Sunday, October 20, 2019

Christians Need To Speak Up, Or Lose the Right To Speak

I didn't watch the Democrat Presidential debates, but I did hear the advertisement put on by the Freedom From Religion Foundation that ran during the debate.  I heard it on the radio the next day and I was appalled.  There is no Constitutional right to not hear or see anything related to God or religion. Indeed, the Constitution, rightly understood, allows each of us to practice his or her religion as his or her consceince may require. That may mean those who do not want to participate may hear prayers being said. They don't have to participate.

Interestingly, Tom Trinko today at the  American Thinker in an article entitled Atheists Call For Establishing Atheism As The National Religion makes the point that atheism itself is a religion. He makes a case for the notion that atheists live by faith just as much as those who believe in the God of Creation, but with less evidence or reason.
The FFRF works hard to impose its faith-based beliefs on America by using dishonest judges to exclude people of faith from the public square. They're constantly suing to end voluntary prayer in public settings. They apparently believe that the 3% of Americans who are atheist have the right to never hear anything religious, and the 84-plus percent of Americans who are religious have to shut up and sit down as a result.
The reality is that atheism is based on pure blind faith and hence is a faith-based belief system just like every other religion.
Atheism is a faith-based belief system because while atheists lack a belief in God, their position depends on them believing a number of other things that they can't prove to be true, including:
- God is unlikely — they use that to reject all evidence for God, saying it's not good enough. We don't have free will — Professor Hawking has shown that if there is no God, then we can't have free will, but we know that we do have free will.
- Everything in the universe can be explained by purely physical causes — science is a process, and it says nothing about what it will or won't explain, so this is a purely blind, faith-based claim. But if there is anything in the universe that isn't based on purely physical things there must be a god of some sort.
- The Bible is wrong — atheists can't prove that the accounts by men who died under torture rather than deny that they saw Jesus rise from the dead is wrong; they can only have blind faith that it is wrong.
- All of the miracles in the past 2,000 years are fake — given that atheist scientists and doctors have declared that multiple miracles are inexplicable, this atheist belief is based on faith, not facts.
While Trinko is concerned about our Constitutional rights, which it is true are based on the fact that they are inalienable, given to use by our Creator. They can not be taken from us by any man, or government. Indeed, when a government attempts to deny these rights, that government becomes illegitimate, and subject to being overthrown by the people.
The idea that men, not God, are the source of our rights can lead to unimaginable horror. Both slavery and the Holocaust were the results of the government defining certain human beings to not be persons and hence to not have rights. So long as we believe that our rights are from God, then we know that government can't revoke them.
But if the FFRF and the Democrats win and all our rights are suddenly not inalienable, we will be headed down a very dangerous path, with the freedom of groups of Americans existing only so long as the political party in power supports those rights.
However, my concern is of course my rights, but more important is my need to follow what I believe to be the Biblical form of Christianity. The Democrats have said that if a church does not go along with the LGBTQxyz agenda, or abortion, or indeed any of the left's ever changing agenda, there will be consequences.  No doubt those consequences will become more severe as they discover that the tax codes will not scare us sufficiently.

But noting that the final books of the Bible were written within 60 years of the Crucifixion, it can not be changed.  Oh, surely some people try to "reinterpret" the Biblical truth just as some judges try to "reinterpret" the Constitution.  But neither can be held to be legitimate.  The Bible can not be changed, and the Constitution can only be changed by the methods written into that document.

Please go read the whole article.  It is well worth your time.

Changing courses slightly, Tim Wildmon has an article article at entitled Five Truths Most Americans Are Afraid to Say. These truths include that God matters, that Absolute Truth matters, that Strong Marriages and Families matter, that the Bible matters, and that the Church matters.

These things do indeed matter. If more of the people believe these things, the culture survives. If they cease to believe that these Truths matter, God is quite willing to let the culture go its own way. There is always, of course, a remnant who cling to the Bible and their churches. But God wants a relationship with His people, and if someone doesn't want a relationship, God will not force it. He will find someone else.

