Mediaboss Marketing

A widespread belief is that the political system must be responsive to voters demands. But this is not obvious at all. Consider the following statement in the Wall Street Journals report on the adoption of a gun control bill by Congress (House Expected to Approve Landmark Gun Legislation, June 24, 2022):

The House was expected to pass the widest firearms legislation in decades Friday, hours after the bipartisan package won Senate approval, clearing the way for President Bidens signature and giving supporters hope that the countrys political system can respond to mounting gun violence.

Suppose the majority of the voters are in favor of slavery or that they are at least willing to accept it in return for something else as part of political bargaining. Or suppose that, in order to reduce murders by 39%, a majority of American voters wanted to jail all young males from their 17th birthday until they turn 25. Should the political system be responsive to this? Many people, including libertarians, classical liberals, and your humble blogger, would answer no. What other people mean when they say that the political system should be responsive is that it should be responsive to what they want.

Libertarians and classical liberals believe that the political system should not be responsive to majority demands on certain issues. A constitution, written or unwritten, should aim at protecting individual rights in an autoregulated social order, whatever a political majority happens to want. Some constitutional principles are beyond politics.

But what should be and should not be beyond politics? To try and answer this question, it is useful to be cognizant with James Buchanans constitutional political economy. In this perspective, what should be beyond politics are general rules that could presumably meet the consent of every and all individualsconstitutional rules that govern and constrain day-to-day politics. Under these constraints, politics is the way citizens bargain toward non-unanimous collective choices that are presumed necessary for efficient social cooperation. (On this approach, you may want to have a look at my Econlib review of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullocks classic The Calculus of Consent; and my review of Buchanans Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative in Regulation.)

The implications of this abstract theory are not always obvious. They require reflection and analysis. To take a current example, the Second Amendment of the American constitution guarantees residents of this country the right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be abrogated nor abridged trough ordinary politics. The Supreme Court just reaffirmed the primacy of the Second argument over politics (although it still allowed political regulations that arguably contradict the principle). Imagine if the First Amendment was subject to constant political meddling. Citizens may unanimously want to change the constitution, but it is not crystal clear how we make sure that the amendment process is not corrupted by politics.

It is pretty clear that there could be no unanimity on abrogating or even weakening the Second Amendment, in which case the constitutional rule would stand and remain beyond politics. In practice, of course, if authoritarians and bigots become a stable majority and cannot peacefully persuade the rest of the citizenry, the constitution will likely be violated. Yet, the longer it holds and the more gridlock it creates, the more likely a temporary majority will be unable to abolish the liberties of a minority.

There is another answer the question of how to preserve the (conventional) rules that should be beyond politics but are undermined by politics. It is to escape politics altogether. Anthony de Jasay thus took a stand against politics, including in his book with this very title (Against Politics, Routledge, 1998). In this perspective, one believes or hopes that a system of individual liberty will work better without an overpowering state (see my discussion of Michael Huemers defense of anarchy in Regulation). If anarchy works, any individual would of course be free to keep and bear arms, or not, as he (or she) wishes.

One thing is pretty sure: a system where politics (defined as the making of collective choices without unanimous consent) is supreme cannot be trusted to preserve individual rights. The political system should not be responsive to every wish. And it cannot be responsible to every wish be as long as individuals hold different preferences and values.

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment: Beyond Politics or Against Politics? - Econlib

John J. Mc Caugney| Gaylord

Im writing in praise of Dr. deLespinasses article, Protect schools, home-security, hunters: Amend the Second Amendment in the Gaylord Herald Times on June 17. His proposal is the most novel suggestion I have ever read in the continuing U.S. gun debate.

As Dr. de Lepinasse correctly notes, the Founding Fathers wanted: A well-regulated militia … not everyone owning whatever weapon they fancied and in any quantity they desire!

More: Paul deLespinasse: Protect schools, home-security, hunters: Amend the Second Amendment

The only comparison to the constitutional Second Amendment admonition for A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state… is the National Guard. I know that the National Guard is well trained in the use of their weapons. I wish I could believe that the same is true of the youngest Americans who at 18 are usually not well trained in hardly anything.

