A conversation at Snowflakes in Hell:
Joe Huffman said:
If ID were required to purchase a firearms and all government issued ID had a “firearms endorsement” check box just like “corrective lens required” then NICS as we know it would fade away.
To which Sebastian replied:
I agree with you. I’ve also heard the suggesting that plastering “Firearms Prohibited Person” on the state IDs of those convicted of disabling offenses, which I think I like better, since you can force a license re-issue with that stamp as soon as someone earns the conviction.
In a constitutional framework where you could have a simple licensing regime, as you describe, or as I’ve described previously, you could actually effectively get universal background checks, as our opponents claim to want badly, without NICS. You would also eliminate the need for a lot of burdensome regulations, like restrictions on buying in-state vs. out of state, etc...
But licensing has been a taboo subject because there was always a completely justifiable fear that it would be used to discourage gun ownership, and to track gun owners. But I can think of ways of handling licensing that would be completely non-burdensome. Certainly less burdensome and problematic than now.
I'm completely on board with this. Background checks are one of those common-sense ideas that turns out not to work in real life, like assuming a heavy rock will fall faster than a light one. It makes sense that checking every purchaser will stop criminals from getting guns, but then you try it and see no change whatsoever in crime trends, because it turns out that everybody knows somebody with a clean record who'll make the purchase for him. They don't work, and the way they're administered at present puts some serious burdens on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The true benefit of background checks is the damage they do to other gun control arguments in the court of public opinion. When average Americans--who generally believe in the right to arms for self defense--learn that every dealer sale involves a check on the purchaser, they tend to rightly assume that we're doing all we reasonably can to keep guns away from criminals while respecting the individual's right to self defense, and mentally dismiss most of gun controllers' panicmongering. That's why the panicmongers fixate so much on private sales at gun shows, which have almost no relation to crime: it's the only place they can play the CRIMINALS FREELY BUYING GUNS game. So if it's possible to get the equivalent of a universal background check system while doing away with all or most of the pointless burdens of the current system, I'm all for it.
We're typically against the idea of "gun permits" because the states that have them (like New Jersey) make them difficult, expensive, and time consuming to obtain, to discourage the law-abiding from owning guns. But if it was a simple and automatic status-based note on your driver's license, then we could give anti-gun advocates exactly what they say they want while simultaneously addressing almost all of our concerns. If licensing and background checks are really about nothing more than stopping sales to prohibited persons, and aren't about eroding lawful gun ownership, then I eagerly await anti-gun groups' endorsement of this plan. They want to "close the gun show loophole"? Here's an easy path to getting exactly that.
Incidentally, I prefer a prominent "Firearms Prohibited Person" warning on disqualified IDs to a firearms endorsement check box for purely social reasons: imagine the sociological implication of looking at a person's firearms-purchaser status as a quick-and-dirty measure of his character. When, for example, waitresses checking ID on booze orders start thinking "this guy isn't allowed to buy guns; I'd better make sure he doesn't skip out on the check", that could go a long way in dissolving the remaining effects of the media demonization of gun owners from the 80s and 90s.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Extree! Extree! Read all abaaaht it!
US Army bans Five Fingers!
There are a variety of minimalist running shoes available for purchase and wear. Effective immediately, only those shoes that accommodate all five toes in one compartment are authorized for wear. Those shoes that feature five separate, individual compartments for the toes detract from a professional military image and are prohibited for wear with the IPFU or when conducting physical training in military formation.
I'd say we surrendered the war for "professional military image" when our soldiers' uniforms started looking more like pajamas, but what do I know?
There are a variety of minimalist running shoes available for purchase and wear. Effective immediately, only those shoes that accommodate all five toes in one compartment are authorized for wear. Those shoes that feature five separate, individual compartments for the toes detract from a professional military image and are prohibited for wear with the IPFU or when conducting physical training in military formation.
I'd say we surrendered the war for "professional military image" when our soldiers' uniforms started looking more like pajamas, but what do I know?
The future-ture-ture!
Flying car, etc.
As an emblem of the future, I think the internet--or the smart phone, if you want something tangible--is a far better than the flying car. It solves more problems, frees us more from restrictions, and more fundamentally changes what it means to be human. Flying cars are neat and Jetsonsey and all, but they have serious practical drawbacks balancing their advantages.
But I still love them. Because (much like smart phones) they help erode one of the classic arguments for intrusive government: the natural monopoly.
"Of course you need government regulating private economic relationships. Look at roads! What are you gonna do, have five competing private roads for every route?"
"Who needs roads?"
Okay, libertarian scientist-activists! Now let's get to work on a practical system of energy distribution that doesn't rely on physical networks! A fundamental improvement on small-scale solar, a superefficient and compact transportable storage medium, or some kind of remote transmission will do. Bonus points if it can be used as a death ray.
