Moderation Log

Date/Time Moderator Story/Comment/User, Action, Reason
2020-01-27 10:49 -0600 declan Story: Fake Atomic Scientists Warn Not Believing the Media Will Destroy the World
Action: changed title from "Fake Atomic Scientists Warn Not Believing the Media Will Destroy the World - Frontpagemag" to "Fake Atomic Scientists Warn Not Believing the Media Will Destroy the World"
2020-01-23 15:33 -0600 declan Story: Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives (2016)
Action: changed title from "Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives" to "Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives (2016)"
2020-01-16 13:19 -0600 declan Story: AP: FBI says it has arrested three white supremacists ahead of pro-gun rally in Virginia
Action: changed title from "The Associated Press -- FBI arrests three white supremacists ahead of pro-gun rally" to "AP: FBI says it has arrested three white supremacists ahead of pro-gun rally in Virginia"
2020-01-10 14:17 -0600 declan Story: The Culture War Comes to the Old Dominion
Action: changed tags from "civilwar2 culturewars gunrights" to "civilwar2 culturewars gunrights virginia"
2020-01-06 10:01 -0600 declan Story: New Hampshire Democrat Dodges Libel Suit with More Lies
Action: changed title from "New Hampshire Democrat Dodges Libel Suit with More Lies - Frontpagemag" to "New Hampshire Democrat Dodges Libel Suit with More Lies", changed tags from "socialism" to "socialism litigation"
2020-01-04 12:13 -0600 declan Story: Texas Shooting Leaves Two Churchgoers, Gunman Dead
Action: changed tags from "gunrights paywall" to "gunrights paywall crime"
2020-01-04 12:13 -0600 declan Story: Texas Shooting Leaves Two Churchgoers, Gunman Dead
Action: changed tags from "gunrights" to "gunrights paywall"
2019-12-31 00:09 -0600 declan Tag: health
Action: Updating tag health, changed description from 'Health care & regulation' to 'Health care, medicine & regulation'
2019-12-28 15:22 -0600 declan Story: Walter Williams: Gun rights endangered in Virginia
Action: changed tags from "gunrights" to "gunrights virginia"
2019-12-26 13:18 -0600 declan Story: How States Like Virginia Go Blue
Action: changed tags from "politics" to "politics virginia"
2019-12-26 13:17 -0600 declan Story: Tidal Wave of Mass Immigration Hands Virginia to Democrats
Action: changed tags from "immigration" to "immigration virginia"
2019-12-26 13:17 -0600 declan Story: Virginia Governor Northam Increases Corrections Budget In Anticipation Of Jailing Gun Owners
Action: changed tags from "civilwar2 gunrights" to "civilwar2 gunrights virginia"
2019-12-26 13:17 -0600 declan Story: Virginia - Single-family homes to be banned because they're racist and not 'green'.... Srsly
Action: changed tags from "civilwar2 culturewars democrats lawfare" to "civilwar2 culturewars democrats lawfare virginia"
2019-12-26 13:17 -0600 declan Story: Virginia Governor Northam's Eastern Shore Home Folks Mystified by His 2A Betrayal
Action: changed tags from "gunrights" to "gunrights virginia"
2019-12-26 13:16 -0600 declan Story: Virginia's typical Democrats consider any refusal of orders equal to going on strike... You're fired
Action: changed tags from "civilwar2 culturewars democrats gunrights lawfare police" to "civilwar2 culturewars democrats gunrights lawfare police virginia"
2019-12-26 13:14 -0600 declan Story: Virginia state delegate introduces gun control bill for Democrat majority to pass
Action: changed tags from "law gunrights" to "law gunrights virginia"
2019-12-26 13:11 -0600 declan Tag: virginia
Action: Created new tag with id '71', with tag 'virginia', with description 'Virginia', with privileged 'false', with is_media 'false', with inactive 'false', with hotness_mod '0.01'
2019-12-23 21:46 -0600 declan Story: Achieving Quantum Wokeness
Action: changed tags from "politicizedscience" to "politicizedscience paywall"
2019-12-23 21:46 -0600 declan Story: The ‘1619 Project’ Gets Schooled
Action: changed tags from "culturewars mediajackals" to "culturewars mediajackals paywall"
2019-12-23 20:25 -0600 declan Story: Peter Thiel at Center of Facebook’s Internal Divisions on Politics
Action: changed tags from "bigtech" to "bigtech paywall"
2019-12-20 22:06 -0600 declan Story: The Vindication of Sean Hannity
Action: changed title from "The Vindication of Sean Hannity | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously" to "The Vindication of Sean Hannity"
2019-12-20 13:04 -0600 declan Story: Impeachment Shows the Limit of Media Power
Action: changed tags from "mediajackals" to "mediajackals impeachment"
2019-12-20 13:04 -0600 declan Story: Some House Democrats push Pelosi to withhold impeachment articles, delaying Senate trial
Action: changed tags from "donaldtrump" to "donaldtrump impeachment"
2019-12-20 13:03 -0600 declan Story: Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?
Action: changed tags from "donaldtrump" to "donaldtrump impeachment"
2019-12-20 13:03 -0600 declan Story: The Coup Becomes a Civil War - Trump Impeached
Action: changed tags from "civilwar2" to "civilwar2 impeachment"
2019-12-20 13:03 -0600 declan Story: Mainstream media's glee over Trump impeachment could have president 'laughing all the way to re-election': pundit
Action: changed tags from "donaldtrump mediajackals" to "donaldtrump mediajackals impeachment"
2019-12-20 13:01 -0600 declan Tag: impeachment
Action: Created new tag with id '70', with tag 'impeachment', with description 'Impeachment and Senate trial', with privileged 'false', with is_media 'false', with inactive 'false', with hotness_mod '0.02'
2019-12-20 10:43 -0600 declan Story: Iowa man who sets LGBTQ flag on fire gets over 15 years in prison for "hate crime"
Action: changed title from "Iowa man who sets LGBTQ flag on fire gets over 15 years in prison" to "Iowa man who sets LGBTQ flag on fire gets over 15 years in prison for \"hate crime\""
2019-12-18 23:46 -0600 declan Story: Fifth Circuit rules on Obamacare in a flat-out slap in the face to SCOTUS chief justice
Action: changed title from "12/18/2019 - Fifth Circuit Court rules in a flat-out slap in the face to the CJ-SCOTUS" to "Fifth Circuit rules on Obamacare in a flat-out slap in the face to SCOTUS chief justice"
2019-12-17 11:28 -0600 declan Story: The Totalitarian Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution
Action: changed title from "The Totalitarian Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution - Frontpagemag" to "The Totalitarian Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution"
2019-12-12 21:47 -0600 declan Story: Civil War Watch: Virginia Democrats threaten Second Amendment sanctuaries with National Guard
Action: changed title from "Virginia Lawmakers Threaten 2-A Sanctuaries with National Guard" to "Civil War Watch: Virginia Democrats threaten Second Amendment sanctuaries with National Guard", changed tags from "civilwar2 gunrights" to "civilwar2 gunrights culturewars democrats"
2019-12-11 10:43 -0600 declan Story: Antifa Home Invasions: "Can It Happen Here?"
Action: changed title from "Antifa Home Invasions: ‘Can It Happen Here?’ - Frontpagemag" to "Antifa Home Invasions: \"Can It Happen Here?\"", changed tags from "civilwar2" to "civilwar2 crime terrorism"
2019-11-30 12:53 -0600 declan Story: Who Will Turn Over the 2016 Rocks?