In the Old Testament, when a country falls, it's fall is attributed to God.  God withdraws his support for those nations who do not seek God's will.  But God is also merciful, and as the Prophet Jonah found out, if a country repents, God spares that country.

We Christians need to speak up, or we may lose the right to speak up. 

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Red Flag Laws are Dangerous and Unconstitutional

Yesterday, at the American Thinker Daniel John Sobieski convincingly explained that Beto Would Risk Another Waco. But before gettin ino that, he provided a bit of background of which you should be aware.

 For example, the Democrats specifically excluded gangbangers from their proposed red flag laws. Why? The police certainly have more on gangbangers than on random law abiding citizens. Yet the Democrats don't want to take away gang members weapons. They want to take away law abiding citizens's guns.  Again, why, if the goal is to get guns out of the hands of dangerous killers?

Then there is the dangerous possibility at any time that an innocent citizen will be killed during a police raid to carry out a court order to confiscate a citizen's guns.  This has already happened when police knocked on Gary Willis's door at 5:17 am.  Willis answered the door with a gun, as who wouldn't?  One isn't usually awakened at 5:17 am by a knock on one's door.  And while police no doubt announced themselves, we have all heard of bad guys claiming to be police to gain entry.  In the ensuing confusion - remember that Willis had no knowledge that he had been "red flagged" by a relative - police killed Willis.  Democrats evidently view his death as a feature, not a bug.

So, of course readers will be aware of Beto's outspoken desire to confiscate not only semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, but really all firearms.  Presumably, looking to England, eventually he would also want to ban knives.  But what is he going to do about fists, feet, and rocks?  Ban those too?  Here is Beto in an interview with Joe Scarborough as reported at
Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said "there have to be consequences" for gun owners who do not surrender their AR-15s, which would include police going to their homes and confiscating them.
The former Democratic Texas congressman was pressed by "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough on Wednesday after the fourth Democratic presidential debate.
"OK, but let’s just assume there’s a rancher in Texas that doesn’t, that says, 'I’m not going to do this because this is an unjust law and it’s unconstitutional.' What’s the next step? I think that’s what we need to concede because there will be people that don’t turn the guns back in. What’s the next step for the federal government there?" Scarborough asked.
"Yeah, I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," O'Rourke replied. "So you know, in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else."
Putting it all together, it is clear that the Democrats are not the least bit concerned about the one or tow people with guns killing others, but with the 80 million innocent gun owners who didn't kill anyone. Why is that? Not being a Democrat, I can only speculate, but I suspect from reading the tea leaves on other things they are pushing, that they realize they can not achieve them while gun owners have a potential veto. But, you say, what does any of this have to do with Waco? Allow me to quote again:
Beto’s response to Scarborough is frightening on multiple levels and harkens the mind back to the day when a group of bitter clingers assembled in Waco, Texas. They were perceived to be a threat, and the guns they possessed were said to be illegally and/or dangerous. In what may be called an early application of a red flag confiscation order, government agents laid siege to their compound followed by an assault that resulted in the deaths of 76 men, women and children on April 19, 1993.
The Republicans are often described as the Stupid Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, have become the party of evil. They have embraced celebrating abortion, the killing of innocent children for the convenience of the mother. They have embraced a religion of earth worship, and have claimed that if we don't do something about climate change now, we will go extinct in 12 years. They have convinced an entire generation of children of this ridiculous idea. That is child abuse. While I am inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until these people repent, I can not vote for them, and I hope gentle readers will also not vote for them.

Monday, October 14, 2019

Getting Out of Endless Wars

At Kurt Schichter makes the case that The Elite Hate the Trump Doctrine Because It Puts America First. I have not liked all of Trumps policies, particularly his waffling on gun rights. But I have appreciated his putting American interests ahead of foreign interests in matters such as border enforcement, trade, and the ending of American involvement in endless wars. These are all good things. Other countries' leaders do the same thing. Russia seeks hegemony over the whole world. China does too. They seek it because then they can impose their wishes on the World, and...shockingly enough...they and their people will become rich. But each of these countries will become rich by exploiting other countries, not by building better mouse traps. We have become rich by building better mouse traps. But since our elites don't build much of anything, they want to tear down the system that encourages people to build better mouse traps.