As an emblem of the future, I think the internet--or the smart phone, if you want something tangible--is a far better than the flying car. It solves more problems, frees us more from restrictions, and more fundamentally changes what it means to be human. Flying cars are neat and Jetsonsey and all, but they have serious practical drawbacks balancing their advantages.
But I still love them. Because (much like smart phones) they help erode one of the classic arguments for intrusive government: the natural monopoly.
"Of course you need government regulating private economic relationships. Look at roads! What are you gonna do, have five competing private roads for every route?"
"Who needs roads?"
Okay, libertarian scientist-activists! Now let's get to work on a practical system of energy distribution that doesn't rely on physical networks! A fundamental improvement on small-scale solar, a superefficient and compact transportable storage medium, or some kind of remote transmission will do. Bonus points if it can be used as a death ray.
There's so much you can learn, when you're on a pachyderm...
Lightning struck Lucy the Elephant for the second time in five years.
I don't know how well known she is outside the Garden State, but Lucy is a 130-year-old novelty building in Margate, near Atlantic City. She's a bit of a symbol for New Jersey weirdness, as you can probably imagine. The last lightning strike started a fire that destroyed her howdah; fortunately, the owners installed a lightning rod since then. This strike only damaged internal electrical and computer systems.
I don't know how well known she is outside the Garden State, but Lucy is a 130-year-old novelty building in Margate, near Atlantic City. She's a bit of a symbol for New Jersey weirdness, as you can probably imagine. The last lightning strike started a fire that destroyed her howdah; fortunately, the owners installed a lightning rod since then. This strike only damaged internal electrical and computer systems.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Bader? I hardly knew her!
The Associated Press covers the political pressure on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to step down from the Supreme Court:
Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.
The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.
But Ginsburg could retire now and allow Obama to name a like-minded successor whose confirmation would be in the hands of a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Ann Althouse rephrases the request:
Get out, you selfish oldies — say some on the left — Obama needs to appoint some liberal ideologues before its too late!
And it's a fair criticism. Most of the current "progressive" agenda, however well intentioned, is based on a blatantly illegal expansion of federal power beyond its Constitutional limits. I like the effects of antidiscrimination laws and relatively unfettered access to abortion, too, but the Constitution clearly leaves those matters to the states. The liberal strategy of ignoring the law and bringing all its fights straight to daddy in the White House relies on having justices in the Supreme Court who will collaborate in ignoring the Constitution they're charged with enforcing.
But of course, that's only half the story, isn't it? American politics, unfortunately, can't be fairly discussed without acknowledging that in practice it's a fight between Democrats and Republicans, who can also be relied on to ignore the Constitution where it doesn't suit their agenda (and to appoint SCOTUS justices who'll collaborate in same). The whole mainstream political system is complicit in turning the Supreme Court from a body dedicated to enforcing the law to a bunch of squabbling ideologues who are often more concerned with protecting their own policy preferences. With the stakes this high, expect a continuation of the trend of appointing inexperienced young believers, locking in the Court's bias for a generation.
Unless Americans spontaneously decide to stop voting for Presidents based on political agendas that have nothing to do with the President--which, let's be honest, is slightly less likely than getting a left-handed atheist lesbian of color in the Commander in Chief's seat--this russian-roulette game will continue indefinitely. The trends in America's increasingly intrusive laws for the foreseeable future will be dependent entirely on whether an Obama or a Huckabee holds the White House when the next two or three SCOTUS justices buy the farm.
Is that prospect really less terrifying than having Roe overturned and having to do the job right, state-by-state?
Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.
The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.
But Ginsburg could retire now and allow Obama to name a like-minded successor whose confirmation would be in the hands of a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Ann Althouse rephrases the request:
Get out, you selfish oldies — say some on the left — Obama needs to appoint some liberal ideologues before its too late!
And it's a fair criticism. Most of the current "progressive" agenda, however well intentioned, is based on a blatantly illegal expansion of federal power beyond its Constitutional limits. I like the effects of antidiscrimination laws and relatively unfettered access to abortion, too, but the Constitution clearly leaves those matters to the states. The liberal strategy of ignoring the law and bringing all its fights straight to daddy in the White House relies on having justices in the Supreme Court who will collaborate in ignoring the Constitution they're charged with enforcing.
But of course, that's only half the story, isn't it? American politics, unfortunately, can't be fairly discussed without acknowledging that in practice it's a fight between Democrats and Republicans, who can also be relied on to ignore the Constitution where it doesn't suit their agenda (and to appoint SCOTUS justices who'll collaborate in same). The whole mainstream political system is complicit in turning the Supreme Court from a body dedicated to enforcing the law to a bunch of squabbling ideologues who are often more concerned with protecting their own policy preferences. With the stakes this high, expect a continuation of the trend of appointing inexperienced young believers, locking in the Court's bias for a generation.