Action: changed tags from "deepstate" to "deepstate paywall"
2019-11-29 17:48 -0600 declan Story: 'Straight Shooter' Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Held His Fire on Powerful People
Action: changed title from "'Straight Shooter' Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Held His Fire on Powerful People | RealClearInvestigations" to "'Straight Shooter' Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Held His Fire on Powerful People"
2019-11-21 17:02 -0600 declan Story: Virginia state delegate introduces gun control bill for Democrat majority to pass
Action: changed title from "VA Delegate Introduces Gun B Control for Democrat Majority to Pass" to "Virginia state delegate introduces gun control bill for Democrat majority to pass", changed tags from "gunrights" to "gunrights law"
2019-11-18 23:16 -0600 declan Tag: gunrights
Action: Updating tag gunrights, changed description from 'Gun rights & the Second Amendment' to 'Gun rights, self defense, and the Second Amendment'
2019-11-18 12:59 -0600 declan Tag: socialism
Action: Updating tag socialism, changed description from 'Socialism and Communism' to 'Socialism, Communism, Leftism'
2019-11-15 16:14 -0600 declan Story: Trump administration violated federal law as 3D gun files should not be published online, judge says
Action: merged into dom8mg (Democrat-appointed judge blocks Defense Distributed's settlement with Trump administration)
2019-11-09 01:14 -0600 declan Story: New Zealand police disappointed with low turnouts for gun collections in Tasman
Action: changed title from "Police disappointed with low turnouts for gun collections in Tasman" to "New Zealand police disappointed with low turnouts for gun collections in Tasman"
2019-11-08 19:04 -0600 declan Story: Don Kilmer's Friday Essay on Immigration: Space, Walls, Gates
Action: changed tags from "california culturewars elites immigration politics" to "california culturewars elites immigration politics essays"
2019-11-08 18:42 -0600 declan Story: Don Kilmer's Friday Essay on Immigration: Space, Walls, Gates
Action: changed title from "Don’s Friday Essay — Space | Walls | Gates" to "Don Kilmer's Friday Essay on Immigration: Space, Walls, Gates"
2019-11-07 08:58 -0600 declan Story: YouTube Shuts Down Channel Belonging to Center for Near East Policy Research
Action: changed title from "YouTube Shuts Down Channel Belonging to Center for Near East Policy Research - Frontpagemag" to "YouTube Shuts Down Channel Belonging to Center for Near East Policy Research", changed tags from "bigtech" to "bigtech deplatforming"
2019-11-06 20:12 -0600 declan Tag: socialism
Action: Updating tag socialism, changed description from 'Socialism' to 'Socialism and Communism'
2019-11-02 01:14 -0500 declan Story: Don Kilmer's Friday Essay: The Dogs of War? -or- How Much is that Rifle in the Window?
Action: changed description from "![Belgian malinois photo](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1552605642-32ff1567c30c?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2550&q=80)\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted November 1, 2019 4:00 PM PT*\r\n\r\nPoliticians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariably use the term \"weapons of war.\" For instance: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.”\r\n\r\nI leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that's actually the weapon issued to soldiers, is a true \"weapon of war.\" Instead, I'd like to reflect to two more abstract questions. \r\n\r\nFirst — Why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens of a free nation have \"weapons of war?\" Nobody is seriously talking about anyone owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities. True, they can be used after a first strike to retaliate, so it's theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” may deter that first-strike. But that only works if the person or persons with control of first-strike capabilities values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once. \r\n\r\nSo let's stick with conventional weapons. That includes ships, artillery, aircraft, and of course personal infantry weapons like rifles. The [Second Amendment](https://talki.ng/t/gunrights) is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession or control of non-nuclear \"weapons of war\" is to be limited to only the U.S. Military. \r\n\r\nMilitias are not the same thing as the National Guard. Nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They're mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias: \r\n\r\n1. They're not under the control of the president of the United States (who's commander-in-chief only of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress.\r\n\r\n2. At all other times, militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to cede control of the militia only to a president it can trust. \r\n\r\nIn other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not supposed to depend on the president of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement Congress' policies or to uphold the Constitution. \r\n\r\nIf existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These are *ad hoc* private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing checks to pay them. (Yes, Virginia, all government policies in the form of laws are backed up by someone willing to use force. That's why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept. Paying taxes is not optional.)\r\n\r\nFrom time immemorial, militias and any holders of letters of marque and reprisal were expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession. They did not depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. (As a hint, look up the history of England's Glorious Revolution circa 1688, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.)\r\n\r\nIf that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy, or quell an insurrection by a domestic usurper outfitted with aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles? \r\n\r\nSo as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of \"weapons of war\" cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. president.\r\n\r\nThe second question is — What is a \"weapon of war?\"\r\n\r\nLast week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by the U.S. military. The \"weapon of war\" that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile—and suicide was preferable to submission—was a Belgian Malinois. Its name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. It was basically a sheepherder’s dog. \r\n\r\nAs every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that's intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But all dogs have a will of their own. That's why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a \"weapon of war.\" Because police don't want to take that chance, Fido is routinely sacrificed to officer safety. \r\n\r\nLet that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work. That's because they're unable to distinguish a family pet from a \"weapon of war.\" The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one. \r\n\r\nOn the other hand rifles are inanimate objects with no will at all. It's the will of the person bearing arms that transforms an inanimate object into: (1) a \"weapon of war\"; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table. \r\n\r\nThe term \"weapon of war\" should not be pejorative. It's not static. It's contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.\r\n\r\n______________________________________\r\n\r\n*[Don Kilmer](https://dkgunlaw.com/) is a Second Amendment litigator and an editor of [Talking](https://talki.ng/).*" to "![Belgian malinois photo](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1552605642-32ff1567c30c?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2550&q=80)\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted November 1, 2019 4:00 PM PT*\r\n\r\nPoliticians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariably use the term \"weapons of war.\" For instance: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.”\r\n\r\nI leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that's actually the weapon issued to soldiers, is a true \"weapon of war.\" Instead, I'd like to reflect on two more abstract questions. \r\n\r\nFirst — Why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens of a free nation have \"weapons of war?\" Nobody is seriously talking about anyone owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities.\r\n\r\nTrue, they can be used after a first strike to retaliate, so it's theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” may deter that initial strike. But that only works if the person or persons with control of first-strike capabilities values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once. \r\n\r\nSo let's stick with conventional weapons. That includes ships, artillery, aircraft, and of course personal infantry weapons like rifles. The [Second Amendment](https://talki.ng/t/gunrights) is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession or control of non-nuclear \"weapons of war\" is to be limited to only the U.S. Military. \r\n\r\nMilitias are not the same thing as the National Guard. Nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They're mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias: \r\n\r\n1. They're not under the control of the president of the United States (who's commander-in-chief only of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress.\r\n\r\n2. At all other times, militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to cede control of the militia only to a president it can trust. \r\n\r\nIn other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not supposed to depend on the president of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement Congress' policies or to uphold the Constitution. \r\n\r\nIf existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These are *ad hoc* private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing checks to pay them. (Yes, Virginia, all government policies in the form of laws are backed up by someone willing to use force. That's why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept.)\r\n\r\nFrom time immemorial, militias and any holders of letters of marque and reprisal were expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession. They did not depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. (As a hint, look up the history of England's Glorious Revolution circa 1688, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.)\r\n\r\nIf that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy, or quell an insurrection by a domestic usurper outfitted with aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles? \r\n\r\nSo as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of \"weapons of war\" cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. president.\r\n\r\nThe second question is — What is a \"weapon of war?\"\r\n\r\nLast week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by the U.S. military. The \"weapon of war\" that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile—and suicide was preferable to submission—was a Belgian Malinois. Its name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. It was basically a sheepherder’s dog. \r\n\r\nAs every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that's intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But all dogs have a will of their own. That's why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a \"weapon of war.