 Here's Schlichter:
What our betters – those same smug geniuses who brought us Iraq, let NATO deadbeats string us along, and who let Mexico and China exploit us – truly hate is the fact that the American people stood up in 2016 and demanded that our foreign policy stop sucking. Americans are sick of always getting handed the bill for some lame ruling caste priority, whether it’s paying for the privilege of defending Europe on behalf of ungrateful continentals or funding the weird climate religion or letting China get rich off of gutting our industries. Mostly, we are sick of shipping our magnificent warriors off to die in ill-conceived, poorly-planned, ineptly-executed wars where we ended up shedding our boys’ (and girls’) blood refereeing fights that go back a dozen centuries.
The coastal elite gets to bask in the radiance of its own moral superiority for deploying young people in camo from Nebraska farms and Texas towns, and we get to hold the funerals.
Hard pass.
Here's the problem. When you've got a large, well fed and funded military, you have to use it to justify keeping it large, well fed and well funded. So, the liberals kept insisting that we use our military as the policemen of the World. But we are not the World's policemen. Nobody has assigned this job to us. We have just assumed the position...for what? Republicans should be in favor of reducing our military force to a minimum and using the money to pay off our debts. Now some of these debts no doubt can be written off because they were incurred helping others in their wars. But after writing down our debts incurred fighting other peoples wars, we still have huge national debts. A debtor nation is not entirely free to act. Just as one who is in debt must pay the one who holds the mortgage, so a debtor nation must do as the one who holds its bonds instructs.

Second, and I should have put this first, wars involve killing.  God's Sixth Commandment states that  "Thou Shall Not Murder."  Now, war may come to us, in the form of a foreign invasion, in which case we are bound to defend ourselves.  If one must kill in such circumstances, it is justified.  However, when we go overseas to another country and kill others who would not be shooting at us if we weren't there, I suspect our God would frown upon such behavior.  Getting into little wars all over the world may have made sense in the Cold War days, when we were trying to contain Russian aggression, but today we are in classic "balance of power" politics.  And we don't have to take the gambit of being the World's policemen.
Getting out of wars requires getting out of wars. And sometimes, it’s going to be ugly. But unless you can explain to the family of a dead soldier why it’s worth it to stay, it’s not worth it to stay. The American people, at least those who aren’t in DC or the media, understand that every problem around the world is not our problem. If you’re one of those Citizens of the World, then feel free to enlist in the Army of the World. Just count us out of your bloody altruism.

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Keep a Weather Eye on China

Today at The Federalist Sumatra Maitra has a think piece entitled Selling U. S. Manufacturing To China Did Not Make It More Free. Perhaps it was 16 or 17 years ago I remember reading a paper that claimed we would be at war with the Chinese in the next 20 years. The paper, and I can not recall the title or the author, sorry, made a pretty good case. Having watched the Chinese become ever more aggressive, I think the paper was prescient. We should not take the Chinese as being no threat to us, for that is exactly what they mean to be.

Back to the premise of the article, however, the first thing to note is that, as is usually the case, the policies of the liberal elite, starting with Richard Nixon, have failed us miserably.  Who knows what Nixon promised the ChiComs when he "opened" China, but whatever it was, it was not good.  The British, under pressure from China, and no doubt the United States as well, gave up Hong Kong, a colony of Great Britain, to the Chinese.  Now the Chinese want to exercise their tyranny over Hong Kong, and the people of that tiny outpost are resisting.  Well, good for them!  We the American Citizens need to stand with them in spirit.

