Pew Poll Shows More People Support Gun Rights that Gun Control

Katie Pavlich has a piece up today on the new Pew Research poll entitled Pew Poll: Americans Support Gun Rights More Than Gun Control, and that Americans believe that guns save lives. According to the Pew Research Center:

For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.

Pavlich also notes that:

One of the most important numbers from the survey shows that five percent more women support protecting rights over gun control than they did just two years ago. Women are also the fasted growing demographic of gun owners in America.

I have long advocated in the blog that women should be armed, because women are often viewed by the predators of this world as soft targets. I seriously doubt that, with only one or two readers a day, that I have had any influence over this happy change of fortunes, but I am glad to see it.  It means when my grand daughter comes of age, perhaps she will carry a gun for personal protection, and not be bullied by peer pressure into believing lies of the anti-gunners.

If you live by your own will, you inevitably reap the consequences

John Hawkins has an excellent piece today at Townhall.com entitled Your Screwed Up Life is Your Own Responsibility, He begins by quoting P.J. O'Rourke and Thomas Sowell:

“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” — P.J. O’Rourke

“We seem to be moving steadily in the direction of a society where no one is responsible for what he himself did,but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, either in the present or in the past.” – Thomas Sowell

 The quote from Thomas Sowell perhaps sums it up best for a lot of people who feel that their hard work, living by the rules is punished by a society that seems to elevate sloth and irresponsible behavior to some form of secular sainthood.  I have said before elsewhere, that Michael Brown's death was the result of Michael Brown's actions.  If he had been driving too fast, and run his car into a tree and died, his family would still be grieving, but they would have had no one else to blame. But because a police officer killed him instead, they blame the police officer, the town of Ferguson, and ultimately every white person living in the United States.  Note that the police do not shoot to kill, but to stop the attack.  Had Michael Brown stopped the attack at any time before the sixth bullet struck him in the head, he would very likely be alive today.

So now Eric Holder says we shouldn't be racially profiling, of profiling on the basis of creed, gender or sexual orientation, or national origin, because profiling is ineffective.  Like so much said by this guy, I both disagree and agree with his statement.  No, we shouldn't be racially profiling, but certain behaviors that happen to be associated with certain races are sometimes a cause for alarm.  If a white person has a shaved head, and tattoos on his neck and other body parts indicating an affinity for NAZI philosophy, would you think that person might be a skin head and dangerous?  Of course you would, and rightly so.  Similarly, people affiliated with gangs have a certain style of dress, and certain mannerisms that shout "gang" to anyone who sees them.  Profiling is not ineffective, and race sometimes plays a part.

Jesus summarized his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and if you understand these teachings, they are not so much theology as they are practical rules for living responsibly.  You have free will, of course, and you can "do as you damn well please," but living that way, constantly applying your own will, makes for a miserable existence, and hurts the people around you as well.  If you don't quite understand what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount (and I didn't either for a long time,) I suggest you read, and re-read Emmet Fox's little book The Sermon on the Mount: Keys to Success in Life.

Using Leftist Methods Against Them

David Codrea over at the War on Guns has hit on an capital idea! Codrea suggest we sue the government to force them to enjoin the amnesty of illegals until an environmental impact statement is completed. It is truly genius, since we would be using Leftists own methods against them. Go read it. Meanwhile, I want to look into it further.

Ferguson...

I've got a long "honey do" list today, getting ready for family and friends coming into town for the Thanksgiving weekend, but I thought I would highlight one little piece from Townhall.com entitled The Top Four Liberal Reactions to Ferguson Grand Jury by Michael Schaus. Of these four, which are all outrageous, the one by a writer named Harold Itzkowitz stands as the dumbest. Since I can't copy twitter posts, I will have to retype what was said. Itzkowitz wrote:

So, stealing Cigarillos and jaywalking brings the death penalty.

Schaus writes in response:

Well, no. Committing a strong-armed robbery is not, by itself, justification for a death penalty. But premature death is certainly a distinct possibility for anyone attempting to attack and disarm a police officer.

So, to answer your question: I guess it depends on how you react when a cop tries to talk to you about jaywalking. (Hint: Don’t reach for his gun.)

Just so. Michael Brown's death was a tragedy, but it was also all in Michael Brown's hands. By initiating aggression, he elicited an aggressive response which resulted in his own death. That his parents and the community can not work these simple things out goes to the moral decay that has taken place in America. In general, one can not know the intentions of another, but when someone grabs for your weapon during a struggle, its a safe bet they plan to use it against you.

Indeed, the story that is presented by the Left, and the actual facts as presented to the Grand Jury as they are reported so far, are so at odds, that it makes one wonder why the protestors did not choose a more sympathetic victim over whom to make their case.  If the claim is that white police officers go around shooting innocent black people for no reason, then why not choose a truly innocent guy as the victim?  Surely there must be one or two out there if the claims are correct.  But to have Feguson in flames today over Michael Brown, a man about whom people on the outside looking in can see made bad decisions which led to his own demise, raises the suspicion that what these people actually want is the right not to be held accountable for their illegal acts.  In essense, they want the right to act like barbarians without consequences.