\" Because police don't want to take that chance, Fido is routinely sacrificed to officer safety. \r\n\r\nLet that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work. That's because they're unable to distinguish a family pet from a \"weapon of war.\" The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one. \r\n\r\nOn the other hand rifles are inanimate objects with no will at all. It's the will of the person bearing arms that transforms an inanimate object into: (1) a \"weapon of war\"; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table. \r\n\r\nThe term \"weapon of war\" should not be pejorative. It's not static. It's contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.\r\n\r\n______________________________________\r\n\r\n*[Don Kilmer](https://dkgunlaw.com/) is a Second Amendment litigator and an editor of [Talking](https://talki.ng/).*", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1552605642-32ff1567c30c?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=2550&amp;q=80\" alt=\"Belgian malinois photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted November 1, 2019 4:00 PM PT</em></p>\n<p>Politicians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariably use the term “weapons of war.” For instance: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.”</p>\n<p>I leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that’s actually the weapon issued to soldiers, is a true “weapon of war.” Instead, I’d like to reflect to two more abstract questions.</p>\n<p>First — Why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens of a free nation have “weapons of war?” Nobody is seriously talking about anyone owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities. True, they can be used after a first strike to retaliate, so it’s theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” may deter that first-strike. But that only works if the person or persons with control of first-strike capabilities values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once.</p>\n<p>So let’s stick with conventional weapons. That includes ships, artillery, aircraft, and of course personal infantry weapons like rifles. The <a href=\"https://talki.ng/t/gunrights\" rel=\"nofollow\">Second Amendment</a> is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession or control of non-nuclear “weapons of war” is to be limited to only the U.S. Military.</p>\n<p>Militias are not the same thing as the National Guard. Nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They’re mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p>They’re not under the control of the president of the United States (who’s commander-in-chief only of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress.</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>At all other times, militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to cede control of the militia only to a president it can trust.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>In other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not supposed to depend on the president of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement Congress’ policies or to uphold the Constitution.</p>\n<p>If existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These are <em>ad hoc</em> private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing checks to pay them. (Yes, Virginia, all government policies in the form of laws are backed up by someone willing to use force. That’s why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept. Paying taxes is not optional.)</p>\n<p>From time immemorial, militias and any holders of letters of marque and reprisal were expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession. They did not depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. (As a hint, look up the history of England’s Glorious Revolution circa 1688, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.)</p>\n<p>If that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy, or quell an insurrection by a domestic usurper outfitted with aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles?</p>\n<p>So as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of “weapons of war” cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. president.</p>\n<p>The second question is — What is a “weapon of war?”</p>\n<p>Last week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by the U.S. military. The “weapon of war” that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile—and suicide was preferable to submission—was a Belgian Malinois. Its name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. It was basically a sheepherder’s dog.</p>\n<p>As every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that’s intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But all dogs have a will of their own. That’s why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a “weapon of war.” Because police don’t want to take that chance, Fido is routinely sacrificed to officer safety.</p>\n<p>Let that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work. That’s because they’re unable to distinguish a family pet from a “weapon of war.” The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one.</p>\n<p>On the other hand rifles are inanimate objects with no will at all. It’s the will of the person bearing arms that transforms an inanimate object into: (1) a “weapon of war”; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table.</p>\n<p>The term “weapon of war” should not be pejorative. It’s not static. It’s contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.</p>\n<hr>\n<p><em><a href=\"https://dkgunlaw.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Don Kilmer</a> is a Second Amendment litigator and an editor of <a href=\"https://talki.ng/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Talking</a>.</em></p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1552605642-32ff1567c30c?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=2550&amp;q=80\" alt=\"Belgian malinois photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted November 1, 2019 4:00 PM PT</em></p>\n<p>Politicians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariably use the term “weapons of war.” For instance: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.”</p>\n<p>I leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that’s actually the weapon issued to soldiers, is a true “weapon of war.” Instead, I’d like to reflect on two more abstract questions.</p>\n<p>First — Why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens of a free nation have “weapons of war?” Nobody is seriously talking about anyone owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities.</p>\n<p>True, they can be used after a first strike to retaliate, so it’s theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” may deter that initial strike. But that only works if the person or persons with control of first-strike capabilities values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once.</p>\n<p>So let’s stick with conventional weapons. That includes ships, artillery, aircraft, and of course personal infantry weapons like rifles. The <a href=\"https://talki.ng/t/gunrights\" rel=\"nofollow\">Second Amendment</a> is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession or control of non-nuclear “weapons of war” is to be limited to only the U.S. Military.</p>\n<p>Militias are not the same thing as the National Guard. Nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They’re mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p>They’re not under the control of the president of the United States (who’s commander-in-chief only of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress.</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>At all other times, militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to cede control of the militia only to a president it can trust.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>In other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not supposed to depend on the president of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement Congress’ policies or to uphold the Constitution.</p>\n<p>If existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These are <em>ad hoc</em> private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing checks to pay them. (Yes, Virginia, all government policies in the form of laws are backed up by someone willing to use force. That’s why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept.)</p>\n<p>From time immemorial, militias and any holders of letters of marque and reprisal were expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession. They did not depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. (As a hint, look up the history of England’s Glorious Revolution circa 1688, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.)</p>\n<p>If that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy, or quell an insurrection by a domestic usurper outfitted with aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles?</p>\n<p>So as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of “weapons of war” cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. president.</p>\n<p>The second question is — What is a “weapon of war?”</p>\n<p>Last week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by the U.S. military. The “weapon of war” that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile—and suicide was preferable to submission—was a Belgian Malinois. Its name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. It was basically a sheepherder’s dog.</p>\n<p>As every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that’s intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But all dogs have a will of their own. That’s why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a “weapon of war.” Because police don’t want to take that chance, Fido is routinely sacrificed to officer safety.</p>\n<p>Let that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work. That’s because they’re unable to distinguish a family pet from a “weapon of war.” The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one.</p>\n<p>On the other hand rifles are inanimate objects with no will at all. It’s the will of the person bearing arms that transforms an inanimate object into: (1) a “weapon of war”; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table.</p>\n<p>The term “weapon of war” should not be pejorative. It’s not static. It’s contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.</p>\n<hr>\n<p><em><a href=\"https://dkgunlaw.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Don Kilmer</a> is a Second Amendment litigator and an editor of <a href=\"https://talki.ng/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Talking</a>.</em></p>\n"
2019-11-02 01:11 -0500 declan Story: Don Kilmer's Friday Essay: The Dogs of War? -or- How Much is that Rifle in the Window?
