Saturday, March 17, 2018

Re-emergent Paganism On te Rise

Fay Voshell has a very powerful article today in the American Thinker entitled State Enforced Paganism in America. Go read the whole thing, because as usual with Ms. Voshell, it is very good, but also because while I may be referring to it, you can not get the ideas presented in the piece from my meager ramblings alone. You must go to the source and drink it all in. But don't stop there. No, you ultimately must go to the real source of Ms. Voshell's faith, the Bible.

I don't know precisely when it started.  My Pastor thinks it has always been with us, but we find ourselves living in a cultural milieu not unlike that described by the Apostle Paul in Corinth.  Christians turn out to be a small minority, surrounded by pagans of various stripes.  Some were more tolerant, others wanted to persecute the Christians because these people showed them up for the self worshiping human debris they were.  But I date the beginnings of the modern era of paganism to the Supreme Court rulings in 1962 and 63 in Engle v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp. The later of which featured the infamous Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

O'Hair was a tortured soul, as many people are who try to live life on their own own terms rather than following God's terms.  God doesn't make up rules arbitrarily.  God's laws are designed so we can life abundant lives, though we will inevitably hard times and tragedy because man is a sinful creature. 

In any case, many main line church bodies have come to incorporate some of the new paganism into their liturgies and social statements.  These include for example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now ordains homosexual pastors.  Now, I recognize that all have sinned and fallen short, pastors included.  But Luther said that the life of a Christian was one of constant repentance.  However, if someone is a  homosexual living in a committed relationship, he can not be repentant, can he?  For if he believes that he was "born that way" then there is no need to repent.  And if he knows it is wrong, but he does it anyway, then he is defying God, and thus is not attempting to repent.
The Christian Church must respond vigorously or sink into paganism itself, as is already happening in some Main Line churches that are creating liturgies to bless bodily mutilation as spiritually transformative and as a way of attaining self-salvation. The Church must reject the new barbarism and its tyrannous assault on Christianity or find itself overwhelmed by the avid worshippers of the new gods. For when the God of Christianity is rejected, new and far, far worse gods arise to demand worship.
Ms. Voshell cites the so called "transgender" movement, the coming pedophilia, and beastiality movements, as well as abortion and euthanasia, which are well established as yet other instances of paganism. Indeed, all of these were common in the ancient world before the birth of Christ. After Jesus death and resurrection, everything began to change. Homosexuality, Pedophilia, and beastiality, abortion and euthenasia were outlawed. Hospitals were established, universities were established, and education for a greater number of people became common.  If you study history, you will begin to realize that while man generally gets in his own way, just enough of us have done just enough, that the world is actually a better place than it was 100, 200, 1000, of 5000 years ago.  We owe this to our God, and his Son who died for our sins and rose again to proclaim a new covenant with man.

The time is coming when we will have to declare on whose side we stand, whether we stand with the Creator of the universe, or whether we will follow our own path to destruction.  God will force this by letting evil re-emerge, until those who follow him, who are willing to take the abuse and persecution for following him, are all that is left from among the many pretenders who just go along to get along.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Republicans pass school safety. Gun control to come later

So the House of Representatives has passed a School Safety Bill apparently without the Fix NICS portion. But also without Concealed Carry Reciprocity. So the Democrats have won since I don't think they really wanted to pass gun control so much as prevent the passage of Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

But don't start celebrating just yet.  According to National Review's Mairead McArdle:
Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) has proposed a similar bill pending in the upper chamber. Republicans are waiting on an actual gun-control bill until they are sure the Senate can pass it, however.
You can depend on the Republicans (read Stupid Party) to sell out the base every time. And retiring Republicans are the worst kind, because they no longer have to pretend to push for their constituents, they can no become full on elitists. After all, who else are we gonna vote for?

They don't seem to take into account that we don't have to vote for the mean Democrat, that we can withhold our vote and ensure they don't get re-elected.  There are other measures we can take such as running another candidate against the Republican sellouts.