Is that so?  And by what right do you make these claims?

Lois Lerner's Emails Found

You have probably read about or heard that Obama has signed an executive order changing the immigration law to allow 5 million illegals to remain in the United States, and grants an amnesty. In doing so, he his claiming the rights of a dictator, and emperor, a king, whatever word you want to use to describe him. He claims to be above the law, to actually make law. He even claims to be able to dictate to the Congress, since at one point he offered and excuse that Congress had failed to act as he thought they should. What arrogance! Of course the Constitutional remedy is to impeach him, but nobody will for fear of being called racists. You are also likely aware of Ferguson, Missouri, where apparently blacks are working very hard to start a race war. It is very distressing that people still buy into the race baiters bitter hatred, which is designed, of course, to enrich the race baiters and not to help those supposedly suffering. And no doubt you have heard that the reason Buffalo is sitting under 8 feet of snow is because of climate change, which used to be global warming, or global cooling, or...well, I can't keep the story straight. But its all stuff and nonsense in any case. Buffalo happens to be unfortunately located at a point where if the winds and temperatures are just right, they will get hugely magnified lake effect snowfalls. It has happened before, it will happen again.

 Less covered, but of interest to conservatives was the fact that Lois Lerner's emails have been uncovered. You can read about it in a blurb at American Thinker today by Thomas Lifson entitled Lois Lerner's Emails Turn Out Not to be Lost. Lifson writes:

Despite the sworn testimony of IRS commissioner John Koskinen that backup tapes are recycled after 6 months, backup tapes containing up to 30,000 emails from Lois Lerner’s “crashed” computer have been uncovered by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)...

"The chickens" as Jeremiah Wright famously said, "are coming home to roost!" First Jonathan Grubber lets the cat out of the bag about Obama's lying to the American people repeatedly to get Obamacare passed, and now Lois Lerner's emails come to light.  I have a feeling that the wheels of the Obama cart will continue to fall off as time passes.  The question is, will anyone learn anything from this regrettable saga in American history, or will they merely think that it all would have worked if we had just gotten the right person...

A certain Rudyard Kipling poem keeps running across my mind.

Update:  Townhall.com also has the story here.

More Mass Noncompliance in Washington

In Washington state, where I-594 passed, gun owners plan a mass noncompliance protest at the State Capitol on December 13.  Bob Owens has the story over at Bearing Arms. Apparently 5,600 gun owners plan to meet in front of the capitol and exchange firearms with each other to show the utter stupidity of the law. All I can say is "God Speed" Mr. Seim.

Looking at what the new Congress might do

I have been reading a number of excellent proposals for what the Republican Congressional agenda should be. I have even read a good piece at the American Thinker by Marguerite Creel that suggests a good plan for the North Carolina Republican agenda. Miss Creel suggests that a State like North Carolina should be bold in advancing a conservative agenda that is both fair and allows everyone to prosper (in the fullest sense of the word.) But with all that, Charles C. W. Cooke over at the National Review online offers up a couple of small fixes the Congress should make to gun laws at Two Gun Bills the New Republican Congress Should Consider.  The two gun bills are to fix the current Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) to make clear that airports and airplanes are included in the "safe passage" provisions in the law, and to pass the national concealed carry bill.  Cooke:

Now that Republicans are in full control of Congress, there are a couple of firearms related bills that I would like to see debated. The first would fix the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), making it clear henceforth that the law’s “safe passage” provision applies to airports as well as to highways. Earlier in the year, I noted that the states of New York and New Jersey have managed to exempt themselves from FOPA’s remit, thereby preventing Americans who rely upon JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports from traveling with their guns...

Innocent people are caught all the time by New York and New Jersey when planes are delayed or diverted, and the passenger is forced to take possession of his baggage. Its a shake down racket, enabled by the Third District Federal Court. The fact that people are caught, not when arriving with a gun, but when leaving, points to the "gotcha" aspect of this bizarre interpretation of the law. An interesting, if frustrating, article on the subject can be found at Human Events here.  Or this article from the Blaze, which also highlights a post by a New York lawyer who deals with this on a routine basis.

The other bill that should be considered is one Cooke titles the Shaneen Allen bill. Ms. Allen, you will recall, was the nurse and single mom from Pennsylvania arrested in New Jersey when she told a law enforcement officer she had a concealed carry permit and was armed during a traffic stop. Unfortunately, New Jersey does not recognize a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit. The Shaneen Allen bill would force states that allow concealed carry to recognize another state's permit under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Thus, concealed carry would be treated like driver's licenses, marriage licenses and so forth. Should Ms. Allen have known that New Jersey is rabidly anti-gun and would, if given the chance, do this? Well, sure. But the idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has its limitations when one has to take care of two small children while working full time. I know such people, and they don't have time to keep up with the various, often crazy and irrational laws put up for the express purpose of making them stumble. The Shaneen Allen bill would, in the words of the NRA:

The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 (H.R. 2959) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah). The bill would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid, concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.