Action: changed title from "Don’s Friday Essay: The Dogs of War? - or - How Much is that Rifle in the Window?" to "Don Kilmer's Friday Essay: The Dogs of War? -or- How Much is that Rifle in the Window?", changed description from "Politicians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariable use the term “weapons of war.” As in: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.” I leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that is actually the weapon issued to soldiers in the field. Instead I would like to reflect to two more abstract questions. \r\n\r\nFirst — Why shouldn’t citizens of a free nation have ‘weapons of war’? Nobody is seriously talking about individuals owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities. Oh sure, they can be used after a first-strike to retaliate; and thus it is theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” has some deterrent effect against that first-strike. But that only works if the first-striker, or more accurately the person(s) with control of first-strike capabilities, values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once. \r\n\r\nSo let us stick to conventional weapons. Ships, artillery, aircraft, and yes personal infantry weapons like rifles. The Second Amendment is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession/control of non-nuclear ‘weapons of war’ is to be limited to only the U.S. Military. \r\n\r\nMilitias are not the same thing as the National Guard, nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They are mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias: (1) They are not under the control of the President of the United States (who is only commander in chief of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress. And (2) at all other times militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to only cede control of the militia to a President it can trust. \r\n\r\nIn other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not (supposed to be) entirely dependent on the President of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement the policies of Congress or uphold the Constitution. \r\n\r\nAnd if existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” Essentially these are ad hoc private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing the checks to pay them. [Yes Virginia, all government policies (aka: laws) are backed up by a someone willing to use force to execute those policies. That is why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept.] \r\n\r\nFrom time immemorial militias (and any holders of those letters of marque/reprisal) are expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession, i.e., they did not (and should not) have to depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. [Hint: Look up the history of the Glorious Revolution circa 1688, England, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.] \r\n\r\nIf that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy or put down an insurrection by a domestic usurper, who will undoubtedly be using aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and rather futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles? \r\n\r\nSo as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of ‘weapons of war’ cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. President.\r\n\r\nThe second question is — What is a ‘weapon of war’? \r\n\r\nLast week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by U.S. Military forces. The ‘weapon of war’ that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile and suicide was preferable to submission, was a Belgian Malinois. A dog whose name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. Basically a sheepherder’s dog. \r\n\r\nAs every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that is intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But who would use a Chihuahua to guard sheep or children? And who among us would hesitate to put down the odd Chihuahua that attacked and injured a child? Stated another way, why should Rin Tin Tin be persecuted just because the Taco Bell mascot can’t quit nipping people’s fingers?\r\n\r\nStill, dogs are animate creatures with a will of their own. That is why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a ‘weapon of war.’ And not wishing to take the chance, Fido is routinely scarified to officer safety. Let that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work, because they are unable to distinguish a family pet from a ‘weapon of war.’ The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one. \r\n\r\nRifles on the other hand are inanimate objects, with no will at all. It is only the will of the person bearing arms at any given time that turns an inanimate object into: (1) a ‘weapon of war’; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table. \r\n\r\nThe term ‘weapon of war’ should not be pejorative. Nor is it static. It is contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right." to "![Belgian malinois photo](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1552605642-32ff1567c30c?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2550&q=80)\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted November 1, 2019 4:00 PM PT*\r\n\r\nPoliticians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariably use the term \"weapons of war.\" For instance: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.”\r\n\r\nI leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that's actually the weapon issued to soldiers, is a true \"weapon of war.\" Instead, I'd like to reflect to two more abstract questions. \r\n\r\nFirst — Why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens of a free nation have \"weapons of war?\" Nobody is seriously talking about anyone owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities. True, they can be used after a first strike to retaliate, so it's theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” may deter that first-strike. But that only works if the person or persons with control of first-strike capabilities values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once. \r\n\r\nSo let's stick with conventional weapons. That includes ships, artillery, aircraft, and of course personal infantry weapons like rifles. The [Second Amendment](https://talki.ng/t/gunrights) is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession or control of non-nuclear \"weapons of war\" is to be limited to only the U.S. Military. \r\n\r\nMilitias are not the same thing as the National Guard. Nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They're mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias: \r\n\r\n1. They're not under the control of the president of the United States (who's commander-in-chief only of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress.\r\n\r\n2. At all other times, militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to cede control of the militia only to a president it can trust. \r\n\r\nIn other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not supposed to depend on the president of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement Congress' policies or to uphold the Constitution. \r\n\r\nIf existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These are *ad hoc* private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing checks to pay them. (Yes, Virginia, all government policies in the form of laws are backed up by someone willing to use force. That's why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept. Paying taxes is not optional.)\r\n\r\nFrom time immemorial, militias and any holders of letters of marque and reprisal were expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession. They did not depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. (As a hint, look up the history of England's Glorious Revolution circa 1688, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.)\r\n\r\nIf that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy, or quell an insurrection by a domestic usurper outfitted with aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles? \r\n\r\nSo as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of \"weapons of war\" cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. president.\r\n\r\nThe second question is — What is a \"weapon of war?\"\r\n\r\nLast week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by the U.S. military. The \"weapon of war\" that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile—and suicide was preferable to submission—was a Belgian Malinois. Its name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. It was basically a sheepherder’s dog. \r\n\r\nAs every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that's intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But all dogs have a will of their own. That's why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a \"weapon of war.\" Because police don't want to take that chance, Fido is routinely sacrificed to officer safety. \r\n\r\nLet that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work. That's because they're unable to distinguish a family pet from a \"weapon of war.\" The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one. \r\n\r\nOn the other hand rifles are inanimate objects with no will at all. It's the will of the person bearing arms that transforms an inanimate object into: (1) a \"weapon of war\"; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table. \r\n\r\nThe term \"weapon of war\" should not be pejorative. It's not static. It's contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.\r\n\r\n______________________________________\r\n\r\n*[Don Kilmer](https://dkgunlaw.com/) is a Second Amendment litigator and an editor of [Talking](https://talki.ng/).*", changed markeddown_description from "<p>Politicians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariable use the term “weapons of war.” As in: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.” I leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that is actually the weapon issued to soldiers in the field. Instead I would like to reflect to two more abstract questions.</p>\n<p>First — Why shouldn’t citizens of a free nation have ‘weapons of war’? Nobody is seriously talking about individuals owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities. Oh sure, they can be used after a first-strike to retaliate; and thus it is theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” has some deterrent effect against that first-strike. But that only works if the first-striker, or more accurately the person(s) with control of first-strike capabilities, values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once.</p>\n<p>So let us stick to conventional weapons. Ships, artillery, aircraft, and yes personal infantry weapons like rifles. The Second Amendment is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession/control of non-nuclear ‘weapons of war’ is to be limited to only the U.S. Military.</p>\n<p>Militias are not the same thing as the National Guard, nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They are mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias: (1) They are not under the control of the President of the United States (who is only commander in chief of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress. And (2) at all other times militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to only cede control of the militia to a President it can trust.</p>\n<p>In other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not (supposed to be) entirely dependent on the President of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement the policies of Congress or uphold the Constitution.</p>\n<p>And if existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” Essentially these are ad hoc private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing the checks to pay them. [Yes Virginia, all government policies (aka: laws) are backed up by a someone willing to use force to execute those policies. That is why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept.]</p>\n<p>From time immemorial militias (and any holders of those letters of marque/reprisal) are expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession, i.e., they did not (and should not) have to depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. [Hint: Look up the history of the Glorious Revolution circa 1688, England, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.]