F'dang, f'dang, f'dang

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have several thoughts today. All of which neatly come together in my mind, but I can't figure how to make 'em come together in a coherent fashion for the rest of you. So, you're getting a shotgun approach today and you'll have to tie 'em together as best you can.

Mo "Kill 'Em All" Gandhi

1) Gandhi was not a pacifist. The poster boy for non violent reaction to oppression may never have personally punched someone in the face or delivered a 30-caliber message, but he had no problems with that.

"...When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."

"...Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor." - M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword.


"...He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully ..."
 
And so on and so on.

2) I personally applaud the increasing number of sheriff's across the country who are saying their departments will resist unConstitutional orders from Washington. I also applaud state legislators who introduce bills saying unConstitution laws may not enforced in their states and those who try are subject to arrest.

This is largely aimed at gun control efforts.I support this effort.

The idea is called "nullification." The US Supreme Court has ruled this is unConstitutional.

I am now reminded of president Andrew Jackson who told SCOTUS to get stuffed, a precedent that continues today. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" he said.

Nullification also is being touted as a way for juries to get rid of laws they disagree with. In this case a jury can find a defendant not guilty if they object to the law under which the person was charged. In other words, if a person is charged with possession of marijuana, the jury could vote not guilty because they object to the law and believe MJ possession should be legal.

The basis for nullification

I support this concept too.

SCOTUS has not ruled on this, to my knowledge, but the right to a jury trial is also ensconced in the Constitution.

3) Might Makes Right. The winner writes the history books. The one with the power determines what will be done. See Andy Jackson above.

You do not have to like this. Do not expect reality to reorder itself because you object. Whether or not I like it is also irrelevant.

It's the truth.

In the case of Might Makes Right, if you object long enough and loudly enough, you may lose the right to object. Very likely you might lose the right to do anything except become compost.

Don't agree? Argue with a tank and come back...

On the other hand, such objections may result in you being the one who gets to determine what is right. Your might overcame the other. Reality is not reordered in this case. There is no base paradigm shift.

The balance of power shifted. That's all.

4) I am responsible for myself. You are responsible for you.

If either of us choose to be responsible for someone else, that is entirely acceptable. Forcing us to be responsible for someone else is not.

Force and might are not just found coming from the end of a gun barrel. But sometimes a gun barrel is the only way to prevent other kinds of force.