H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws allowing for the carrying of firearms without a permit. Rather, it would simply require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits.

This would be an act of Congress that is fully within the scope of the Constitution, unlike much of what they do now. I would have no problem with a bill of this nature, so long as that is all the Congress intend to do.

Don't expect much from Republican Congress

We have been here before. In 1994 the House became Republican with a lot of people voting for the Contract with America. The people were fed up, and things were much better then than today. Result, the House claimed they needed a majority in the Senate too. So, ok, we gave them a majority Senate as well. Result? Not much. The stupid and cowardly party proved to be the stupid and cowardly party. Conservative Judicial nominees were routinely filibustered, but the controlling Republicans refused to trigger the "nuclear option," unlike Harry Reid, who had no problems doing so, confident that if Republicans got the Senate back, they would reinstate this rule for him to abuse. Time will tell, of course, but I predict he will have been right. Sadly, the Republicans don't trust the average citizen, indeed, I suspect they trust their Democrat colleagues more than they trust you. Judge Andrew Napolitano has a piece up today at Townhall.com where he notes that this election has not settled any of the really important cultural divides in More Culture Wars? Napolitano:

There are two great freedoms being assaulted under the radar that will soon come to the fore: the freedom to live and the freedom to speak. Both parties use abortion as a litmus test. You want the Democratic nomination for any federal or state office; you need to support a woman's right to abortion. You want the Republican nomination for any federal or state office; you better claim that you are pro-life.

I say "claim" because that's all Republicans need to do to satisfy each other. If Republicans truly were pro-life, they'd have passed a one-paragraph statute when they ran the Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House that legally defined a fetus in the womb as a natural person. Of course, morally and biologically, a fetus is a natural person. The fetus has human parents and possesses a fully actualizable human genome -- all the genetic materials needed to grow and flourish and possess self-directed humanity. But no such legislation ever came.

Actually, the House could have done something about this issue even without the blessing of the Senate or the President by passing a Sense of the House resolution. With a Republican Senate, they could pass a Sense of the Congress resolution. The court would of course have to at least take notice. Is it really too much to ask that Congress acknowledge facts?

Napolitano again:

After the right to life, the next great freedom under siege is the freedom of speech. Here, too, both parties in Congress have failed us. When Congress in 2001 enacted the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to write their own search warrants in utter defiance and direct contradiction of the Fourth Amendment, which commands that only judges may do so, it also prohibited the recipients of agent-written search warrants from talking about them. At least a half-dozen federal judges have found this infringement of speech unconstitutional, yet federal agents who serve their own search warrants continue to threaten the recipients against talking to anyone about them. This, too, came about with the support of the leadership of both political parties in Congress.

Not content with commanding silence about search warrants, the Democrats in the Senate attempted to offer an amendment to the Constitution last summer, which, if ratified, would have weakened the First Amendment by permitting Congress and the states to punish the political speech of groups. Three years ago, the Supreme Court, in a case called Citizens United, held that free political speech is such a highly valued and constitutionally protected asset in American society that it may be enjoyed not only by individuals, but also by groups of two or more persons, such as labor unions, foundations, nonprofits, think tanks, partnerships and corporations.

Napolitano asks "...what will a Republican Congress do?  What is its track record?"  I don't know, but since this is in God's hands, I ask everyone to pray that the new Congress will do what is right.

The Choice Before Us

Fay Voshell has a thought provoking piece at the American Thinker today entitled The Choice Before Us. Go read it. Once we knew that charity towards the poor and down trodden was a necessary Christian duty, but that it could not be achieved by having the State steal from some to give to others. That would not be charity. Once we knew that homosexuality was wrong, but a Christian did not hate homosexuals, rather hated what they did. Once we understood that though there is only one word for 'love' in English, there are many kinds of love, and sometimes loving means being left alone. Once, we feared our Heavenly Father, not because he is not loving, merciful, comforting and kind, but because that which we do convicts us, and he might choose well choose to simply let us go our own way into hell.

Voshell is right, too many of us have become too materialistic.  Our churches have bowed their heads to the State, instead of standing up for  principle.  The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now ordains homosexuals as pastors.  The Roman Pontiff seems to make the case for State redistribution of incomes in a false notion of charity.  Too many people seem to have faith in mere men, in Gaia, or, in themselves.  But God has already told us what comes of faith in men in 1 Samuel Chapter 8:

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

Before we go to the polls, let us humbly pray that the act we perform that day will be in accordance with His will for us.  While it may seem futile, we know that if we do not vote, we have essentially voted for whatever someone else decides.  Let us act in His name for a better world.