Here's the truth:  If reducing crimes, including school shootings, is the purpose, then gun control is emphatically NOT the solution.  NICS doesn't stop people from getting guns, and closing the supposed loopholes in NICS will not do anymore.  Oh, of course it will keep many people from obtaining guns LEGALLY, but nothing that stop them from obtaining them ILLEGALLY.  After all, people obtain illegal drugs all the time.  Banning certain guns, or even banning them all will also not stop crime.  Nor will making the manufacture of guns illegal help.  Why?  Because just as drugs can be smuggled into the country, so can guns, and since we are talking about illegal, why not grenade launchers, rocket launchers and other heavy duty weapons that figure so prominently in Hollywood movies, but never in real life.  Indeed, I can not think of a single gun control proposal that has been advanced over the last 45 years that would have solved, or even helped reduce the gun crime problem.

So, if gun control doesn't reduce crimes, what can be the purpose of it?  There is a sizable population of people in this country who believe that Marxism in some form is a better way of life than the form embedded in our Constitution.  Living a life of freedom and individual responsibility is more demanding that life where everything is decided for you.  In our Constitutional system, you can not blame anybody for your failures but yourself.  Too many want instead to find scapegoats in amorphous society. These are the people that totalitarian wannabes like Chuck Shumer manipulate with the help of billionaires like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.  The totalitarian Left wants to take away your guns so they can impose even more drastic controls than they already do.  Their target is not the criminals but the law abiding.  For it is only those who try obeying the law that will be impacted by gun control.

And the Republicans?  I suspect they just want to keep their places at the table.  They don't care about yoou and me, They don't care about our ability to defend ourselves from the thugs they keep sending out to commit more crimes.  And they certainly don't care about the Constitution.  That is the unfortunate thing. 

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Adventures in Reloading the .38 Super Auto

I am discovering that my particular .38 Super Auto pistol is a bit fussy about the ammunition I feed it.  I had heard that 1911 style pistols could be fussy, but my previous experience, which is limited to one pistol, was that it ate everything I fed it.  I made up 100 rounds of .38 Super Auto loaded with Berry's 124 grain Target Hollow Points (THP).  My weapon did not seem to like these bullets, and choked.

Interestingly, while I was researching various bullet and powder combinations, I came across the Hodgdon Reloading Data for .38 Super 124 grain bullets, that indicated that one could achieve a velocity of 1315 feet per second while keeping pressures lower than other powders with a 13.0 grain load of powder. At 12.5 to 13.0 grains it is impossible to double charge and at the same time, because it fills the case, it is pretty obvious if you have a squib load. It all seemed too good to be true, so I sent a note to Hodgdon Powder Company and got the word that the data was correct.

Today I was pulling the THP bullets out of the casing, and reloading with Berry's 124 grain Round Nose (RN), which bullets I am sure will feed just fine.  I also loaded with 12.5 grains Lil'Gun.  I will see how it feeds at the range.

The relative burn rates of various powders is shown in at the link. It indicates that Lil'Gun has a slower burn rate than the usual powders used for pistol such as Winchester W231, Hodgdon Tite Group, or CFE Pistol.  Lil'Gun was designed to be used in .410 shot guns, and seems not to be used for any other weapon that the .410 bore shotgun and the .38 Super Auto and then only for the  .38 Super 124 grain bullet.  As I said, I'll see how it goes. 

Monday, March 12, 2018

The Necessity of Being Active in Our Defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We have two articles today, the common theme of which is the absolute necessity of being active in our defense of the right to keep and bear arms.  For if we do not defend our rights now, while the cost is small, what will we do when the cost is our lives and our fortunes?

First, though, I wanted to write a bit about this week's Raleigh Gun Show.  Ever since Trump was elected, gun owners have seemingly breathed a sigh of relief.  And why not?   Many of them voted for President Trump, and he has been, generally, conservative and at least has usually given lip service to the Second Amendment.  However, we need to pay attention.  The people attending the Raleigh Gun Show this weekend seemed altogether less concerned about the loss of their gun rights.  This complacency could be our downfall however.  The Left clearly smells blood in the water, and is taking full advantage of it.  We all need to pound our Representatives and Senators with the message "No more gun control. Period."