</p>\n<p>If that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy or put down an insurrection by a domestic usurper, who will undoubtedly be using aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and rather futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles?</p>\n<p>So as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of ‘weapons of war’ cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. President.</p>\n<p>The second question is — What is a ‘weapon of war’?</p>\n<p>Last week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by U.S. Military forces. The ‘weapon of war’ that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile and suicide was preferable to submission, was a Belgian Malinois. A dog whose name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. Basically a sheepherder’s dog.</p>\n<p>As every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that is intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But who would use a Chihuahua to guard sheep or children? And who among us would hesitate to put down the odd Chihuahua that attacked and injured a child? Stated another way, why should Rin Tin Tin be persecuted just because the Taco Bell mascot can’t quit nipping people’s fingers?</p>\n<p>Still, dogs are animate creatures with a will of their own. That is why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a ‘weapon of war.’ And not wishing to take the chance, Fido is routinely scarified to officer safety. Let that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work, because they are unable to distinguish a family pet from a ‘weapon of war.’ The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one.</p>\n<p>Rifles on the other hand are inanimate objects, with no will at all. It is only the will of the person bearing arms at any given time that turns an inanimate object into: (1) a ‘weapon of war’; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table.</p>\n<p>The term ‘weapon of war’ should not be pejorative. Nor is it static. It is contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1552605642-32ff1567c30c?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=2550&amp;q=80\" alt=\"Belgian malinois photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted November 1, 2019 4:00 PM PT</em></p>\n<p>Politicians calling for more gun control, especially when it comes to modern rifles, invariably use the term “weapons of war.” For instance: “These AR-15s are ‘weapons of war’ and have no place on our streets.”</p>\n<p>I leave it to others to debunk whether an AR-15, rather than the M-16/M-4 variant that’s actually the weapon issued to soldiers, is a true “weapon of war.” Instead, I’d like to reflect to two more abstract questions.</p>\n<p>First — Why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens of a free nation have “weapons of war?” Nobody is seriously talking about anyone owning nuclear weapons. Those were developed, used, and are maintained by governments as political weapons and have offensive capabilities. True, they can be used after a first strike to retaliate, so it’s theorized that such a retaliatory capability or “mutually assured destruction” may deter that first-strike. But that only works if the person or persons with control of first-strike capabilities values the lives of his/her fellow citizens. Religious and ideological zealots are not good candidates for testing a theory that can only be used once.</p>\n<p>So let’s stick with conventional weapons. That includes ships, artillery, aircraft, and of course personal infantry weapons like rifles. The <a href=\"https://talki.ng/t/gunrights\" rel=\"nofollow\">Second Amendment</a> is not the only part of the Constitution that would require amending if possession or control of non-nuclear “weapons of war” is to be limited to only the U.S. Military.</p>\n<p>Militias are not the same thing as the National Guard. Nor are they any component of the standing Army or Navy. They’re mentioned in several places in the U.S. Constitution. And we know two mutually exclusive things about militias:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p>They’re not under the control of the president of the United States (who’s commander-in-chief only of the existing Army, Navy and sometimes National Guard) unless that militia is “called into service of the United States” — presumably after a declaration of war by Congress.</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>At all other times, militias are under the joint supervision of Congress and the states. Thus, Congress is incentivized to cede control of the militia only to a president it can trust.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>In other words, under our Constitution, Congress and the subordinate state governments retain a direct ability to wage war and are not supposed to depend on the president of the United States if armed conflict (or resistance) is necessary to implement Congress’ policies or to uphold the Constitution.</p>\n<p>If existing militias are not up to the task, Congress also has the power to hire mercenaries through issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These are <em>ad hoc</em> private navies and armies that can make war to implement the policies of a Congress writing checks to pay them. (Yes, Virginia, all government policies in the form of laws are backed up by someone willing to use force. That’s why consensual government only works if almost everyone agrees with, or sanctions, or ratifies the policies that become laws. Optional law is a null concept. Paying taxes is not optional.)</p>\n<p>From time immemorial, militias and any holders of letters of marque and reprisal were expected to show up and do their jobs with weapons already in their possession. They did not depend on a supply chain controlled by the existing government. The reasons for that are left as an exercise for the reader. (As a hint, look up the history of England’s Glorious Revolution circa 1688, an event fresh in the minds of the founders who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution.)</p>\n<p>If that job is to repel an attack by some foreign enemy, or quell an insurrection by a domestic usurper outfitted with aircraft carriers, artillery, aircraft, and modern rifles — then isn’t it suicidal and futile to expect this “peoples’ army” to be equipped with single-action side arms and lever-action rifles?</p>\n<p>So as a matter of Constitutional interpretation and practical necessity, the possession of “weapons of war” cannot be limited to the standing armies and navies that are solely under the control of a U.S. president.</p>\n<p>The second question is — What is a “weapon of war?”</p>\n<p>Last week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed himself rather than be taken alive during a raid by the U.S. military. The “weapon of war” that persuaded this terrorist that resistance was futile—and suicide was preferable to submission—was a Belgian Malinois. Its name is derived from Malines, the French name for the breed’s Flemish city of origin, Mechelen. It was basically a sheepherder’s dog.</p>\n<p>As every dog lover knows, viciousness is not a characteristic that’s intrinsic to any breed. True, a Chihuahua cannot inflict as much harm as a Belgian Malinois. But all dogs have a will of their own. That’s why SWAT teams routinely kill dogs when serving high-risk warrants. The rationale given is that it is impossible to know if Fido is a sweet and loving member of the family, or a “weapon of war.” Because police don’t want to take that chance, Fido is routinely sacrificed to officer safety.</p>\n<p>Let that sink in. The government has no compunction about killing the same kind of dog that they might very well use in combat or police work. That’s because they’re unable to distinguish a family pet from a “weapon of war.” The inability to make that distinction is a clue. There isn’t one.</p>\n<p>On the other hand rifles are inanimate objects with no will at all. It’s the will of the person bearing arms that transforms an inanimate object into: (1) a “weapon of war”; or (2) a device for defending life, liberty, and property; or (3) a tool for putting food on the table.</p>\n<p>The term “weapon of war” should not be pejorative. It’s not static. It’s contextual and therefore a useless term for defining the contours of a fundamental constitutional right.</p>\n<hr>\n<p><em><a href=\"https://dkgunlaw.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Don Kilmer</a> is a Second Amendment litigator and an editor of <a href=\"https://talki.ng/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Talking</a>.</em></p>\n"
2019-10-26 02:31 -0500 declan Tag: essays
Action: Updating tag essays, changed hotness_mod from '7.5' to '7.0'
2019-10-26 02:31 -0500 declan Tag: essays
Action: Updating tag essays, changed hotness_mod from '7.0' to '7.5'
2019-10-26 02:31 -0500 declan Tag: essays
Action: Updating tag essays, changed hotness_mod from '8.0' to '7.0'
2019-10-26 02:31 -0500 declan Tag: essays
Action: Updating tag essays, changed hotness_mod from '10.0' to '8.0'
2019-10-26 02:28 -0500 declan Story: Don Kilmer's Friday Essay: Real-ID Will Make You Real Mad
Action: changed description from "![Paperwork photo](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1513705153361-9bc726c8db67?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2767&q=80)\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted October 26, 2019 4:00 PM PT*\r\n\r\nMy “Friday Essay” has evolved into this mutated habit. It grew from email rants to select (tolerant?) friends, into this intrusion on your attention at this little [start-up site.](https://Talki.ng) My friends, some of whom are serious journalists and scholars of how media works, tell me that Mondays and Tuesdays are better days for publishing punditry. But I never wanted to be a serious journalist. And I have no interest in competing with other pundits, however good they might be. (H/T to [Instapundit.com](https://instapundit.com)\r\n\r\nYou see, I want you to think about my pearls (or paste) during the weekend while you mow the lawn, grill a steak, watch your kid play center-field, or clean out the garage. I have this theory that thinking about a topic should be done when you are physically away from the inspiration for the topic. This exercises your attention span muscles. \r\n\r\nLast week’s “[Friday Essay](https://talki.ng/s/03l12v/don_kilmer_big_government_tragedy_poker)” included a quote from a favorite author: Robert A. Heinlein. This week’s essay returns to that well: \r\n\r\n>“When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.”\r\n\r\nThis quote was from a novel set in a future where space travel was a historical given and common occurrence. Unfortunately for those of us still living in California, circa 2019, space travel is not an option. My wife and I will have had to make do with relocating to Idaho.\r\n\r\nIt’s not that Idaho won’t require us to get a new driver’s license when we get there. And it’s not as if Idaho won’t require the same nonsensical rules for obtaining the new *sine qua non* of ‘Required-ID’ now known as [Real ID.](https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs.) This is the ID that will become your new permission slip to board domestic flights after October 1, 2020. That is, of course, assuming you'll still want to board a plane to visit the nieces and nephews on Thanksgiving--after Donald Trump is either re-elected or defeated in what promises to be an election that too many pundits will compare to 1860 for all the wrong reasons.