At Townhall.com today, Kevin McCullough has another article on the topic of voting entitled The Proper Theology of Voting. McCullough writes:

When a person of faith rejects the civil opportunity, and the moral obligation of casting a vote, they always advance evil in the process.

Always!

As Christians, we must understand that we are to be IN this world, but not OF this world. Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God what is God's. We have a duty to both, but we must also realize that our duty to God must come above, and before everything else.

 PS: A note to those who do not believe, or are agnostic or are recovering Catholics, etc, etc, etc. The term "God" is a tile, not a name. The tetrogram, commonly written in English as YHWH, and thought by many to be the name of God is, in fact, a statement. At the burning bush, Moses asked for the name of the one speaking to him, and was given the statement "I am." It actually makes sense, since this "I am" is the one and only, and therefore needs no name. We have names because there are more than one of us. This "I am" created all that is out of nothing, a void. He created matter, energy, space and time, life, male and female and more. Because he created all these things, He must also be equally, She, It, vegetarian and carnivore. To create something, even in human terms, one must have an aspect of it in his character. Your understanding of the Creator is both as limited, and as good as is my own. I cannot comprehend the totality of what He is, but I don't really have to, and neither do you. I urge you too to pray to a Creator of your understanding, for faith, wisdom, understanding, and love. Jesus said to ask and you will receive, so ask. At the same time, also understand that Gaia is rock floating in space. It offers nothing whereas he wants every good thing for you.

More stories of vote fraud

Katie Pavlich over at Townhall.com today has another story on vote fraud here.

It always seems that voting machine "calibration issues" resolve to the benefit of Democrat candidates.  If it were truly "calibration issues" as they claim, some votes for Democrats would be recorded as a vote for a Republican instead.  No, this very clearly is intentional.  Either the company supplying the machines has corrupt employees tampering with the inner workings, or corrupt employees at the County level are setting up the machines this way, hoping to gets some of the not so sharp eyed voters to vote unwittingly for favored  candidates.

Pavlich writes:

So what do we do about this? If machines in different states repeatedly changed votes from Democrat to Republican, Eric Holder would have launched a federal investigation under suspicions of fraud and I doubt "calibration error" would be accepted as an excuse for widespread problems.

The Republicans have shown themselves to be largely ineffective in ferreting out and punishing any of the lawless behavior of this administration, whether it is Fast and Furious or the IRS scandal. They have had six years, and no one has gone to jail yet.  So, as to "what do we do about this?" I dunno.  Perhaps put some teeth into the notion that if a particular candidate receives the benefit of vote fraud, that candidate shall be presume guilty and spend time in the slammer.  In any case, unless there are consequences to the actual candidates, this is never going to stop, and indeed will continue to get worse.

Your votes are being stolen, and the Dems want to steal more of them

I have to run today, and don't have a lot of time, but Oh my: Studies Reveals Significant Number of Non Citizens Vote in US Elections is an eye opener. Finally, years after the fact, there is more than anecdotal evidence. Too bad it is being swept under the rug by the MSM. Mona Charen has a syndicated piece based on the same journal article at Townhall.com here. Charen writes:

In many states, their participation wouldn't be large enough to make a difference, but in North Carolina in 2008, the authors calculate, non-citizens may well have tipped the state into Barack Obama's column. "So what?" you may say. Even if John McCain had won that state, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the national election. True, but remember the presidential race in 2000? Remember "hanging chad" Florida?

Several House seats, and one very significant Senate seat, were probably won by Democrats on the strength of illegal votes. In 2008, the authors note, Sen. Al Franken won by just 312 votes in Minnesota. That seat was the 60th vote to give Democrats a filibuster-proof supermajority to pass major legislation like Obamacare. "(Voting) participation by just 0.65 percent of non-citizens in Minnesota is sufficient to account for the entirety of Franken's margin. Our best guess is that nearly 10 times as many voted."

If illegals made possible Obama's win in North Carolina, what are the chances that those same illegals provided the margin that brought Kay Hagan to the Senate?  And why is "comedian" Al Franken allowed to hold a seat he clearly won by fraud and deceit?

Message to Franken, "It's not funny, man."

Militant Narcissism

I have been noting of late a lot of what I call militant narcissism on display at every turn.  And it occurs in all areas of life, both right and left. It is seen in Moms Demanding (worthless and meaningless) Action on Guns and in gun owners ostentatiously open carrying in stores and restaurants. It is seen in the utterly terroristic tactics of militant homosexuals, of Islamic jihadi terrorists, of the mobs in Ferguson, Missouri, and even in the aggressive driver weaving in and out of traffic in an often vain attempt to get to his very important destination a bit faster. It is often caused by people who have found what they believe is THE ONE TRUE WAY, whatever it is, and everyone must now sit down and shut up.  If you do not bow to THE ONE TRUE WAY, they will make you.

