Divemedic

Causis Belli

Newsweek says that millions on the right are heavily armed and just itching to overthrow the government if Biden wins in 2024. They say that the obvious manipulation of the 2020 election is “false” despite the fact that Time magazine admitted to it. Then the article soon goes on an antigun screed:

If the Supreme Court ruling, expected in mid-2022, on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen establishes an unrestricted right to carry a gun anywhere in the country, bringing firearms to the Capitol in Washington, D.C. could be perfectly legal. Says Winkler: “The Supreme Court may be close to issuing the ruling that leads to the overthrow of the U.S. government.”

My answer to this is that the government SHOULD be afraid of its citizens. Don’t be dictatorial assholes and there won’t be a problem.

Look for more articles like this, along with a red flag event some time in 2024, probably after another manipulated election. Then they will have all the excuse they need for a military crackdown.

By Divemedic, ago

Business Opportunity

In California, new laws to prohibit small engines is worrying people who need those small engines to run the generators to power their RVs. Assembly Bill 1346 would compel the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations by July 1, 2022, to prohibit emissions from all small off-road engine engines (SORE) including portable generators.

The question is whether the new regulations will ban the sale of these engines, or will they go one step further and ban their use, as well. I am betting the latter. If the regulation only bans the sale of small engines, I predict that there will be a booming business in small engine dealers just across the state line in Nevada.

By Divemedic, ago

Lefty Law

A lefty law professor proposes rewriting the 1A and 2A. Here is the proposal for the First:

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

Of course the escape clause embedded in the above makes the entire thing meaningless. Now look at the proposed 2A:

All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.

Note that this Amendment is now not about Arms, but about abortion. It’s poorly written, though. I could make a case that a fetus is a person, and has the right to defend itself. That would also mean that others could defend that fetus. Could a person then use force against an imminent abortion?

It’s all academic, of course. I don’t think you’ll get the requisite 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.

By Divemedic, ago