\r\n\r\nMy wife and I discovered that the federal government is behind this sorting, tagging, and tracking of citizens when we looked at the checklist for obtaining the California version, also called [Real-ID](https://realid.dmv.ca.gov/your-real-id-checklist/) and discovered that it's identical to the one for obtaining the Idaho version called [StarCard.](https://itd.idaho.gov/StarCard/add-the-star-tool-01.html)\r\n\r\nWe discovered this only because we were trying to decide in which state it will be less burdensome to prove we are who we say we are. Hamlet can kiss my ass. Facing the slings and arrows of answering existential questions is nothing compared to tracking down documents to issue a required-ID. Basically, Leviathan insists on forcing you to take up genealogy for the privilege of traveling America via any modern means of mass travel. Yep, Amtrak has [ID requirements too.](https://www.amtrak.com/planning-booking/tickets-id-safety-security/passenger-identification.html)\r\n\r\nPeople who already travel internationally, people who have immigrated to this country, people who visit this country from other countries, people who work in this country with permission from Uncle Sam, basically the international jet-set, will have an easier time obtaining a Real-ID/StarCard than an American born in this country. Why? Because they won’t have to come up with their birth certificates and marriage licenses for the “to be or not to be” process of providing papers to prove you are who you say you are.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, copies won’t suffice. You have to provide documents that lawyers and judges call “self-authenticating” certified copies—which means these documents have funny little raised bumps on the paper and official looking multi-colored stamps that say they are authentic documents. As if terrorists don’t have access to colored ink and embossing stamps. How is a DMV clerk in California going to know what the “official” seal of Pocahontas County, Iowa looks like?\r\n\r\nObtaining birth certificates is an adventure. The custodian of records at my place of birth (no, not Pocahontas County) requires $10 per certificate. I can download the form online, but I have to fill it out by hand and send a copy of my current ID (the old that will be invalid soon), the money, and a self-addressed stamped envelope to obtain the proof that I was born. And if my small town birthplace back east gets the job done with the usual bureaucratic efficiencies, I will have the sacred texts necessary to obtain my Idaho StarCard next year.\r\n\r\nMy poor wife was not so lucky. Her California driver’s license was set to expire before we decamp to Idaho. She had to decide whether to get the California Real-ID, or merely renew her CDL and get the StarCard when we get to Idaho. The difference in price between a mere driver’s license renewal and the CA Real-ID was zero. But the unintended costs of proving she was (is?) who she says she was (is?) is not zero. She had a copy of her birth record. And it was certified. So far so good, right? No. Birth “records” — whether certified or not — are not an acceptable document according to the CA Real-ID website. Apparently there is some distinction between birth “records” and birth “certificates.” Nor are hospital records or baptismal certificates valid forms. But my wife was born in Silicon Valley. Home to modern progressive governments with computerized records and retrieval systems. A certified copy of her birth “certificate” will cost us $140. I guess my old-fashioned back-east town isn't so bad after all.\r\n\r\nBut there's a catch. The name on her birth certificate does not match the name on her current driver’s license. She changed her last name to my last name when we got married 34 years ago. So according to California's Real-ID website, she'll also need to provide documentation on her name change in the form of a copy of our marriage certificate. (We have one, but it wasn’t certified.)\r\n\r\nAt this point, my wife decided to renew her license and forgo the California Real-ID in lieu of getting the Idaho StarCard next year after we move. The normal renewal by mail is not available during this “window” of nudging California residents to upgrade to Read-ID. So she brought the forms she currently has in her possession — birth record and uncertified copy of marriage certificate — on the off chance that the DMV would take pity on her and accept these. They didn’t and they won’t. So a certified copy of our marriage certificate will cost another $149.00. \r\n\r\nWhy is all this necessary? Because California and other states decided to issue government IDs to persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the country. And when that wasn’t compassionate enough, they went one step further and decided to issue actual driver’s license to such “unauthorized” persons.\r\n\r\nThis is not a screed against those souls looking for a better life in America. If I were born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande, I might try to get here too. For me the question is not open or closed borders, but monitored and minimally controlled borders. You know, to keep the terrorists and known criminals from coming here and doing terrorist stuff and crimes. Or as Dennis Miller once said, “Sign the guestbook on the way in. Then stay as long as you want.”\r\n\r\nThe problem is that the federal government relies on state-issued driver’s licenses and other government issued IDs. They have regulations requiring such IDs for their federal purposes, like boarding a plane. The lax laws of California were subject to abuses like identity theft and unverified personhood, by persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the United States in the first place. So naturally, law-abiding U.S. Citizens must now recreate records and obtain super-duper ID cards to prove that they are lawfully who they say they are: that is, natural-born U.S. Citizens. \r\n\r\nWhy? Because state and local governments want to be admired as the compassionate and welcoming *parens patriae* against an oppressive and overbearing federal government. Never mind that the federal government is constitutionally charged with protecting the nation from infiltration by terrorists from hostile countries and ordinary criminals from the rest; and if another 9/11 happens due to fake IDs and stolen personhood, the nation will blame the Feds and not California’s lax ID policies. It's classic buck-passing. \r\n\r\nSo in sum, a woman who takes her husband’s name must pay twice as much to verify her identity to get a required ID so that she can take a plane to visit family next Thanksgiving. California is not just too crowded. It is clinically insane." to "![Passport photo](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1487637419635-a2a471ff5c7b?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2652&q=80)\r\n\r\n**By [Don Kilmer](/u/don)**\r\n\r\n*Posted October 26, 2019 4:00 PM PT*\r\n\r\nMy “Friday Essay” has evolved into this mutated habit. It grew from email rants to select (tolerant?) friends, into this intrusion on your attention at this little [start-up site.](https://Talki.ng) My friends, some of whom are serious journalists and scholars of how media works, tell me that Mondays and Tuesdays are better days for publishing punditry. But I never wanted to be a serious journalist. And I have no interest in competing with other pundits, however good they might be. (H/T to [Instapundit.com](https://instapundit.com).)\r\n\r\nYou see, I want you to think about my pearls (or paste) during the weekend while you mow the lawn, grill a steak, watch your kid play center-field, or clean out the garage. I have this theory that thinking about a topic should be done when you are physically away from the inspiration for the topic. This exercises your attention span muscles. \r\n\r\nLast week’s “[Friday Essay](https://talki.ng/s/03l12v/don_kilmer_big_government_tragedy_poker)” included a quote from a favorite author: Robert A. Heinlein. This week’s essay returns to that well: \r\n\r\n>“When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.”\r\n\r\nThis quote was from a novel set in a future where space travel was a historical given and common occurrence. Unfortunately for those of us still living in California, circa 2019, space travel is not an option. My wife and I will have had to make do with relocating to Idaho.\r\n\r\nIt’s not that Idaho won’t require us to get a new driver’s license when we get there. And it’s not as if Idaho won’t require the same nonsensical rules for obtaining the new *sine qua non* of ‘Required-ID’ now known as [Real ID.](https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs.) This is the ID that will become your new permission slip to board domestic flights after October 1, 2020. That is, of course, assuming you'll still want to board a plane to visit the nieces and nephews on Thanksgiving--after Donald Trump is either re-elected or defeated in what promises to be an election that too many pundits will compare to 1860 for all the wrong reasons.\r\n\r\nMy wife and I discovered that the federal government is behind this sorting, tagging, and tracking of citizens when we looked at the checklist for obtaining the California version, also called [Real-ID](https://realid.dmv.ca.gov/your-real-id-checklist/) and discovered that it's identical to the one for obtaining the Idaho version called [StarCard.](https://itd.idaho.gov/StarCard/add-the-star-tool-01.html)\r\n\r\nWe discovered this only because we were trying to decide in which state it will be less burdensome to prove we are who we say we are. Hamlet can kiss my ass. Facing the slings and arrows of answering existential questions is nothing compared to tracking down documents to issue a required-ID. Basically, Leviathan insists on forcing you to take up genealogy for the privilege of traveling America via any modern means of mass travel. Yep, Amtrak has [ID requirements too.](https://www.amtrak.com/planning-booking/tickets-id-safety-security/passenger-identification.html)\r\n\r\nPeople who already travel internationally, people who have immigrated to this country, people who visit this country from other countries, people who work in this country with permission from Uncle Sam, basically the international jet-set, will have an easier time obtaining a Real-ID/StarCard than an American born in this country. Why? Because they won’t have to come up with their birth certificates and marriage licenses for the “to be or not to be” process of providing papers to prove you are who you say you are.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, copies won’t suffice. You have to provide documents that lawyers and judges call “self-authenticating” certified copies—which means these documents have funny little raised bumps on the paper and official looking multi-colored stamps that say they are authentic documents. As if terrorists don’t have access to colored ink and embossing stamps. How is a DMV clerk in California going to know what the “official” seal of Pocahontas County, Iowa looks like?\r\n\r\nObtaining birth certificates is an adventure. The custodian of records at my place of birth (no, not Pocahontas County) requires $10 per certificate. I can download the form online, but I have to fill it out by hand and send a copy of my current ID (the old that will be invalid soon), the money, and a self-addressed stamped envelope to obtain the proof that I was born. And if my small town birthplace back east gets the job done with the usual bureaucratic efficiencies, I will have the sacred texts necessary to obtain my Idaho StarCard next year.