Some examples may help illuminate what I mean by "militant narcissism."  The other day Mrs. Polykahr and I were out shopping.  On the way home we encountered a bicyclist on a two lane road struggling along at around 10 mph smack dab in the middle of our lane, forcing us to slow down.  Where we encountered him there were double yellow lines indicating no passing.  Now, on a lot of roads around here, the pavement stops inches past the white line, and the road falls off onto a soft shoulder.  Obviously, one can not ride the shoulder because it is not paved.  But on this particular stretch, there was a wide paved shoulder, and he should have taken advantage of it.  Eventually, the way was clear to pass, and the center line had become dashed, so we did.

Now, the bicyclist was within his rights as a vehicle to take up the entire lane. He was not doing anything illegal.  But he was being extremely discourteous, and I am sure he knew it.  But bicyclists have become "militant" in greater numbers these days, feeling that theirs is THE way to get around, and that those who drive cars are just not doing their part.  They are not saving enough energy, or they are contributing to greenhouse gases, or whatever the reason for riding rather than driving is.  Often, this type of bicyclists doesn't really like this mode of transportation, but believes himself to be doing it out of a misplaced sense of duty.  This attitude of course ignores that many have handicaps that prevent them riding a bicycle, and no amount of training or working out will ever allow them to do so.  It also ignores that the only reason the bicyclist is able to pursue his particular sport is because trucks, vans and other vehicles ply the roadways bringing goods and services to a market near his home.  If he had to ride 30 miles to the supermarket every day to pick up the days groceries, rain or shine, snow or extreme cold, he would think differently about making riding a lifestyle.  But these people do not think about these things. No, instead they do things like this.

I know something about riding a bicycle.  When I was younger, I rode a bicycle frequently to work, and was a member of the Potomac Pedlars, a bicycle club with thousands of members and a riding schedule that had several rides posted for every day of the week.  Riders were classified as AA, A,BB, B, CC, C, or D.  AA riders were semi-pro or professional riders.  These were the guys you might see in the Tour de France.  A and B riders were excellent.  C, where I rode, were of average athletic ability, and D was for duffers or newcomers to the sport.  An average rider with reasonably good equipment (a well set up road bike) and a thorough knowledge of his gears could average 20 mph on level to moderately hilly roads.  This guy had the equipment, and was dressed the part, but he was clearly a D rider.  A skilled and knowledgeable rider is able to ride alongside traffic without imposing unduly on other faster traffic whose operators also have the right of way.

M. Scott Peck wrote a book back in 1994 called A World Waiting to be Born. Perhaps if we all took heed of his admonitions, we would find our roads easier to travel.

Forgiving

Today's American Thinker has a very good article on what the author calls "political Christianity" by Jeremy Egerer entitled The Devils Own Christianity. Egerer has much to say about the current Pope's condoning of evil, but this caught my eye.  Egerer:

Pope Francis says to the South Koreans that forgiveness and charity are the keys to Korean unification – a noble sentiment, if someone is really asking for our forgiveness; a wonderful teaching, if it weren't for the belligerent, murderous tyrant interested in enslaving each and every one of us. We may consider it fortunate for humanity, then, that the South Koreans are backed by something stronger than Papa Francesco's kisses and homilies: most notably an armed and dangerous defender of liberty known as the United States of America. If Jesus saves men from burning in Hell, America saves men from burning on Earth. Both are leaders of charitable organizations – that is, if charity concerns not only a granting of gifts, but also a protection of person and property. And certainly we can agree that if Christians are to be charitable, our charity has to do something with our earthly happiness.

Pope Francis is making a mistake that many Christians make, and that those who aren't Christian, but wish to shame or defame us make. Forgiveness is a personal act. A State can not forgive, because each person in that State may not be ready to forgive. Further, a State can not forgive another State, because each person in the other State may not be in need of forgiveness for the act for which the forgiveness is extended.  Some may never be ready to forgive, and may nurse that hate all their lives on this earth.

The purpose of forgiveness is to purify our hearts, it is something we do for ourselves. We may say to someone that we forgive them, but that act will not necessarily change the other persons mind.  We let go of the hurt, the anger, the hatred to God, because these emotions will destroy us if we hang onto them. We become so embittered that we no longer can see the world as it is.  You probably know someone like this.  So, we let go and let God. Furthermore, forgiveness does not mean that the person who hurt us, or wronged us does not deserve punishment. Just that his or her punishment is no longer our concern.  Neither does it mean to forget.  A woman who has just been through a trying divorce through no fault of her own may forgive her ex-husband, but she would be foolish to forget and let him back into her life.