We can all agree with Dr. deLespinasse that Amending the Constitution is usually harder than merely enacting laws. Think of the still unpassed Equal Right Amendment (ERA), for example.

Still, wouldnt trying to amend the Second Amendment to ban assault weapons be worth the effort? We know that when we had a congressional ban on assault weapons 1994-2004, the number of mass shootings was greatly reduced. Dont our kids, teachers and seniors deserve better from us than to be sitting ducks waiting for the next slaughter?

Dr. John J. Mc Caugney, Ed.D.

Gaylord

See the rest here:
Letter: It's worth trying to amend Second Amendment to ban assault rifles - Petoskey News-Review

Guns up! Shoot back! As News2Share chronicles via a pair of Mississippi events, black pro-gun marchers exist in a no-coverage zone

By Matt Taibbi and Ford Fischer / Substack

If people arent going to do their job, then were here to do it for them, said Nick Bezzel, of the Elmer Geronimo Pratt Pistol & Rifle Gun Club, after being told for the second time today that officials in Brookhaven, Mississippi wouldnt meet with him and other armed black activists.

Bezzel was with a group of demonstrators, including Black Panthers, who were upset over a case involving a 24-year-old Federal Express driver named DMonterrio Gibson. On January 24th earlier this year, Gibson was shot at by a man named Brandon Case and his father, Gregory Case, while attempting to make deliveries.

The two Cases were eventually charged with assault, but bonded out quickly. Gibson and the accompanying group wanted elevated charges, for instance attempted murder or a hate crime. Ford FischersNews2Sharecameras captured the scenes of activists being told a planned meeting with a District Attorney was called off, and being thrown out of the area by the Brookhaven police chief just as they were leaving.

Two days later, a coalition of black pro-gun groups, including Black Panthers, the Black Riders Liberation Party, the aforementioned Elmer Geronimo Pratt Gun Club, Sisters of the Underground, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, the Black Power Militia, the Black Power Coalition, and others, gathered on Juneteenth in Natchez, Mississippi at the site of the Devils Punchbowl, where some historians say up to 20,000 black people died during and after the Civil War.

News2Sharecaptured those scenes as well, which included a collective signing of a Declaration of the Regulated United Black Militia. Some protesters brandished a placard with a Declaration of Self-Determination by Black Peoples and Organizations, while others replaced Hands up, dont shoot! with a new chant: Guns up! Shoot back! Other chants included:

Black people in America aint taking it no more, is that right? Thats right!

We believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb, and a life for a goddamn life!

These are different times Guns up, shoot back! I said, goddamnit, black power!

As Ford narrated:

Despite the obvious newsworthiness of these several militias from around the country gathering to sign a Declaration of the Regulated United Black Militia, no other media covered the event.

There are a lot of taboos on commercial television, which for instance doesnt like to show scenes of poverty (unless its being chased by police), rarely interviews non-voters, almost never does military contracting fraud stories, and seldom shows results on the ground of American military/drone strikes, even if theyve already appeared on the airwaves of other countries.

Perhaps the most dependable taboo in American media, however, involves black Second Amendment advocates. As Ford andNews2Sharehave documented over the years, there are many such groups, and they sometimes march in conjunction with groups like the Boogaloo Boys. In fact, the biggest taboo of all might be showing such groups demonstrating together:

Whatever your feelings about guns I personally am not a fan the psychology of the contrasting coverage of pro-gun demonstrations is fascinating. News audiences are clearly meant to associate white pro-gun protesters with a dangerous and probably organized national race-hatred movement, while black pro-gun protesters either dont exist or are a fringe movement not worth covering. Under no circumstance must such groups be shown together, even when they organize co-demonstrations. The first installment ofActivism, Uncensoredfrom last June, for instance, showed such a joint demonstration in Virginia Beach:

Its often hard to gauge whether certain movements are gaining or losing strength nationally, or are simply organizing more effectively thanks to the Internet. However, its clear the national press doesnt have a settled-upon strategy for covering armed black protesters. Most commonly they appear in reflection, shown as an exaggerated phantom of conservative news coverage, with theNew York Timesblasting Fox News for over-depicting fringe hate groups during the Obama years a classic example. These groups do exist, however, and their shows of strength in places like Natchez are clearly newsworthy. Whats behind the taboo?