Maitra writes:
China is a threat, but far bigger threats are the woke corporatists who would sell their mother for the market. Footballers and female soccer players can take a knee against the American flag, but they’re silent and self-censorious about any atrocity in Hong Kong.
Apple can silently delete the Taiwan flag emoji to appease its overlords in Beijing. Google can refuse to work with the Pentagon, while helping Beijing implement the strongest secretive surveillance state. Hollywood actors can stop working in the Southern states because local abortion laws hurt their feelings, but they have no problem prostituting themselves for the vast Chinese market despite actual concentration camps in Xinjiang. This is the logical extreme of the free-market dogma, which is a dogma because it has forgotten that sometimes the market should be subservient to national interest.
As Epictetus once wrote, “He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.” The seeds of destruction are often within, and the loss of a way of life is often felt when it is lost. One should keep that wisdom in mind as a former Cold War rival returns to form in the Far East.
The usual suspects flew into a rage when Trump recently "ordered" U. S. companies to bring back the manufacturing base they had outsourced to China. Of course every adult knows that Trump can't actually do that. But it is wise for President Trump to suggest that they do in fact bring back their manufacturing base. Why? Because when we do have to face off against China, it might be embarrassing to have to ask the Chinese to send us the spare parts we need to continue fighting the war. That is what Germany and Japan found out in WWII.  If you don't make it yourself, you are vulnerable.  Japan didn't have oil at home.  Germany had coal, but no oil either.

 Kurt Schlichter has a post over at which raises similar points, in his own inimical style, entitled China + Liberal Elite: Get A Room.
The NBA can’t disrespect Americans enough for knowing which bathroom to use, or having guns, or not being sufficiently woke, but let the Chinese communists get fussy because some dude dunks the reds over oppression in Hong Kong – you know, supporting freedom – and the billionaire ballers can’t gimp it up fast enough for Mao’s heirs. We haven’t seen such pathetic, eager submission to the forces of evil since the last time some Bulwark scribbler got a chance to be on a CNN panel about Trump with Ana Navarro and a cross-dressing furry.
Of course, you realize don't you, that the NBA is a business corporation just like Google, who is helping the Chinese perpetrate their vast tyrannical state, or Apple, or the company that sewed the shirt on your back. Oh, and let us not forget Smithfield Pork. I do love bacon, but I won't buy Smithfield.
This latest craven capitulation to foreign potentates by our loser leaders just reaffirms what those of us who are conservawoke know – that our elitists are not for us. They are for themselves, and that means they are for their overseas paymasters. They are for China, not only for that sweet, sweet commie cash, but because the Chinese Communist Party’s stranglehold on the Chinese people provides them with a template for doing the same thing to us. Think of it – a country without accountability or restraint upon the anointed few. Wait a minute, that sounds like Washington, D.C. today – at least if you’re a Democrat.
It’s almost a cliché about how New York Times hacks gush over how lucky the Chinese rulers are not to have to worry about things like the consent of the governed. It sure is easy to do the things you and your pals want done – but the people don’t want done – when the people don’t get a say. That’s our elite’s not-so-secret fantasy – to be able to impose whatever nonsense they desire upon us without us being able to object. Whether it’s converting us at straw-point to their weird climate religion, wiping out our history and culture, or simply covering up the corruption of its own – like Hairplug One’s yayo-yiffing, zipper-dropping son – the total control exercised by its efficient rulers makes China their role model.
Indeed, one thinks it may be possible that the Democrats may be doing the bidding of China, of course for their own selfish ends, but also to make room for tyrannies around the world, such as Turkey, and of course China, to act out. To the rest of the world, the current impeachment bruhaha makes Trump look weak. He is not, but what do the Dems care about our own security? Not much.

I urge you, gentle readers, to keep a weather eye out for China. ​Of course, go and read both articles, and anything else you can get your hands on concerning China and our current trade war.  The corporations doing business in China have shown themselves to be quite willing to sell the Chinese the rope with which to hang us.

I am not in favor of boycotts, but at the same time, why should you spend your hard earned money supporting companies that do not support your principles.  But it is difficult to extract oneself from the tangled web of economical ties we have gotten ourselves into.  Do your best. 