\r\n\r\nMy poor wife was not so lucky. Her California driver’s license was set to expire before we decamp to Idaho. She had to decide whether to get the California Real-ID, or merely renew her CDL and get the StarCard when we get to Idaho. The difference in price between a mere driver’s license renewal and the CA Real-ID was zero. But the unintended costs of proving she was (is?) who she says she was (is?) is not zero. She had a copy of her birth record. And it was certified.\r\n\r\nSo far so good, right? No. Birth “records” — whether certified or not — are not an acceptable document according to the CA Real-ID website. Apparently there is some distinction between birth “records” and birth “certificates.” Nor are hospital records or baptismal certificates valid forms. But my wife was born in Silicon Valley. Home to modern progressive governments with computerized records and retrieval systems. A certified copy of her birth “certificate” will cost us $140. I guess my old-fashioned back-east town isn't so bad after all.\r\n\r\nBut there's a catch. The name on her birth certificate does not match the name on her current driver’s license. She changed her last name to my last name when we got married 34 years ago. So according to California's Real-ID website, she'll also need to provide documentation on her name change in the form of a copy of our marriage certificate. (We have one, but it wasn’t certified.)\r\n\r\nAt this point, my wife decided to renew her license and forgo the California Real-ID in lieu of getting the Idaho StarCard next year after we move. The normal renewal by mail is not available during this “window” of nudging California residents to upgrade to Read-ID. So she brought the forms she currently has in her possession — birth record and uncertified copy of marriage certificate — on the off chance that the DMV would take pity on her and accept these. They didn’t and they won’t. So a certified copy of our marriage certificate will cost another $149.00. \r\n\r\nWhy is all this necessary? Because California and other states decided to issue government IDs to persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the country. And when that wasn’t compassionate enough, they went one step further and decided to issue actual driver’s license to such “unauthorized” persons.\r\n\r\nThis is not a screed against those souls looking for a better life in America. If I were born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande, I might try to get here too. For me the question is not open or closed borders, but monitored and minimally controlled borders. You know, to keep the terrorists and known criminals from coming here and doing terrorist stuff and crimes. Or as Dennis Miller once said, “Sign the guestbook on the way in. Then stay as long as you want.”\r\n\r\nThe problem is that the federal government relies on state-issued driver’s licenses and other government issued IDs. They have regulations requiring such IDs for their federal purposes, like boarding a plane. The lax laws of California were subject to abuses like identity theft and unverified personhood, by persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the United States in the first place. So naturally, law-abiding U.S. Citizens must now recreate records and obtain super-duper ID cards to prove that they are lawfully who they say they are: that is, natural-born U.S. Citizens. \r\n\r\nWhy? Because state and local governments want to be admired as the compassionate and welcoming *parens patriae* against an oppressive and overbearing federal government. Never mind that the federal government is constitutionally charged with protecting the nation from infiltration by terrorists from hostile countries and ordinary criminals from the rest; and if another 9/11 happens due to fake IDs and stolen personhood, the nation will blame the Feds and not California’s lax ID policies. It's classic buck-passing. \r\n\r\nSo in sum, a woman who takes her husband’s name must pay twice as much to verify her identity to get a required ID so that she can take a plane to visit family next Thanksgiving. California is not just too crowded. It is clinically insane.", changed markeddown_description from "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1513705153361-9bc726c8db67?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=2767&amp;q=80\" alt=\"Paperwork photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted October 26, 2019 4:00 PM PT</em></p>\n<p>My “Friday Essay” has evolved into this mutated habit. It grew from email rants to select (tolerant?) friends, into this intrusion on your attention at this little <a href=\"https://Talki.ng\" rel=\"nofollow\">start-up site.</a> My friends, some of whom are serious journalists and scholars of how media works, tell me that Mondays and Tuesdays are better days for publishing punditry. But I never wanted to be a serious journalist. And I have no interest in competing with other pundits, however good they might be. (H/T to <a href=\"https://instapundit.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Instapundit.com</a></p>\n<p>You see, I want you to think about my pearls (or paste) during the weekend while you mow the lawn, grill a steak, watch your kid play center-field, or clean out the garage. I have this theory that thinking about a topic should be done when you are physically away from the inspiration for the topic. This exercises your attention span muscles.</p>\n<p>Last week’s “<a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/03l12v/don_kilmer_big_government_tragedy_poker\" rel=\"nofollow\">Friday Essay</a>” included a quote from a favorite author: Robert A. Heinlein. This week’s essay returns to that well:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>“When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.”</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This quote was from a novel set in a future where space travel was a historical given and common occurrence. Unfortunately for those of us still living in California, circa 2019, space travel is not an option. My wife and I will have had to make do with relocating to Idaho.</p>\n<p>It’s not that Idaho won’t require us to get a new driver’s license when we get there. And it’s not as if Idaho won’t require the same nonsensical rules for obtaining the new <em>sine qua non</em> of ‘Required-ID’ now known as <a href=\"https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs.\" rel=\"nofollow\">Real ID.</a> This is the ID that will become your new permission slip to board domestic flights after October 1, 2020. That is, of course, assuming you’ll still want to board a plane to visit the nieces and nephews on Thanksgiving–after Donald Trump is either re-elected or defeated in what promises to be an election that too many pundits will compare to 1860 for all the wrong reasons.</p>\n<p>My wife and I discovered that the federal government is behind this sorting, tagging, and tracking of citizens when we looked at the checklist for obtaining the California version, also called <a href=\"https://realid.dmv.ca.gov/your-real-id-checklist/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Real-ID</a> and discovered that it’s identical to the one for obtaining the Idaho version called <a href=\"https://itd.idaho.gov/StarCard/add-the-star-tool-01.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">StarCard.</a></p>\n<p>We discovered this only because we were trying to decide in which state it will be less burdensome to prove we are who we say we are. Hamlet can kiss my ass. Facing the slings and arrows of answering existential questions is nothing compared to tracking down documents to issue a required-ID. Basically, Leviathan insists on forcing you to take up genealogy for the privilege of traveling America via any modern means of mass travel. Yep, Amtrak has <a href=\"https://www.amtrak.com/planning-booking/tickets-id-safety-security/passenger-identification.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">ID requirements too.</a></p>\n<p>People who already travel internationally, people who have immigrated to this country, people who visit this country from other countries, people who work in this country with permission from Uncle Sam, basically the international jet-set, will have an easier time obtaining a Real-ID/StarCard than an American born in this country. Why? Because they won’t have to come up with their birth certificates and marriage licenses for the “to be or not to be” process of providing papers to prove you are who you say you are.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, copies won’t suffice. You have to provide documents that lawyers and judges call “self-authenticating” certified copies—which means these documents have funny little raised bumps on the paper and official looking multi-colored stamps that say they are authentic documents. As if terrorists don’t have access to colored ink and embossing stamps. How is a DMV clerk in California going to know what the “official” seal of Pocahontas County, Iowa looks like?</p>\n<p>Obtaining birth certificates is an adventure. The custodian of records at my place of birth (no, not Pocahontas County) requires $10 per certificate. I can download the form online, but I have to fill it out by hand and send a copy of my current ID (the old that will be invalid soon), the money, and a self-addressed stamped envelope to obtain the proof that I was born. And if my small town birthplace back east gets the job done with the usual bureaucratic efficiencies, I will have the sacred texts necessary to obtain my Idaho StarCard next year.</p>\n<p>My poor wife was not so lucky. Her California driver’s license was set to expire before we decamp to Idaho. She had to decide whether to get the California Real-ID, or merely renew her CDL and get the StarCard when we get to Idaho. The difference in price between a mere driver’s license renewal and the CA Real-ID was zero. But the unintended costs of proving she was (is?) who she says she was (is?) is not zero. She had a copy of her birth record. And it was certified. So far so good, right? No. Birth “records” — whether certified or not — are not an acceptable document according to the CA Real-ID website. Apparently there is some distinction between birth “records” and birth “certificates.” Nor are hospital records or baptismal certificates valid forms. But my wife was born in Silicon Valley. Home to modern progressive governments with computerized records and retrieval systems. A certified copy of her birth “certificate” will cost us $140. I guess my old-fashioned back-east town isn’t so bad after all.</p>\n<p>But there’s a catch. The name on her birth certificate does not match the name on her current driver’s license. She changed her last name to my last name when we got married 34 years ago. So according to California’s Real-ID website, she’ll also need to provide documentation on her name change in the form of a copy of our marriage certificate. (We have one, but it wasn’t certified.)</p>\n<p>At this point, my wife decided to renew her license and forgo the California Real-ID in lieu of getting the Idaho StarCard next year after we move. The normal renewal by mail is not available during this “window” of nudging California residents to upgrade to Read-ID. So she brought the forms she currently has in her possession — birth record and uncertified copy of marriage certificate — on the off chance that the DMV would take pity on her and accept these. They didn’t and they won’t. So a certified copy of our marriage certificate will cost another $149.00.