First up is a piece by Scot Morefield over at entitled Think They'll Never Come and Take Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again. I have contended that the Parkland murders provided an excuse to put up a bunch of gun control rhetoric in an effort to block National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, which stood a real chance this Congress. And I think this was largely true. However, Morefield points to an even deeper, and more sinister motive in getting a gun ban in place, by hook or by crook:
Don’t get me wrong, I think most true Leftists would LOVE to harness the power of the State to crush liberty-minded gun owners by every means necessary, and if a few of the right eggs are broken in the process, so much the better. But realists on both sides know such a scenario is highly unlikely to happen, at least to a result the Left would want. In all likelihood, open displays of tyrannical force such as openly rounding up certain people groups or door-to-door weapons confiscations are highly likely to result in open displays of resistance, and a civil war that is likely to be fought, and won, by the good guys.
Here’s the answer, and it should scare every gun owner in the country:
They want to make de facto criminals out of the majority of the gun owning population.
That way, they can essentially pick us off, one by one.
Without necessarily meaning to, Mehta hits on this critical point in his piece: “A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals,” he wrote. “Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws … Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.”
If liberals are able to pass any sort of “assault weapons” ban, buyback or no buyback, they know they will make criminals out of several million currently law-abiding gun owners. And even if the majority of those gun owners don’t follow the law now, that won’t make them any less a criminal. They just haven’t been caught yet.
But when the ‘right people’ control the levers of power and the ‘right laws’ are all in place, make no mistake - they will be caught.
Morefield is right, of course. The Left will never come door to door confiscating our guns, because they would face down too many trained gun owners, who would use guerilla tactics to take out the Leftist forces, and force them to spend more time, effort, and money protecting themselves rather than taking anyone's guns away. But most of the people actively resisting have families, wives and kids, and know the consequences for them if they are rotting in prison. So make a few examples, and the rest will fall in line.

Go read the whole thing, though, because Morefield provides more evidence than I have outlined here.  It is a well thought out piece, and fits in with the Leftists playbook, which is to make so many laws, rules and regulations, that everybody can be put in jail for anything they might do, if it suits the current powers.

Next up is a piece at the American Thinker by Jeffrey T. Brown entitled Gun Owners Are Being Blamed for the Failures of Liberalism. My only nit pick here is that the author politely calls Leftists, meaning some flavor of Communist, Socialist, Fascist, National Socialist, Progressive, or down right totalitarian scumbag, "liberals." The in truth are not liberals. This is just the sheep's clothing they wrapped themselves in for a while until we caught on and turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

...Take a breath...

Brown is correct that millions of gun owners, concealed carriers, NRA members, and gun rights activists who didn't kill anyone are being smeared in the press for somehow enabling the scumbag murder who shot up Marjory Douglas Stoneman High School.  Meanwhile, the scumbag murder, the Broward County Sheriff, and the FBI, who are responsible, are somehow left off the hook.
Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail. For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences. At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil.
In order for leftists to succeed, lawful gun-owners must be tricked into going along with this illusion. Unfortunately for the left, people who are serious enough to decide to accept the responsibility of careful stewardship of firearms are not stupid enough to ignore that we are living in a cesspool entirely of the left's making. Not surprisingly, mature, responsible gun-owners have declined the left's invitation to be caricatured and smeared as the scapegoats for where liberalism has taken us as a culture. As serious people, they don't have much capacity for irrational, emotionally unhinged accusers pointing their fingers at those who not only did not cultivate the environment that has bred mass shooters, but also do not provide such people from their own ranks. The phenomena of unhinged "mass shooters" and the predictably vulnerable environments where they carry out their evil are unique byproducts of liberalism and its failures.
Generally speaking, law-abiding gun-owners are of a different time and culture. They are anachronistic. To lawfully own a firearm is a commitment to timeless principles of maturity, personal responsibility, individual freedom, and civic awareness. It is a trust, a right possessed by free people who exercise their freedom carefully and mindfully. It is not a masculine exercise, as men and women exemplify these qualities equally in their lawful ownership of firearms. It is rather a uniquely American exercise, which is why the left fully loathes it. When liberal commentators spontaneously declare themselves gun-owners for effect, it is unlikely that they are telling the truth, because the philosophical underpinnings of American gun ownership are anathema to them. In everything else they do, they shun and disclaim the America of individualism, honor and integrity. They show no other willingness in their words or actions to reject their liberal brethren so totally as to own what their paganism declares an object possessed of evil powers.