Monday, October 7, 2019

Why I Carry A Gun


After carrying my gun, on and off, for several years, reading anything and everything I can get my hands on about guns, and participating at the range, dry firing practice, and other things, I have few illusions left about the nature of carrying a weapon. I am not a Rambo, nor am I a particularly good shot. A handgun is, at most, a compromise weapon. It small size means that the ammunition needs to be underpowered for a human size target, in order to remain controllable. It small size also means that the effective range of the weapon can be measured in feet, not hundreds of yards. The pistol is truly a defensive weapon, unlike the rifle, which can be either offensive or defensive nature.

Because it is easily concealed, it is the perfect weapon to carry wherever you may go, yet have your hands free to do your daily chores. But because of the compromised nature of the weapon, it is intended to buy a person time to get away, or get to his rifle or shotgun. Hollywood movies, often show people rapidly firing and hitting their targets, often at ridiculous distances, seemingly without aiming. I am always "impressed" with the man, or woman, shooting in two directions with two handguns, as rapidly as possible, and hitting the intended targets. In the Hollywood version, the handgun is incredibly lethal. But in real life, a handgun is used to stop a deadly attack, not to kill the attacker. From my experience, there may be a few elite individuals, perhaps one or two in each generation, who can pull off these Hollywood type stunts. I marvel whenever I see such shows of mastery, but I harbor no illusions as to my own abilities.

Yet, while a handgun is light in weight and easily concealed, it is a great burden on the wearer. I find myself more and more each day trying to always find a way to avoid a fight, if one should come my way. If it cannot be avoided, then keeping myself under control, not letting my emotions over run myself, because I have a gun. Like the samurai of Japan, I have adopted a philosophy that argues that if I am truly successful at carrying this weapon, I will never need to draw it. I carry a cell phone. On my walks, I carry a stick. If a discussion becomes heated, and the other person threatens to become belligerent, I do my best to back away. I no longer drink, and I avoid going into bars at night, when the worst elements are out and about. I find myself scanning my surroundings more, rather than walk around with my head in a cloud. I look for bad guys, with the intention of avoiding them before an altercation can ensue. I find myself walking out of a place if someone's actions disturb me, rather than confront them. I don't want to endanger innocent others in the name of protecting myself or my loved ones.

Ultimately, a handgun is only a tool, and in today's world, one can do very well without it. While I believe every man should carry a pocket knife at all times, I have to acknowledge that this tool likewise can be dispensed with. Fewer things need cutting, and the world is a much safer place than it was, even a generation ago. I applaud, and take advantage of all the innovations I can afford. But still I carry a gun, as I do a pocket knife.  Because "you never know whats around the corner."

A right of citizenship:

The defense of self is a natural right of all human beings. The right exists prior to, and independent of any government that may be established. In nature, if a predator attacks you, whether that predator has four legs or two, you have the right to defend yourself. When God says "You shall not murder,” he also means that if someone attacks you with the intent to kill, you have the right, even the duty, to respond, with deadly force if necessary. By not defending yourself, you spurn the great gift that God has given you, in essence committing suicide. When the Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights was adopted, this natural right was recognized, but not granted, by adopting the 2nd amendment.

It is noteworthy that the ability to keep and bear arms was incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. It shows that the Government trusted its citizens to be able to have arms, and that those arms would never be used against the State. But it also meant that if the State became tyrannical, and all other means had failed to seek relief through the Executive, the Legislature, or the Courts, that people should take up arms to set things right. This possibility was foreseen, and discussed by Madison, Jefferson, and a number of the other Founders. Indeed, that is the reason the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified. The people were so concerned that one or another of the branches of government might usurp their limited role in government, and wanted to ensure that certain things would never be done. Clearly, Congress has made laws curbing free speech, and there are many laws on the books infringing the right to keep and bear arms by law abiding people, so in retrospect, the people had some reason to be concerned.