</p>\n<p>Why is all this necessary? Because California and other states decided to issue government IDs to persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the country. And when that wasn’t compassionate enough, they went one step further and decided to issue actual driver’s license to such “unauthorized” persons.</p>\n<p>This is not a screed against those souls looking for a better life in America. If I were born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande, I might try to get here too. For me the question is not open or closed borders, but monitored and minimally controlled borders. You know, to keep the terrorists and known criminals from coming here and doing terrorist stuff and crimes. Or as Dennis Miller once said, “Sign the guestbook on the way in. Then stay as long as you want.”</p>\n<p>The problem is that the federal government relies on state-issued driver’s licenses and other government issued IDs. They have regulations requiring such IDs for their federal purposes, like boarding a plane. The lax laws of California were subject to abuses like identity theft and unverified personhood, by persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the United States in the first place. So naturally, law-abiding U.S. Citizens must now recreate records and obtain super-duper ID cards to prove that they are lawfully who they say they are: that is, natural-born U.S. Citizens.</p>\n<p>Why? Because state and local governments want to be admired as the compassionate and welcoming <em>parens patriae</em> against an oppressive and overbearing federal government. Never mind that the federal government is constitutionally charged with protecting the nation from infiltration by terrorists from hostile countries and ordinary criminals from the rest; and if another 9/11 happens due to fake IDs and stolen personhood, the nation will blame the Feds and not California’s lax ID policies. It’s classic buck-passing.</p>\n<p>So in sum, a woman who takes her husband’s name must pay twice as much to verify her identity to get a required ID so that she can take a plane to visit family next Thanksgiving. California is not just too crowded. It is clinically insane.</p>\n" to "<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1487637419635-a2a471ff5c7b?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=2652&amp;q=80\" alt=\"Passport photo\"></p>\n<p><strong>By <a href=\"/u/don\">Don Kilmer</a></strong></p>\n<p><em>Posted October 26, 2019 4:00 PM PT</em></p>\n<p>My “Friday Essay” has evolved into this mutated habit. It grew from email rants to select (tolerant?) friends, into this intrusion on your attention at this little <a href=\"https://Talki.ng\" rel=\"nofollow\">start-up site.</a> My friends, some of whom are serious journalists and scholars of how media works, tell me that Mondays and Tuesdays are better days for publishing punditry. But I never wanted to be a serious journalist. And I have no interest in competing with other pundits, however good they might be. (H/T to <a href=\"https://instapundit.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Instapundit.com</a>.)</p>\n<p>You see, I want you to think about my pearls (or paste) during the weekend while you mow the lawn, grill a steak, watch your kid play center-field, or clean out the garage. I have this theory that thinking about a topic should be done when you are physically away from the inspiration for the topic. This exercises your attention span muscles.</p>\n<p>Last week’s “<a href=\"https://talki.ng/s/03l12v/don_kilmer_big_government_tragedy_poker\" rel=\"nofollow\">Friday Essay</a>” included a quote from a favorite author: Robert A. Heinlein. This week’s essay returns to that well:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>“When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.”</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This quote was from a novel set in a future where space travel was a historical given and common occurrence. Unfortunately for those of us still living in California, circa 2019, space travel is not an option. My wife and I will have had to make do with relocating to Idaho.</p>\n<p>It’s not that Idaho won’t require us to get a new driver’s license when we get there. And it’s not as if Idaho won’t require the same nonsensical rules for obtaining the new <em>sine qua non</em> of ‘Required-ID’ now known as <a href=\"https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs.\" rel=\"nofollow\">Real ID.</a> This is the ID that will become your new permission slip to board domestic flights after October 1, 2020. That is, of course, assuming you’ll still want to board a plane to visit the nieces and nephews on Thanksgiving–after Donald Trump is either re-elected or defeated in what promises to be an election that too many pundits will compare to 1860 for all the wrong reasons.</p>\n<p>My wife and I discovered that the federal government is behind this sorting, tagging, and tracking of citizens when we looked at the checklist for obtaining the California version, also called <a href=\"https://realid.dmv.ca.gov/your-real-id-checklist/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Real-ID</a> and discovered that it’s identical to the one for obtaining the Idaho version called <a href=\"https://itd.idaho.gov/StarCard/add-the-star-tool-01.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">StarCard.</a></p>\n<p>We discovered this only because we were trying to decide in which state it will be less burdensome to prove we are who we say we are. Hamlet can kiss my ass. Facing the slings and arrows of answering existential questions is nothing compared to tracking down documents to issue a required-ID. Basically, Leviathan insists on forcing you to take up genealogy for the privilege of traveling America via any modern means of mass travel. Yep, Amtrak has <a href=\"https://www.amtrak.com/planning-booking/tickets-id-safety-security/passenger-identification.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">ID requirements too.</a></p>\n<p>People who already travel internationally, people who have immigrated to this country, people who visit this country from other countries, people who work in this country with permission from Uncle Sam, basically the international jet-set, will have an easier time obtaining a Real-ID/StarCard than an American born in this country. Why? Because they won’t have to come up with their birth certificates and marriage licenses for the “to be or not to be” process of providing papers to prove you are who you say you are.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, copies won’t suffice. You have to provide documents that lawyers and judges call “self-authenticating” certified copies—which means these documents have funny little raised bumps on the paper and official looking multi-colored stamps that say they are authentic documents. As if terrorists don’t have access to colored ink and embossing stamps. How is a DMV clerk in California going to know what the “official” seal of Pocahontas County, Iowa looks like?</p>\n<p>Obtaining birth certificates is an adventure. The custodian of records at my place of birth (no, not Pocahontas County) requires $10 per certificate. I can download the form online, but I have to fill it out by hand and send a copy of my current ID (the old that will be invalid soon), the money, and a self-addressed stamped envelope to obtain the proof that I was born. And if my small town birthplace back east gets the job done with the usual bureaucratic efficiencies, I will have the sacred texts necessary to obtain my Idaho StarCard next year.</p>\n<p>My poor wife was not so lucky. Her California driver’s license was set to expire before we decamp to Idaho. She had to decide whether to get the California Real-ID, or merely renew her CDL and get the StarCard when we get to Idaho. The difference in price between a mere driver’s license renewal and the CA Real-ID was zero. But the unintended costs of proving she was (is?) who she says she was (is?) is not zero. She had a copy of her birth record. And it was certified.</p>\n<p>So far so good, right? No. Birth “records” — whether certified or not — are not an acceptable document according to the CA Real-ID website. Apparently there is some distinction between birth “records” and birth “certificates.” Nor are hospital records or baptismal certificates valid forms. But my wife was born in Silicon Valley. Home to modern progressive governments with computerized records and retrieval systems. A certified copy of her birth “certificate” will cost us $140. I guess my old-fashioned back-east town isn’t so bad after all.</p>\n<p>But there’s a catch. The name on her birth certificate does not match the name on her current driver’s license. She changed her last name to my last name when we got married 34 years ago. So according to California’s Real-ID website, she’ll also need to provide documentation on her name change in the form of a copy of our marriage certificate. (We have one, but it wasn’t certified.)</p>\n<p>At this point, my wife decided to renew her license and forgo the California Real-ID in lieu of getting the Idaho StarCard next year after we move. The normal renewal by mail is not available during this “window” of nudging California residents to upgrade to Read-ID. So she brought the forms she currently has in her possession — birth record and uncertified copy of marriage certificate — on the off chance that the DMV would take pity on her and accept these. They didn’t and they won’t. So a certified copy of our marriage certificate will cost another $149.00.</p>\n<p>Why is all this necessary? Because California and other states decided to issue government IDs to persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the country. And when that wasn’t compassionate enough, they went one step further and decided to issue actual driver’s license to such “unauthorized” persons.</p>\n<p>This is not a screed against those souls looking for a better life in America. If I were born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande, I might try to get here too. For me the question is not open or closed borders, but monitored and minimally controlled borders. You know, to keep the terrorists and known criminals from coming here and doing terrorist stuff and crimes. Or as Dennis Miller once said, “Sign the guestbook on the way in. Then stay as long as you want.”</p>\n<p>The problem is that the federal government relies on state-issued driver’s licenses and other government issued IDs. They have regulations requiring such IDs for their federal purposes, like boarding a plane. The lax laws of California were subject to abuses like identity theft and unverified personhood, by persons who are “unauthorized” to be in the United States in the first place. So naturally, law-abiding U.S. Citizens must now recreate records and obtain super-duper ID cards to prove that they are lawfully who they say they are: that is, natural-born U.S. Citizens.</p>\n<p>Why? Because state and local governments want to be admired as the compassionate and welcoming <em>parens patriae</em> against an oppressive and overbearing federal government. Never mind that the federal government is constitutionally charged with protecting the nation from infiltration by terrorists from hostile countries and ordinary criminals from the rest; and if another 9/11 happens due to fake IDs and stolen personhood, the nation will blame the Feds and not California’s lax ID policies. It’s classic buck-passing.</p>\n<p>So in sum, a woman who takes her husband’s name must pay twice as much to verify her identity to get a required ID so that she can take a plane to visit family next Thanksgiving. California is not just too crowded. It is clinically insane.</p>\n"