Like Loading...

Continued here:
Activism, Uncensored: Are Black 2nd Amendment Advocates the Ultimate Taboo? - Scheerpost.com

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore voiced an extremist attack on the Second Amendment on Tuesday during an MSNBC segment.

The progressive activist went well beyond standard Democratic campaign rhetoric with regard to firearms.

Moore claimed: Its time to repeal the Second Amendment.

The Hollywood eliteblasted the Democratic Party for refusing to openly condemn the constitutional right.

Moore said he believes that the founding fathers of the United States would have written the Second Amendment differently if they were aware of future firearm technology.

Moore called for a moratorium, perhaps on gun sales.

Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment?

Yes: 1% (3 Votes)

No: 99% (348 Votes)

We are a violent people to begin with, Moore said.

This country was birthed in violence with the genocide of the native people at the barrel of a gun. This country was built on the backs of slaves with a gun to their backs, to build this country.

Moores extremist vision of gun control is generally eschewed by the mainstream Democratic Party, at least in rhetoric.

Democratic messaging usually emphasizes gun safety.

Moore continued, I support all gun control legislation, not sensible gun control. We dont need the sensible stuff. We need the hardcore stuff.

The filmmaker has called for a repeal of the Second Amendment for years.

He has advocated a proposed 28th Amendment to replace the provision, enshrining the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence through draconian gun control measures.

In 2018 then-retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens also called for a full repeal of the Second Amendment restricting firearms to the government.

Gun violence with semiautomatic rifles is rare, compared to shootings with handguns, which are legal in every American state.

FBI crime statistics revealed that 7,105 Americans were killed with handguns in the year 2016, whereas 374 were killed with rifles.

Tags:

Continue reading here:
'It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment': Fanatic Leftist Demands ...

BIGGER THAN HELLER The Supreme Courts 6-3 decision today to strike down New Yorks century-old gun law was probably the most significant expansion of gun rights from the Supreme Court in the countrys history, says Michael Waldman, the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography, which was cited in Justice Stephen Breyers dissent, and the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

The decision stripped local officials of broad authority to deny permits to gun owners who want to carry weapons outside of their home for almost any reason. The ruling is also set to nullify laws in a handful of other states that have similarly strong concealed-carry licensing laws.

To break down the rulings impact, Nightly called Waldman. This conversation has been edited.

I think your initial reaction on Twitter really captured how big of a deal you feel this is.

In its practical impact, it will be bigger than Heller. And its not just the New York law, but what it does and will do to gun laws of all kinds, all across the country.

What it really means is that the NRA and gun rights advocates will be in court tomorrow, challenging hundreds of gun laws all across the United States.

It will be very hard for states and cities and Congress to know what is allowed right now. What kind of regulation of firearms is even constitutional? The court did not offer clarity here.

Are there particular regulations that you see as now at risk?

Any kind of gun regulation can be challenged now. If you look at what kinds of things were upheld in the past decade, there were bans on assault weapons, there were background check requirements, there were restrictions on magazines and ammunition. Anything that states did in the last 12 years, which was upheld by the courts federal courts and state courts upheld about 90 percent of the gun laws that were challenged since they said: Yes, its an individual right, were taking that right very seriously. Were balancing it against public safety. And 90 percent of the time they were upheld.

Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court justices have now said: You all did it wrong. Youre not supposed to weigh public safety in that way. Youre supposed to look for analogies in history.

So more legal challenges for existing gun laws are coming because of todays ruling?

There are going to be dozens of lawsuits challenging existing laws. Judges are going to scratch their heads and try to figure out what history and tradition means in this context. This was a 100-year-old law. That sounds like history and tradition to me.