Unless Americans spontaneously decide to stop voting for Presidents based on political agendas that have nothing to do with the President--which, let's be honest, is slightly less likely than getting a left-handed atheist lesbian of color in the Commander in Chief's seat--this russian-roulette game will continue indefinitely. The trends in America's increasingly intrusive laws for the foreseeable future will be dependent entirely on whether an Obama or a Huckabee holds the White House when the next two or three SCOTUS justices buy the farm.
Is that prospect really less terrifying than having Roe overturned and having to do the job right, state-by-state?
Friday, July 1, 2011
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Recent coverage of the billion one-dollar coins stacking up in Federal Reserve vaults (whose continued production is mandated by the law that created the series) has gotten people to talking about our currency system, how it should be changed, and why it just isn't going to be.
One common thread is pointing out that the dollar bill still exists primarily due to lobbying by the paper and cotton industries, and that any attempt to make our coins' sizes more appropriate to their values will be blocked by vending machine companies. This is absolutely true. The mistake is thinking this is something new. US currency has been subject to political pressure for as long as there's been such a thing. Sometimes the pressure has been significant--like the continued production of unpopular silver dollars by the hundreds of millions, which acted as a subsidy for the silver mining industry--to the utterly trivial.
In 1912, when the US Mint announced the upcoming switch from the uninspired Barber nickel to the much-more-attractive-but-poorly-thought-out buffalo nickel*, the vending machine industry was concerned. A detailed response from the Secretary of the Treasury put their minds at ease; the diameter, thickness, composition, and weight of the new coins would all be identical to the old, so there was nothing to worry about. But Clarence W. Hobbs of the Hobbs Manufacturing Company was not satisfied. His company, you see, manufactured a counterfeit-detecting device for nickel vending machines. The device worked poorly, and was used in only a very small number of machines, but he was convinced the new design would make it work even worse and was not pleased. His complaints--including a direct appeal to the President--tied the Mint up for the better part of a year before the Treasury Secretary felt confident telling him to take a flying leap.
The Sacagawea and Presidential dollars are too big and heavy for their value, and they're like that because when they were released, five percent of the country's vending machines took Susan B. Anthony dollars, and the companies didn't want to retool them. The new coins tarnish rapidly and unattractively, because when the Mint tested potential alloys, only the poor ones were compatible with devices intended to catch fake SBAs.
If even minuscule vending machine company interests trump currency design, then our chances of getting an overhaul to a sane system are nil. Just wait it out until we're all buying cheeseburgers with RFID implants.
[* - Which describes a few of the early 20th century coin designs. That's what you get when you hire fine art sculptors instead of coin engravers: innovative and bold designs, with inadequate attention to little workaday details like whether the inscriptions will stay legible as they wear, or whether the Mint's presses are physically able to strike the design.]
One common thread is pointing out that the dollar bill still exists primarily due to lobbying by the paper and cotton industries, and that any attempt to make our coins' sizes more appropriate to their values will be blocked by vending machine companies. This is absolutely true. The mistake is thinking this is something new. US currency has been subject to political pressure for as long as there's been such a thing. Sometimes the pressure has been significant--like the continued production of unpopular silver dollars by the hundreds of millions, which acted as a subsidy for the silver mining industry--to the utterly trivial.
In 1912, when the US Mint announced the upcoming switch from the uninspired Barber nickel to the much-more-attractive-but-poorly-thought-out buffalo nickel*, the vending machine industry was concerned. A detailed response from the Secretary of the Treasury put their minds at ease; the diameter, thickness, composition, and weight of the new coins would all be identical to the old, so there was nothing to worry about. But Clarence W. Hobbs of the Hobbs Manufacturing Company was not satisfied. His company, you see, manufactured a counterfeit-detecting device for nickel vending machines. The device worked poorly, and was used in only a very small number of machines, but he was convinced the new design would make it work even worse and was not pleased. His complaints--including a direct appeal to the President--tied the Mint up for the better part of a year before the Treasury Secretary felt confident telling him to take a flying leap.
The Sacagawea and Presidential dollars are too big and heavy for their value, and they're like that because when they were released, five percent of the country's vending machines took Susan B. Anthony dollars, and the companies didn't want to retool them. The new coins tarnish rapidly and unattractively, because when the Mint tested potential alloys, only the poor ones were compatible with devices intended to catch fake SBAs.
If even minuscule vending machine company interests trump currency design, then our chances of getting an overhaul to a sane system are nil. Just wait it out until we're all buying cheeseburgers with RFID implants.
[* - Which describes a few of the early 20th century coin designs. That's what you get when you hire fine art sculptors instead of coin engravers: innovative and bold designs, with inadequate attention to little workaday details like whether the inscriptions will stay legible as they wear, or whether the Mint's presses are physically able to strike the design.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)