Clairespective.

Another capital-R resource from Claire.  This one covers--well--the idea that sometimes the path to better things does indeed go through the technically unacceptable.

Are we likely to see constitutional carry in Massachusetts, New York, or California any time soon? Ha! But I can tell you that a lot of us who were around in the dark old days of 1993 and 1994 never thought we’d see even this much, ever, in so many places.

And “this much” is a lot. A hell of a lot. Better yet, we’re going to see more.

Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.

I do indeed remember those darker days;  in fact it was right around then that I stumbled across Claire in the first place.  Worth, seriously worth, a RTWT.

The only downside I can see, honestly, is that celebrating a good thing for what it is, isn't going to help the sort of prag mindset that still can't distinguish between long-term strategy and true pre-emptive surrender.  Yes, there is a lesson in all this for those of us who can't bring ourselves to actively support ideas that might turn out later to be valuable incremental milestones.   (Duly noted and appreciated, and to borrow from Joel, the crow tastes pretty fine!)  But we, too, should recognize our important place in restraining the surrender impulse--and keep at it.  The real visionaries, as Claire's post suggests, will recognize us for what we are and work with us.

Here's to more such free-people assertions.  Many more!

Okay, is it just me...

...or has it gotten way past the eye-rolling stage, even by the usual election standards, the way many people are acting at the very idea of a Trump presidency?  

You know, as if he would somehow be materially different from any other "leader" in the same position?

Wait...you mean he might be a bigot against The Little People?

He might curtail basic human rights at home, and ignore them abroad?

He might go dick-swinging around the globe, in a way that might engender blowback?

He might shove societally suicidal policy down the national gullet?

He might do all the above by lying, deceiving, and conspiring with not-nice people to get what he wants, all at our expense?

You mean, in general, that he just might act with the impunity of a dictator, rather than with the accountability of an executive custodian?

ZOMG, your powers of perception are simply off the charts, man.  With informed, enlightened attitudes like that, you have me, like totally convinced that we can totally prevent even the slightest bit of all that by simply electing someone else.  Hill!  Bernie!  Cruz!  Rubio!  Kang!

Ferchrissakes, people:  yes, Trump is frightfully unfit to win The One Ring Sweepstakes.  But all this "leave the country!" "the sky is falling!" melodrama really does little more than out you as either a weapons-grade hypocrite, or as unconscionably, nearly unbelievably naive.  They're all unfit to wield power...over a cat, much less 330+ million people.  And they all have been since before any of us were born.

On the other hand, maybe you should leave, if you can't (or refuse to) see that the the real problem with The One Ring Sweepstakes isn't the competitors, but the prize.  If the office disposes of so much power that just putting a slightly-less-sophisticated buffoon in it can cause the whole thing to come apart, then maybe--just maybe--the office has too much damn power.

Yes, David. Yes.

Saw this from the redoubtable David Codrea today:

I vote for good when I engage in a mutually voluntary and acceptable association or transaction. When I vote for a political candidate, I'm picking up any chair in a bar fight I did not start, with the sole intent of extricating me and mine for the time being with minimal injuries.

Not sure I've ever seen it stated more honestly than that.  Even as someone who happens to be committed to the other decision that can arise out of that observation (I simply reject the fait accompli argument for the permanence of the state), I'm in full agreement with the observation itself.  

Yet another example of why David is one of the most important "gun writers" we've ever had.  

Peasant humor.

Seen today on the TwitFace:

For the disaffected who yet still use the fait accompli argument to justify their participation, it would seem to be by far the least ridiculous choice available.

(For anyone who doesn't get the reference, it's from this.)

 

A quick nightmare update.

I continue to be impressed with the AUSA assigned to the forfeiture in rem case against Gunsmoke Guns.  From her I now learn, in another timely response to an emailed question, that the paperwork items I recently filed to become an official party to the case (my interest is simply to get my 03 rifle and 1911 pistol returned) were indeed successfully received, and she further added some intel that she is starting to advocate for those parties in my position, directly with counsel for Gunsmoke.  

It's not over for me until I have my property back in my hands, and of course the frustration that any of this happened in the first place is by no means forgotten, but I have to admit I had not expected this much accommodation from an AUSA, and I am thankful for it.  I'm sure I'll have more to say when it's all over, however it turns out, but in the meantime I do have a few things to appreciate, and have a need to say so.  The information and ideas from Claire, Len, Mama, and El Neil were hugely helpful, and so has been the information and assistance from the AUSA on this case.  

That's all for now.

On personal authenticity.

"You will give her an apology."
"Because all this only goes one way, right?"
"Well, maybe we'll just have to settle this ourselves."
"Um, no, we're not going to do that."

Apparently I am to be tested, in my good mood and recent metaphysical recharge, by multiple inexplicably inane events in which my input is irrelevant at best. First it was one of those simply absurd flare-ups of a knee, in which I awake from the staggering physical rigors of a nap, with a suddenly limited range of motion, likely driven by the obvious swelling for which I have absolutely no explanation. Following that, it was being aggressively accosted, yesterday, for failing to admit my unconscionably boorish and self-evidently misogynistic behavior ("Oh, the board has been informed...") during an episode of a few weeks back, when I actually lost my patience with someone's conflicting information, and had the unmitigated gall to call it out and request escalation to sort out what I needed to do. I figured the episode was behind me when two of the board members separately confirmed that I had called out the conflicting information accurately, but apparently not with the principal, nor the nearly comically vengeful spouse, who of course wasn't there.

So okay, I'm being tested. Not on the walking-away-from-the-thinly-veiled-threat part; hell, I've spent most of my adult life studying how to avoid fights. That part is easy. Nor is it the idea that I find it hard to admit when I do something wrong. I do things wrong and poorly all the time, and if anything I'm a bit self-flagellating about it.

The test is in rattling me with the sort of wear-you-down things that are mostly outside your control, yet impact your life in a way that makes things harder, not easier. So, in this case: limited range of motion in the knee, along with the discomfort of swelling; and now a persistent roadblock to working within a group that is very important to one of my kids. (I could be wrong of course, but my perception of the personalities of both my attackers rather strongly indicates a good chance of extended grudge-holding. Lovely.) All within the context of an extended period of unemployment, etc.

Very well, let's pass that test, then. One of the many things I love so dearly about "Brother Sean"* is that I can't lie to him, even when I can lie to myself. As he has done before at times when I really needed it, he put himself out for me on this trip, and helped me to see more clearly where I do lie to myself--where I allow things to get me down by abandoning who I actually am, trying instead to construct a theoretical "better me" that does not yet exist--who may never exist--and thus missing the opportunity to truly adapt.

Yes, I've got bad knees. Yes, I now have an aggravating social problem to unfuck. I've got all the other headaches I had before the trip, too, and clocks are still ticking and the timing is just terrible.  Yup, got all that--and the only guy I've got to deal with it all is the one in the mirror.

He's got a lot of flaws, but he's mine, and in the end "he'll do to ride the river with". He's going to wake up tomorrow morning and remember to be authentic to who he is...and take it as it comes.

_______________________

* My old friend is truly a "brother from another mother".

Seen today on the TwitFace.

Weapons-grade irony right here:

"If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist."

Well, perhaps there is something we can agree on after all.  Personally, I'd fully approve if all you authoritarian dickheads--you know, the entire control structure of that One Institution To Rule Them All--simply oozed on home and never again tried to force yourself on others.

That'd be...great.