Another aspect of Christianity that people get wrong, including many Christians is the notion that Christians should be pacifist.  They often base this on the saying of Jesus to turn the other cheek.  At the time, it was a common practice for a higher status person to take the back of his right hand and slap a lower status person on his left cheek.  Naturally, the act was infuriating to someone who had been thus slapped.  Jesus advised to turn the other cheek, which would force the slapper to use his left hand, thus shaming him.  But if you are being beaten silly and you are afraid that you might be seriously injured or killed, you must defend yourself.

Now, I am not a great theologian, nor do I put myself in the august company of one who might be elected Pope, but I can read and think, and it seems to me that now even the Catholic church is going off the rails.  And if they have these things wrong, what else?

Spies at the State Fair

I had my spies at the State Fair yesterday.  Well, actually, my "spies" included Mrs. Polykahr, the daughter and grand children.  They reportedly had a good time, thank God.  I asked Mrs. Polykahr if they had metal detectors set up to detect guns at the entrances.  Since Mr. Troxler undertook to twist the clear language of the law to make it say what it clearly does not, and then got a "judge" to follow his lead, I wanted to see if he was going to truly protect fair goers.  My spy reported that the only thing he had in the way of protection was a large sign.

Apparently, Mr. Troxler believes, as this video shows, that all that is required is to post a sign, and he has done his job. But the fairground is public land, and the fair is publically sponsored. Therefore, there are only a few places, spelled out in the law, where guns can be prohibited, and the fairground isn't one of them. But since the Commissioner undertook to disarm law abiding concealed carriers, he had an obligation to ensure no one had guns, thus the need for metal detectors to screen all persons entering the fair.

I have discussed what happens whenever there is a soft target. Sooner or later, some poor mangled soul gets it into his head to go and kill as many people as he can before the police arrive to stop him. Yes, this is sickness of the most horrific kind, and ideally such a person should be taken in custody and treated.  Meanwhile, prepared concealed carriers could stop him if he makes an appearance at a venue like the fair. But Mr. Troxler believes he knows better. He has sent away for one of those kits, because, you know, it works so well.

Its Opposite Day at the State Fair

Yesterday, as I was driving to work, one of the news headlines was that Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) had filed suit to overturn Agricultural Commisioner Troxler's ruling that guns would not be allowed at this year's State Fair. According to GRNC, in an alert today, this was the result:

Judge Donald Stephens’ decision in the GRNC lawsuit against posting the state fair against concealed carry can best be summarized in his own words: “If I can find a way to interpret the statutes to prohibit concealed handguns in the state fair, I will.”

It was evident to all that Judge Stephens had his mind made up long before the hearing began. When GRNC’s attorney argued, his attitude was nearly contemptuous, and when the Attorney General’s representative argued, Stephens was soothing and supportive as if talking to a pet dog.

The denial today of GRNC’s temporary restraining order was a classic case of legislating from the bench by, perhaps willfully, misinterpreting both the intent of the General Assembly in passing HB 937’s opening of assemblies to concealed carry, and the potential cost to crime victims of not being able to protect themselves against violent predators, as has happened repeatedly in other state fairs, the most recent being last weekend in Arizona.

GRNC is examining our options, including appeal, legislative action, and possibly an open holster demonstration at the fair. Allow me to say what I told conservative talk show host and GRNC supporter Bill LuMaye: “We don’t know yet how we will react to this setback, but I can tell you one thing: Whatever we do will be done to expand the rights of lawful North Carolinians and their ability to protect their families. The left has called it ‘the long march.’ This is our long march.”

GRNC’s operating philosophy: Never give up. Never give in. Never go away.

I, of course, am not a smart lawyer, but I also thought the language of the law was pretty clear. David Codrea's blog War on Guns notes that ever day in a Progressive Paradise is Opposite Day. This ruling strikes me as being a typical Opposite Day ruling. The judge was determined to find against us no matter what the law said.

Another Sheriff Dispised by the Dispicable

Sheriff Lewis of Wicomico County, MD, has attracted all the right people, meaning he has become despised by the despicable, with recent comments about the Second Amendment. The story is at Townhall.com, by Michael Schaus and entitled Maryland Sheriff Attacked for Promising to Defend the Second Amendment.

There is a little prayer that goes something like this: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Let us recognize first off that the Second Amendment acknowledges a pre-existing right to bear arms, it does not grant that right. The same is true for the rights granted in the First Amendment. Second, we must acknowledge that the rightful purpose of law is not to prevent crime, but to set forth the penalties for commission of certain crimes deemed harmful to society as a whole. Unstated in the law is the notion that men have free will, and can choose to do good or evil at any time. Three, laws will only be observed by those who obey the law, not by those who do not. Those who do not, we call criminals.  The point is, you can not change human nature.

Sheriff Lewis is absolutely correct.  He has taken an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the State, and of the United States.  If others who have taken similar oaths decide, as men with free will can do, to break that oath, Sheriff Lewis has warned them that he will nonetheless keep his oath within his County.