For these reasons, I think of carrying a gun as a right of citizenship, similar to voting, and expressing my opinion to my representatives in Congress. If my State recognizes my right to carry a firearm for self defense, I am a citizen of that State. I can meet any representative of Government on the level, and reason with him. The representative cannot do otherwise because we are both armed. But if my State denies my right, I am a subject of that state, a very different proposition. The State can order me about, and there is very little I can do about it. My State does recognize my rights, if imperfectly. For instance, the State does not allow me to carry on any State owned property. This fact makes me suspicious that the State is not entirely trustworthy itself. When the Federal government says I cannot carry on a Federal installation, again, I wonder if the Federal Government is entirely to be trusted. If a government is acting correctly, and above board, there should be no reason why a citizen cannot carry a gun into any State, or County, or Municipal building. On the other hand, municipalities like Chicago, or Washington DC has no citizens, only subjects. Such people had better hope to remain anonymous from a Government that may take it into its head at any moment to do them more harm.

A Civic Duty:

One of the trends since the 1960s has been to have men, especially, vent their emotions. Whether doing so has been therapeutic, or not, the practice has made all of us seem more childish. An adult should be able to control his emotions at all times, and particularly when he carries with him the means of killing another human being. The lack of guns, strange as that may sound, is partly to blame for the general lack of emotional control seen in society today. It is an often quoted remark of Robert Heinlein that "an armed society is a polite society," but for all that it has become trite, it is still true. When each member of society is aware that everyone else is similarly armed, everyone remains more guarded in their speech and actions. People cannot afford to have outbursts. Ad hominem attacks as a substitute for reasoned debate becomes imprudent.

There are those who have expressed the belief that they themselves have too volatile emotions to fully control, and then project their lack of character on their fellow citizens. This belief that, because everyone has the potential to become angry and emotional, therefore nobody should be allowed arms is a fallacy. Even people who believe such nonsense none the less believe the police should be armed.

But are the police not made of the same stuff as the rest of us? Do these people really wish to believe that the police of a different breed, not subject to the same limitations as are the rest of society? And if the police can train themselves to be "professional," does it not stand to reason that others could as well? And how does it work, morally, that though we are not willing to defend ourselves, we expect that a police officer should put his life on the line to defend us. Is my life of incalculable value, the police officer's life only worth $50,000?

And, keeping in mind that the police are our servants, not the other way around, does it not make sense that the police should be armed to the same degree, but no more, than I can be? When one takes up arms, sooner rather than later that person is forced to grow up, and learn to become more responsible. Our society could use a little more courtesy and circumspection in our public dealings.

Thus, I believe it is a civic duty for each citizen, if he chooses to accept that duty, to carry a firearm wherever he goes, within the constraints of the law. In colonial times, some colonies had laws on the books that every able bodied male had to carry his rifle anytime he left his property. Of course, as a member of the militia, every able bodied male was expected, at a moment’s notice, to muster out and lend a hand against marauding Indians, the French, or who or what ever happened to be threatening the peace of the colony. It wouldn't have done to say "I need to go home and get my rifle."

While I recognize that today the world is much safer, it still remains a potentially dangerous place. When Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, armed neighbors organized to protect their communities. These neighbors were demonstrating the continuing need for a militia, by organizing as a militia, and carrying out militia duties. By Federal law, the militia consists of all able bodied citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Furthermore, the militia is divided into the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. Thus most of the time, most citizens are members of the unorganized militia, whether they realize it or not. But in times of crisis, they may become members of the organized militia, as the response of neighbors during Hurricane Katrina can attest.

Guns are a civilizing influence:

I will freely plagiarize Marko Kloos in this section, as he has said it better than I ever could.

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act"

So, there you have my reasons for carrying a gun. It is not, as people may think, because I am spoiling for a fight. Why would I spoil for a potentially life ending (for me) fight? Nor is it because I see bad guys around every corner, but bad things can happen to anyone, at any time, and it makes sense to be as prepared as possible. But the real reasons are these: it is my right, existing since ancient times, to protect myself and those I love; it is a civic duty, even though some politicians would have you believe otherwise; and carrying a gun is a civilizing influence on society as a whole.

