Guns are an individual right

So saith the Supreme Court:

OKAY, having quickly skimmed the McDonald opinion, a few thoughts.

First, it’s 5-4. Though a pro-gun-rights opinion may pacify the gun-rights crowd to a degree, the closeness of these decisions is likely to keep them active in upcoming elections.

Second, it shows how little influence legal academics have. Virtually all of us have been saying that Slaughter House is lousy and that privileges and immunities should be far more significant, but only Justice Thomas was willing to go that far.

Third, it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?

On the one hand, I am all for whatever puts more guns in the hands of individuals. Or tactical nukes, for that matter. I will never understand why people who understand the many and manifest evils of the DMV think that only government employees should have weapons of mass destruction. Today’s decision didn’t go nearly far enough to return the many laws of the land on the matter to a reasonably Constitutional state.

On the other, I am opposed to increased federalization even in a good cause. Although since the States haven’t been sovereign since the political debate was settled by mass slaughter, I suppose it’s a bit late to worry about that now. And since the federal government isn’t about to stop ruling over the state and local governments with an iron hand, this is a better decision than the most likely alternative.

And much respect to the liberal law professors whose intellectual integrity played a major role in this case. Remember them when you find yourself tempted to think all liberals are inconsistent and hypocritical charlatans. Integrity and honesty are not part of the political spectrum.

One year on, Krugman concedes

“Due to the sizeable bear market rally that began in March 2009, many, if not most, economic observers are presently convinced that the global economic difficulties of last autumn are largely behind us now, courtesy of the aggressive, expansionary actions of the monetary and political authorities. They are wrong. It is not over. It has only begun. I believe that what we have witnessed to date is merely the first act in what will eventually be recognized as another Great Depression.”
– Vox Day, The Return of the Great Depression, June 29, 2009

“We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.”
– Paul Krugman, The Third Depression, June 28, 2010

It looks like my predictions are running a little ahead of schedule again. RGD readers will recall that I didn’t have the mainstream economists starting to whisper about the possibility of a Great Depression 2.0 until the end of 2010. This is supposed to be the time for talking Double-Dip and W-shaped Recovery. But then, Krugman has always been rather more dyspeptic than the rest of his colleagues. I await with interest for all of those who said that my forecast was incorrect because I dared to contradict a FAMOUS ACADEMIC and NOBEL-PRIZE WINNER to explain this mysterious failure of credentialism.

Krugman is wrong about the historical use of the term depression, of course, (depression was synonymous with recession until after the Great Depression ended), just as he is wrong about the reason the global economy is sliding further into contraction. Fame and credentials are no substitute for the knowledge of history combined with a reliable theoretical model. Longtime readers who are investors may recall that my 2002 recommendation to buy gold and avoid real estate has worked out just a little better than Krugman’s 2002 recommendation to buy real estate and avoid gold.

WND column

Winning the War Against Men

There is a relentless war being waged against American men that literally spans the entire extent of their lives. From the womb, in which a woman’s “right” to abort a male baby for being male is defended but a similar right to abort a female baby for being female is vehemently opposed, to the grave, wherein the disparate impact of old age is ignored despite women living 5.2 years longer than men on the average, men are systematically, structurally and unstintingly under assault.

Most men understand this on some level, but like the nice dependable man who can’t figure out why attractive women repeatedly reject him in favor of unemployed losers with criminal records, they are incapable of doing anything about it because they simply can’t believe that women truly do not think or behave like men. Because they want to believe that women are “the civilizing force,” their “better halves” or “the fair sex,” they are constitutionally incapable of seeing what is, from a rational male perspective, the seething cauldron of amoral solipsism behind the collective pretty face.