It will be much harder for states and cities and even the federal government to know what theyre allowed to do.

How will gun safety advocates respond to this ruling?

Because New York doesnt allow the concealed carrying of these weapons, but now will have to in some respects allow it, they can and will try to limit the carrying of those weapons from sensitive places like the subway, like schools, like Times Square. Im sure they will look at what kind of requirements for getting a license training, background checks, insurance, that kind of thing since now, many more people will have access to these licenses.

Are you at all concerned about the constitutionality of the gun legislation senators are working to pass in Congress?

I dont know that theres any concern. Its just that it was clearly constitutional yesterday. Now theyre going to have to look at it again.

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at [emailprotected]. Or contact tonights author at [emailprotected] or on Twitter at @MyahWard.

A message from Meta:

Doctors can practice high-risk situations risk-free in the metaverse

In the metaverse, future surgeons will be able to practice advanced procedures hundreds of times before seeing real patients helping them gain experience and master their skills.

The metaverse may be virtual, but the impact will be real.

Learn how Meta is helping build the metaverse.

Jan. 6 hearing reveals multiple House Republicans sought pardons after Capitol riot: Days after Jan. 6, 2021, Republican lawmakers who strategized with former President Donald Trump asked top White House officials to help arrange for pardons, according to testimony released today by the select panel investigating the Capitol attack. Several top Trump White House aides at the time described outreach from several lawmakers seeking clemency: Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). Additionally, according to the former Trump aides testimony, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) sent an email on Jan. 11, 2021, asking for all-purpose pardons for every lawmaker who objected to electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania.

New York lawmakers scramble to counteract SCOTUS gun ruling: Minutes after the release of the opinion, Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed to call state lawmakers back into session, and City Council announced it would pass a resolution seeking Albanys help. Broad plans include tightening the firearm-permitting process, empowering private businesses to ban weapons and deeming swaths of the state gun-free zones.

DOJ searches home of ex-official who aided alleged pro-Trump coup: Law enforcement officials searched the Virginia home of former top Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, according to his employer and former Trump administration colleague. Russ Vought, who served as Trumps White House budget director and now works with Clark at the Center for Renewing America, tweeted that on Wednesday more than a dozen DOJ law enforcement officials searched Jeff Clarks house in a pre dawn raid, put him in the streets in his pjs, and took his electronic devices.

Senate clears major hurdle toward passing gun safety bill: The Senate took a critical step today on the bipartisan gun safety legislation, clearing the way for a passage vote no later than the end of the week. In a 65-34 vote, 15 Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in moving forward. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate could pass the final bill as soon as today with GOP cooperation.

Republicans launch super PAC to stop Greitens in Missouri: The group, called Show Me Values, is set to start running TV advertisements targeting disgraced former Gov. Eric Greitens, beginning Friday. Greitens is running in their upcoming Missouri Senate primary. The outfit is set to air more than $1 million worth of commercials through the end of June, and a person involved with the organization said it planned to remain involved in the race up until the Aug. 2 primary. Top Republicans have spent much of the last year expressing deep concerns about Greitens, who stepped down as Missouri governor in 2018 amid allegations that he sexually assaulted his hairdresser. Polls have consistently shown Greitens ahead his primary rivals, including state Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Rep. Vicky Hartzler and Rep. Billy Long.

Education Department unveils Title IX rule boosting protections for transgender students: Education Secretary Miguel Cardona unveiled his plan today to codify safeguards for transgender students and overhaul the Trump-era version of the rule that mandates how schools must respond to sexual misconduct complaints. The proposal would ban all forms of sex discrimination, including discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity. It is unclear how the rule would apply to athletics.

UKRAINES NEXT TOP SPY You think you know someone, and then Russia invades your country and your childhood friend turned top intelligence official flubs it and some of his senior spies flee their posts, apparently helping the Kremlins forces avoid landmines and direct its attack aircraft to blast your cities.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy isnt getting a lot of sleep these days, and the man he appointed to lead Ukraines domestic intelligence and security agency cant be helping matters. Ivan Bakanov his friend from way back who once ran his entertainment company and then his presidential campaign is on thin ice in Kyiv, writes Christopher Miller.