Saturday, October 5, 2019

The Talk Of Compensated Confiscation Can Not Be Justified

Today, at Bearing Arms Cam Edwards has a post on his appearance on the Laura Ingraham Show last night entitled Laura Ingraham: Dems Don't See Bearing Arms as "Real Right." Of course they don't, because they don't really see the Constitution as it is, but how they would like it to be. They see the right to vote as a "real right" though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. They see a "woman's right to choose" as a "real right" though it too is not in the Constitution. They constantly refer to the United States as a democracy, but it is in fact a republic.  But they don't see the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a real right. This then allows them to propose that all sorts of guns should simply be confiscated. And to do so, they are willing to lie through their teeth to take away guns from their lawful owners.
As Ingraham noted, “these are not reasonable restrictions. These are mandatory ‘buybacks’. It’s gun confiscation.” That’s exactly what it is. It is not door-to-door confiscation, but it is confiscation nonetheless. “Give us your gun and we’ll give you a little money, but if you don’t you’re a criminal” is not a voluntary exchange of goods for cash. It’s compensated confiscation.
Ingraham was also correct in pointing out that most of the violent crime in this country doesn’t take place in the rural, red areas where lots of people own firearms. Instead, deep-blue cities that have done their best to eradicate a culture of lawful gun ownership lead the way in violent crime and homicides. It’s why guys like Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter, Kevin Dixie of No Other Choice Firearms Training, Aaargo Jay, and so many other gun owners in urban areas are fighting not just to protect their rights, but to restore that good gun culture in the cities where they live.
These calls for ever more and ever more intrusive and tyrannical gun controls flies in the face of the fact that there is less crime today even though there are more guns in circulation:
And yet, as I pointed out on Fox News last night, violent crime went down last year, not up. Homicides dropped by 6% across the nation, even as millions of guns were purchased. The fundamental tenet of the gun control movement is “more guns = more crime”, but the reality is that since the early 1990’s, we’ve added millions of firearms every year, and our violent crime rates are about half what they were at their peak almost 30 years ago. Now, that doesn’t automatically mean that more guns equates to less crime, but it certainly disproves the idea that the more guns there are, the more crime there will be.
The emphasis is mine. But it bears repeating. While the fact that the crime rate has in fact gone down (and most people killed by guns are suicides, while people killed in mass shootings account for a few hundred a year) while gun have increased doesn't prove the "more guns = less crime" narrative, it certainly disproves the "more guns = more crime" meme being pushed by the Democrats and their media whores.
The gun control movement is, at its heart, a prohibitionary movement. Its progress is measured, not in terms of whether or not we as a nation are becoming more or less safe, but how many guns are taken out of circulation, or by how many Americans are persuaded, pressured, or adjudicated not to own firearms. Oh sure, gun control advocates sometimes acknowledge violent crime rates as opposed to individual acts of violence. When crime goes down after a gun control law is passed, for example, it is heralded as a sign of gun control’s effectiveness. But when crime goes up after new gun control laws are put in place (as we’ve seen in Colorado, for example) it’s not seen as a failure of gun control. In fact, it’s not seen at all. Gun control advocates studiously avoid talking about or even acknowledging the increase in crime, and if forced to admit that “yes, crime is up”, it’s only to argue that we simply need even more gun control laws.
Here, I have to disagree with Mr. Edwards. Not because he is incorrect; in fact he is entirely correct. Colorado has seen an increase in crime, probably because the criminal element has followed the liberal exodus from Kalifornia, where they have fouled their nest, and now are fouling it in Colorado as well by voting the same way they did in their previous home. Cam is correct to point that out. However, we who write about such things must always make sure that people understand that our right to bear arms is a pre-existent right granted by our Creator and acknowledge in the Constitution. No government has the right to limit our rights. Similarly, no government has the right to grant a woman the right to abort her child. This talk of compensated confiscation can never be justified. I am sorry that Democrats don't see it that way, but it is true nonetheless.