On the other hand, the people attacking Sheriff Lewis have not been paying enough attention to that little prayer.  You can make laws endlessly.  You can be as oppressive as you want, but you can not prevent bad guys from obtaining weapons with which to do nefarious things.  If you ban the (legal) sale and the (legal) manufacture of guns, they will still obtain them by smuggling them into the country.  If they can smuggle drugs,  what makes you think they can't smuggle guns with that shipment?  Or, they will manufacture them underground.  Any competent machinist has the skill and access to the tools needed to build a gun.  If you make it rewarding enough, someone is going to be making guns on the side.  Remember free will?  And, of course law enforcement, the military, and any number of "special" and  "elite" politicians, like Diane Feinstein, will be exempt, so that legal manufacturing will continue to supply them.  So, thefts from armories, corrupt police, or shipments will supply whatever is needed to continue crime as always.  These are unchangeable facts.

I understand, you are afraid.  You are afraid that neighbor with the guns secretly wants to shoot you.  Probably not, but have you ever approached him with anything but hostility?  Why don't you bake a cake, take over, and sit down with him over coffee and cake?  Discuss guns with an open mind.  Why does he keep them?  Maybe it is for exactly the same reasons you are afraid of them.  Maybe he wants to defend his family against an armed assailant.  Are you an armed assailant?  No?  Well, stop worrying about your neighbor.  Or maybe you are afraid that someone has a squirrel running around in his head telling him to go to your children's school and kill as many of the evil bastards as he can  (they're not evil bastards, that is what the squirrel is saying.)  Could be, I don't know.  But maybe your new friend has a different idea of how to protect not only your kids, but his own.  He probably has a better idea of both the power and limitations of guns.  Maybe you could try some of his ideas.  After all, we have tried the gun free zone idea, and that hasn't worked very well.  Just a suggestion, but remember that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Now say it with me:  God, grant me the serenity...

Confession

I have a confession to make.  Like a lot of bloggers out there, I have taken my shots at Moms demand action for gun safety, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, etc.  Now, Shannon Watts may just be exactly who she says she is, or she may be cynically using the Newtown massacre as an excuse to dance in the blood of innocents.  I don't know, and I could care less.  That is between her and her God.  But many of the women who go around, make calls, and generally make nuisances of themselves are actually scared.  They are scared of Ebola, they are scared of rising health costs, they are scared of global warming, they are scared.  They have listened to the media, have bought the Koolaid (reference Jim Jones), and done the "right things" by those lights.

To make matters worse, many of them are single, the men in their lives have not been acting very manly.  They are alone, raising children, don't have enough money to do what the media leads them to believe they should.  They just want it to go right somehow.  All these problems but no real solution.  Then along comes Shannon Watts, telling them they can do something! She points them at the wrong target, and off they go.

In point of fact, this is true of most anti gunners.  At the top of the heap you have a vile evil person who wants to ban guns in hopes he can ultimately control you and your lives.  But the foot soldiers are true believers who have been pointed at the wrong target.  Some of those true believers can be awakened with discussions of principle, of statistics, of the numbers of guns already in circulation, the ease of smuggling replacements across the border, or what have you. Most, unfortunately can not.  I would laugh if it wasn't so damn serious.

Instead, I think I will pray for these people.  For it all is really in his hands.

Surprise...Not...Hypocrisy at the highest levels

In an excellent article over at the Moral Liberal, Bob Barr notes the hypocrisy evident in the disparate way in which Voter Identification is treated as opposed to concealed carry.

“Let me be clear,” Attorney General Eric Holder emphatically declared in a 2012 speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, “we will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.” Holder’s remarks were a call to arms against efforts by Republicans to require that voters show identification when they go to vote. His words reflect a belief that the right to vote is so “precious” that requiring individuals to show an ID before casting a vote is tantamount to being “disenfranchised.”

However, when it comes to protecting the right to “keep and bear arms” – which, unlike the right to vote, is a right expressly guaranteed in the Constitution itself – the Attorney General of the United States is nowhere to be found. Apparently our Second Amendment rights are just not “precious” enough to worry about when governments engage in actions expressly designed to “disenfranchise” individuals from exercising those rights.

The hypocrisy is so blatant it is painful.

One could point out the same hypocrisy with other rights, such as freedom of the press. Indeed it has been done, and it is very amusing to imagine that a publisher has to jump through all sorts of hoops to be allowed to get his message out. But, that tyrannical governments have done so, indeed some still do, can not be denied. But the fact of the matter is that those advocating either position don't really care that either position makes no common sense. In their arrogance, they don't feel a need to.

For fans of the M1911 Pistol...

Frankly, I like the old war horse, and I shoot it best. It is somewhat quirky, I know, and requires attention to maintenance more that, say, a Glock, but I like how it shoots in my hands. Real Clear Defense has an article extolling the virtues of the M1911 pistol, and the Marine Corps official return to that platform in an article by Paul Huard entitled Greatest Pistol Ever Stopped Attackers Cold. If you are a fan too, go read the article.