As gun owners, we need to fight this battle on two fronts.  The first is cultural.  We need to provide those coming after us with the same sense of maturity, responsibility, and civic awareness that we have acquired.  These qualities do not come by osmosis, but by a combination of teaching, and demonstrating these qualities.  Children need to see us carrying out these principles in our daily lives.  We have to show ourselves doing these things, as well as explaining why we do them.  In a fallen world, we may need a gun to defend ourselves, and protect those we love.

But we must be ever vigilant to stop attempts to infringe our right to arms whenever  and wherever they pop up.  The Parkland murders were just the opportunity the Leftists were looking for, and the number of bills before Congress and State legislatures, and the lengths these bills would go to, is incredible.  These need to be fought, and the best way to fight them is through an organization such as Gun Owners of America (GOA).  GOA in particular has a very sophisticated alert system combined with a way for you to send emails and call your Representatives and Senators.  Your State organization may have the same thing.  In our State it is the Grass Roots North Carolina. At the gun show, many say they don't want to become members because they "don't want to be on a list."  I can understand, but frankly, if you are a gun owner, somewhere along the way someone has put you on a list.  That ship has sailed.  You are protecting yourself and your family more by becoming a gun rights activist than by trying to keep your head down.

St. George Tucker, in his Blackstone's Commentaries states:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
The Second Amendment is the only way we can hope to remain free, to be citizens rather than subjects.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Fast and Furious Documents to Be Released

The Justice Department announced yesterday that it would finally release documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal. You can find the article at Red State under the title Breaking. Department of Justice Decides to Obey U. S. Constitution and Release Fast and Furious Documents to Congress. For those who may have forgotten, and for those just waking up from a long nap:
It was a secret secret ATF program, overseen heavily at the highest levels at the Department of Justice, which took place between September 2009 and December 2010. ATF agents repeatedly and knowingly allowed individuals working for Mexican cartels to traffic thousands of pistol and semi-automatic rifles, including at least one .50-cal Barrett that ended up in the personal armory of drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. The operation ended when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered and the weapon was traced to this scheme. The purpose seems to have been to create a fact set–the extensive use of weapons bought in the United States by straw purchasers by Mexican cartels–as a way of stampeding Congress into enacting more restrictive gun laws.
It still remains to be seen how much of the documentation will be redacted, and whether any of it implicates the then Attorney General, Eric Holder, or President Obama himself. It also remains to be seen whether anyone will be held accountable, or because these were Democrats, they will be allowed to go without any consequences. Thanks to David Codrea at the /War on Guns website for pointing me to this story. The gun rights community owes David and the late Mike Vanderboegh a great debt for bringing the story of Fast and Furious to light. Thanks David.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Pass the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Matthew Larosiere has an excellent explanation of the proposed Concealed Carry Act at The Federalist. As Larosiere writes:
Calling The Concealed Carry and Reciprocity Act an affront to state sovereignty would be a great argument prior to the Civil War, but a little thing called the 14th Amendment renders the argument moot. The 14th Amendment forbids states from abrogating the people’s constitutional rights. All the Concealed Carry and Reciprocity act would do is serve to prevent a state from punishing people for constitutionally-protected activity, in a manner much less severe than the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you believe preventing people from being punished for exercising a constitutionally-protected right is against a state’s right, you must, by extension, find the Civil Rights Act a violation of state’s rights. The Civil Rights Act was comparatively much more forceful with the states. It actually overrode discriminatory state laws, while the Concealed Carry and Reciprocity Act simply prevents states from punishing interstate travelers for doing something specifically protected by the Constitution.
The Concealed Carry Act would not affect any States's laws, except that it would treat concealed carry licenses like drivers licenses. How would New Yorkers feel if every time a New York license plate showed up in North Carolina, they were arrested for not having a North Carolina license? After all, don't we have as much interest in ensuring that New Yorkers follow our traffic laws as they have in ensuring we follow their gun laws?  That would be considered foolish, and that is what happens many times when a concealed carrier travels outside his or her own State.