Thursday, October 3, 2019

The Misguided Worship of "Due Process"

Today's post highlights an article by John Velleco, Vice President of Gun Owners of America, of which I am a member. His article, at the American Thinker today is entitled Red Flag Laws and the Misguided Worship of Due Process. Velleco has a point, one that I had not considered. If, and it is not too hard to envision, the judge who is deciding your "red flag" case is biased against guns, you are going to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, period.

And sure, you may be able to appeal the decision.  But who has the money and time to appeal, and appeal.  Maybe...maybe you might eventually get your guns back, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.  By the time you win, your guns will be so rusted and abused that they would be worthless for their intended purposes. 

 All the due process in the world will not save you. What must be emphasized is that Red Flag laws are fundamentally Unconstitutional, no matter how you formulate them.
Most associate due process with concepts like the right to a hearing, an unbiased decision-maker, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the ability to present evidence in your defense. But is it really true — as the president and many others appear to believe — that the government can take away someone's rights, so long as it showers him with lots and lots of due process? The promise of due process is little comfort when those exercising that process have no respect for the rule of law.
Imagine if the government accused you of wanting to be a drug-dealer. You've never been charged with — or even accused of — having actually sold drugs. But still, someone thinks there's a good chance you may in the future. So you're given a hearing, allowed to hire a lawyer, and permitted to testify why you won't become a drug dealer in the future. But at the end of the day, a judge still believes there's an unreasonable risk that you will enter the drug business. So, in order to prevent that possibility, for the next year or so, you no longer have any Fourth Amendment rights. The police may now stop your car and search it any time they wish and enter your home to search for drugs at will. What, that doesn't sound fair? What's the problem? You were given loads and loads of due process!
The government can't strip away Fourth Amendment rights simply because, in doing so, it has complied with due process rights. The Fourth Amendment still protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a warrant based on probable cause. Likewise, the Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — regardless of whether the government thinks it's a good idea that a particular person have guns.
Certainly, young children, illegal aliens, and murderers are not part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. Current law makes firearms possession illegal by a person convicted of a felony or who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." But there is absolutely no historical or legal precedent for taking Second Amendment rights away from those who the government's "precogs" declare may commit a crime in the future.
I have made the point that due process was lacking in Red Flag laws, but my point was that real due process was impossible to begin with. Having a person make an anonymous complaint that is then acted upon by the government to the point of taking a persons 2nd Amendment rights can not be squared with those rights no matter what you write into such laws. What you will achieve is the ancient law where one could anonymously accuse another because of a grudge, but the state would take action against that person with little or no evidence that the accusation had any merit whatsoever.

Here is the other flaw in the idea of Red Flag laws:  you will take the target's guns away, but guns are not the only weapon he has.  If, as is purported, the target of such action truly intends to harm others, there are a thousand ways to do so.  Yet the Red Flag laws let him roam the streets free as a bird.  Might he not take his anger out on the judge himself?  Let's see here, there are knives, swords, axes, cars, fires (with various accelerants), bombs...well...the list could go on and on.  Human ingenuity in such matters is astounding.

But there is the problem with the entire scheme right there.  It is not the gun that is the problem, but the man himself.  You could ban human beings, though that seems counterproductive.  You might as well ban rocks.  Indeed, the first recorded murder was accomplished with a rock.  But God found fault not with rocks, but with Cain, who had killed his brother Abel.  It is our capacity for murder and mayhem that is the problem.  Creating more and more bizarrely convoluted laws has no effect.

What Red Flag laws do effectively is to arrest the gun, which can not do anything of its own initiative, while letting the gun owner, who can do anything go free.  Sorry to say, but our modern politicians know less than our Founders.  When one is confronted by a thug who means one harm, you are your own first responder.  The police, and I do not denigrate the police here, draw a chalk outline and investigate the crime after the fact.  They may or may not bring the thug to justice.  Having a gun evens the chance that the police may be drawing a chalk outline of the thug instead of you.  Don't you want that chance?