against gun rights as a whole. It’s quite possible that Bob Levy was meaning to say that the Federal Courts would likely uphold magazine restrictions. I believe this is true, but not because that’s the right decision and is in line with Heller, but because many federal judges will impose their policy preferences in favor of serious analysis as to whether magazines with more than ten rounds are in “common use,” which they most decidedly are.

Let’s just take a look at numbers from 2008. ATF keeps statistics on guns manufactured.

Glock made approximately 71,000 pistols. Nearly all their models save a few hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. I believe Glock imports are large portion of their guns as well, which are not included in these statistics.
Sturm and Ruger made 68,272 pistols in non pocket pistol calibers. Their most popular pistol in these calibers? The SR-9. Capacity? 17 rounds.
Smith & Wesson manufacturedÂ 261,115 pistols in non pocket calibers. Most of these are M&P line, which have capacities higher than ten.
Sig Sauer manufacturedÂ 123,756 pistols, and most of their pistols lines also have capacities higher than ten rounds.

This represents a significant chunk of total manufacturing, which is 1.4 million units, compared with less than half a million units for revolvers, and 1.6 million units for rifles. So by any standard, the civilian population chooses guns with magazines in excess of ten rounds. These are undisputedly in “common use,” and should be protected under the Heller standard. That’s probably why high-cap mag bans don’t pass 50% among gun owning households, because they are common. I suspect that number would drop if you mentioned an 11 round magazine is high-capacity under the proposed standard.

No More California Ammo Law

The new California ammo law gets tossed for vagueness. It regulated “handgun ammo,” without providing a clear definition of what that was. Lets hope our opponents continue to be bad at drafting laws, such as they were here. What a great victory.

Hat Tip to Joe Huffman

Pro Gun Democrats

A bit of a follow-up on the post about astroturfing from yesterday. Today she updated with a post that shows absolutely zero understanding for how we think of rights in this country. Digging around a bit more, she was active with a group called Blue Steel Democrats. Here’s a video where you can see her shooting for the first time a few years ago:

She’s listed as a contributor over at Blue Steel Dems, but it doesn’t look like she ever posted anything. A further examination of this group does not leave it dripping with pro-Second Amendment credibility.

I welcome gun rights activism in both parties, and I accept there are plenty of legitimate pro-gun Democrats that deserve some love from gun owners. In truth, I wish we had more Democratic gun owner organizations, because it would give us a strong base in both parties, and would leave libertarians like me feel free to leave supporting gun-rights friendly lefty candidates to people who are more closely aligned with those politicians on other issues.

But the big question in one’s support for the Second Amendment is whether you’re a gun rights activist first, and a party animal second. Blue Steel Democrats seem to be more of the latter than the former, with an awful lot of apologizing for Barack Obama, without much focus on his past, or on how we’re going to protect this right into the 21st century (hint: not by nominating anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court, as the President has done). There’s also a lot of criticism of NRA and support for AHSA here. They also defended Sonia Sotomayor, who voted with the minority to gut the Second Amendment entirely.

I don’t demand anyone toe the party line in regards to NRA, as a means to determine whether you’re really part of this movement or not, but generally speaking, if your criticism of NRA revolves around their unwillingness to back Democrats who are soft on guns, I’m going to count you outside this movement.

I’m not going to go so far as suggest Blue Steel Democrats are a false flag, since unlike AHSA, they seem to support Democrats more than gun control, but this isn’t the kind of help people who seriously care about this issue need in this fight. You have to be true to the issue first. Party comes second. By apologizing for anti-gun Democrats, you’ve become the monster you think NRA is, only from the left. Maybe that was your goal, but don’t try to convince me you really give a shit about the Second Amendment.

The Tragedy in Arizona Continues

Dave Hardy talks about Judge Roll’s viewing and funeral. He also speak about attending the ABC Town Hall, and some mistakes the legal community think is being made with the killer’s prosecution:

Local legal conversation is that running with the Federal charges first is a mistake, and probably an FBI publicity grab. (1) The insanity defense is the likely defense, and while the Feds have a modified M’Naughton “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, Arizona has “guilty but insane,” which means the defendant goes to a mental institution, and when release from that goes to prison to finish his sentence. (2) Arizona has a “natural life” sentence, meaning a real life sentence, he leaves the prison when he dies. I don’t know if the Feds so. (3) Proving murder one in Arizona involves proving just that. The Federal crime is murder of a government official, which requires proof in addition that the victim was on official duty. Gabby Giffords was clearly on duty, but it’d only be attempted murder. Judge Roll would be murder, but it may be hard to prove he was on official duty if he hadn’t already started speaking to the Representative within hearing of witnesses, and had brought up court business. Odds are that he was indeed there to speak about the needs of the court, or to thank her for past concern shown, but proving that beyond a reasonable doubt may be a problem.

So the Federal charges may be harder to prove than the State ones would be, the Federal insanity defense is much more effective, and the State sentencing options are better. It’d be better to go with the State charges first, or to go with them exclusively.

These are the people we’re supposed to count on to protect us? The goal should be making sure the killer never walks the streets again. Otherwise this guy is going to be like Hinkley, and end up back out on the streets. The feds are doing everything to make sure that happens, it seems. They should leave this to the State of Arizona, so we can get this guy off the streets for good, and get some justice for the families. This guy was with it enough to plan. He’s with it enough to pay a debt to society for what he did.

Fortunately, I believe the State of Arizona can still pursue state charges after the feds are done with him. Double jeopardy only applies to each sovereign separately. You can still be tried by both the state and federal governments for the same crime.