Read the whole thing.  As you will see, it really doesn't do anything.  There won't be blood in the streets, because the people who have concealed carry aren't running around creating blood in the streets now.  You generally won't know they are there, because they keep their guns concealed.  It really won't affect your life any more than when a New Yorker drives though our State.

The Way to Deal with Murders Is To Deal Harshly with Murderers

Trevor Thomas today in the American Thinker points to the real way we should deal with murderers using guns, and it is not to pass more gun control.  As always with professional writers, as opposed to your humble servant, Thomas says it better than I have stated the case, but it is the same:
The only way to reduce murder is to recognize that it is an act of evil that must be dealt with from a proper political and spiritual perspective. Men murder because their hearts are dark. To stop them, we must meet force with force. To change men, we must get to their hearts. Sound legislation can work to protect us, but focusing on the weapon of murder and attempting to legislate away evil by targeting a tool is the height of folly.
Thomas starts out by explaining that he and his siblings grew up around guns. Even when his brother as a young teen had a hunting accident with a faulty gun that eventually required removing his right arm, neither he nor his brother blamed guns, or because afraid of them. Indeed, his brother learned to shoot even rifles with one arm, and there is a picture of him shooting a compound bow!  All of that is to lead up to his discussion of statistical information about guns, population, and murder rate. He presents a great deal of data getting down to the county level, much as John Lott has done. At this level, one thing becomes clear:
At the state level – where data is more readily available – the numbers reveal the same: there's no correlation between the presence of guns and the rate of murder. The average murder rate for the first 25 states (lowest half of gun ownership rates) is 5.0. The average murder rate ranking for the last 25 states (upper half of gun ownership rates) is 4.9.
For the bottom ten and top ten, the average is 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. The average murder rate ranking for the first 25 states is 24.4. The average murder rate ranking for the last 25 states is 27.6. For the bottom ten and top ten, the average is 22.8 and 23.7, respectively. Put simply, more guns does not mean more murder. And inversely, fewer guns does not mean fewer murders. Put another way, more laws against gun ownership has done almost nothing to reduce the rate of murder in America.
The emphasis is mine. The fact that the existence or absence of guns seems not to affect the murder rate leads to his conclusion that we must instead deal harshly with the evil of a person that murders another. As we used to do, by the way.  The problem of murders can not be solved, it has been with us since Cain killed his brother Able.  But we can at least reduce the worst of it by using the remedies outline in the Old Testament:  blood must be paid with blood.

We often note that part of the problem that makes this issue so intractable is that the Left seems to substitute emotion for reasoned, thoughtful, consideration of the facts and statistics. We say things like this, I suspect out of disappointment that our thoughtful research seems to have been thrown out by the Left without even looking into what we have discovered, and then they propose a study that has so many holes in it, you might think we had used it for target practice.

But the Left is not stupid, nor irrational, it simply has different goals.  The Left firmly believes, against all evidence (which may be why they ignore our evidence) that they are smarter, and know better how we should lead our lives.  And that is putting the best spin on it.  Sometimes, they stray into the realm of thinking that some of us should not be allowed to live at all!  The Lefts goal then is totalitarianism, and the only way to achieve it is by irrational means.  We have seen this movie before, and it does not end well.