Zelenskyy is looking to replace Bakanov, who now runs Ukraines spy agency, with someone more suitable to serve as the wartime chief of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), according to four officials close to the president and a Western diplomat who has advised Kyiv on reforms needed to revamp the SBU.

Some said the old friends rarely speak these days, save for government business. Ensuring a smooth transition may be tricky with the war still raging, with one official telling POLITICO that Zelenskyy is worried about the optics of sacking someone from his inner circle. For now, much of the SBUs daily operations are being run from the presidential office and people still in good graces of Zelenskyy and his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak.

BIDENS LATIN AMERICA JUGGLING ACT The election of guerilla-turned-politician Gustavo Petro as the first leftist president of Colombia last weekend marked a historic turn for the Latin American nation. It could become a historic headache for President Joe Biden as well, writes Sabrina Rodriguez.

Petros leftist politics poses new hurdles for the U.S., as it holds the potential to rearrange the two countries longstanding alliance that has garnered bipartisan support for decades. He has sought to reestablish diplomatic ties with Venezuelas authoritarian regime, which the Biden administration does not recognize. Hes criticized a decadeslong partnership with the U.S. on the forced eradication of coca, the base ingredient of cocaine, and the extradition of drug cartel leaders. Hes also suggested cutting oil exploration at a time Biden has asked nations to produce more.

His election has sparked uproar among conservatives and some moderates in the U.S. But for now, Biden administration officials appear to be taking a cautious approach, looking for points of shared interest. In a call to Petro on Tuesday, 48 hours after his victory, Biden congratulated him and Francia Mrquez, a longtime environmental activist who will become the countrys first Black vice president. Biden welcomed the opportunity to discuss bilateral security and counternarcotics cooperation, according to a White House readout.

A message from Meta:

3 million

The number of adults who use Juul vapes, according to an estimate by University of Michigans Tobacco Research Network Director Cliff Douglas. The FDA today ordered Juul to take all of its vapes off the market. Juul said it plans to litigate the order.

An image of John Eastman, left, and Rudy Giuliani is displayed on a screen during the third Jan. 6 hearing on June 16, 2022. | Tom Brenner-Pool/Getty Images

JOHN EASTMANS CRIMINAL EXPOSURE IS REAL Few people have gone from relative obscurity to public pariah as quickly as Eastman. A year and a half ago, he was an oddly dressed rally speaker fulminating about imaginary voter fraud. He stood on the same stage as Trump before a crowd in Washington that included many who would go on to take part in the siege of the U.S. Capitol. The former Trump adviser now finds himself in the deeply uncomfortable but well-deserved position of being one of the most reviled lawyers in America. And, if the Jan. 6 committee has its way, hell be the target of a criminal investigation for his central role in what committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) described as an attempted coup, writes Ankush Khardori.

Before November 2020, Eastman was a lawyer comfortably situated in the constellation of conservative legal institutions and media outlets. A former clerk for Judge J. Michael Luttig and Justice Clarence Thomas, Eastman was a professor and onetime dean of the law school at Chapman University who was prominently affiliated with the Federalist Society, the National Organization for Marriage, the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the Claremont Institute. His rsum may imply some semblance of seriousness, but prior to his presidential transition shenanigans, Eastmans best known piece of legal analysis was an op-ed questioning Kamala Harris eligibility to be vice president that was such obvious and detestable junk that the outlet that ran it had to apologize.

Viewers of the Jan. 6 House select committees hearings could be forgiven for thinking the clearest case of criminal misconduct is being made against Eastman and that perhaps proving his guilt is the best path toward implicating Trump.

Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

A message from Meta:

The metaverse may be virtual, but the impact will be real

Meta is helping build the metaverse so aviation mechanics will be able to practice servicing different jet engines preparing them for any complex job.

The result: A more skilled workforce.

Learn how Meta is helping build the metaverse.

More here:
The expanding Second Amendment- POLITICO - POLITICO