The Muslim Antichrist

I have been wondering where this was going to go. Michael Youssef has published a two part story over at Townhall.com entitled The Antichrist and the Muslim Mahdi. Today, we get the answer:

There can be no doubt: Muslims are preparing to accept the Mahdi as their leader—and the Mahdi is indistinguishable from the world leader we know as the Antichrist.

Ever since I read Robert Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins I have been convinced that the "god" who inspired these verses was not the God of Creation, the God that Christians and Jews worship, the God that gave Moses the Ten Commandments. No, the "god" that Muslims swear allegiance to is the Devil, by whatever name he goes by. Note that our God does not need us to kill for him, indeed instructs us not to do it. Our God does not need us to pray to him, rather it is we who need to pray, and He does answer our prayers. Indeed, the All Powerful, Omnipotent One does not need anything from us, but He desires to have a relationship with us, personally, one on one. Jesus directed that we pray silently, and in privacy. The Muslim god demands they pray publicly five times a day. The Muslim god wants obedience, not relationship. Allah demands "Worship me, or I will have my minions kill you!"  Notice the differences in the message here?

Ultimately, God's will will be accomplished.  I control nothing.  All I know is that my God cares for me, and if he can care about me, he can care for anyone.  If you are thinking of converting to Islam, think about it.

SWATing because GUN!

According to an article by Charles C. W. Cooke in National Review Online, this is what our anti-gun fellow citizens are thinking, and apparently actually doing:

‘You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.” So wrote Twitter user “Little Black Dog” on September 13 of this year.

The injunction was a particularly colorful one, but the idea behind it, alas, is not as uncommon as one might wish. “I see you #opencarry with a gun in public,” a man named “joe villa” threatened earlier this week, “i’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.” A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

or this:

Reacting to a photograph of a man standing at a checkout with a handgun holstered upon his hip, mom-who-demands-action Joyce Ward asks, “Why weren’t the police called immediately?” And “why,” Ward continues, “wasn’t he shot by the police for having a weapon”? Fellow poster Lisa McLogan Shaheen has a similar inquiry, wondering, “Why hasn’t someone called 911 so the cops can gun him down?”

This sort of reaction is the reason I choose to carry concealed. These people are advocating murder by proxy, in this case using the police as a murder squad. These men, or women, were not threatening anyone, merely publicly carrying a weapon, which is not a crime, and actually shows good common sense. But I choose instead to emulate the cat.  After all, a cat has sharp claws, capable of rending flesh, and with which it can in very short order inflict hundreds of cuts to the body or an opponent. But, the cat usually keeps its claws sheathed. It usually appears to be a harmless fuzzball unless attacked.  On the other hand, people who are advocating SWATing open carriers who are doing nothing wrong are bearing false witness against fellow citizens. Whether the intent is to merely scare them, or to have them "gunned down" as one commenter stated, doing something like this is despicable and revolting.

That said, I sympathize with the Open Carry movement, and share its goals.  The ultimate solution for both concealed carriers and open carriers is to have what has been dubbed Constitutional carry.  Concealed carriers are people who have gone through background criminal checks, been fingerprinted, and taken mandatory State training to obtain a license to practice what should be a Constitutional right.  As such, the government knows if we have guns, and we would likely be the first they came after if, as some have advocated, they decided to confiscate guns.  Not likely in North Carolina at the moment, but things can change.

Some would say that my risks of being killed or seriously injured by criminals, or now we are facing our Muslim brothers as well, are pretty low, to which I say "Thank god."  I would not want to have to shoot someone, and I am the type that tries very hard to avoid conflicts which might erupt and put me in these situations.  I carry my weapon as insurance. You have insurance on your car, right?  Do you intend to get into an accident?  You have health insurance, right?  Do you intend to get sick?  You have life insurance, right?  Do you intend to die prematurely?  The issue of carrying a gun for protection is an emotional one for many people, but for me it comes down to risk, and I evaluate those risks as small, but not small enough to ignore.

Further, using Leftist words against obvious Leftist, who are you to judge?  If a single mom with small children has been attacked in her home by a crazed ex, I will not find fault with her carrying all day, every day, whether at home or abroad.  If a guy has a job that sometimes takes him to a sketchy neighborhood, I certainly understand why he might want to carry a gun with him.  Would you rather that such neighborhoods receive no service because a few drug gangs set up shop there?  You meet all sorts out in public, of whose background and situation you are totally unaware.  Perhaps the guy you just SWATed is an off duty police officer buying groceries for his family.

The open-carry movement can at times be needlessly provocative, unforgivably impolite, and depressingly counter-productive. Mom’s Demand Action’s mawkish and narcissistic hoplophobia to one side, I share the concern of those who feel that some advocates of the right to bear arms have traded justifiable concern regarding the integrity of their rights for gratuitousness, confrontation, and vanity. Nevertheless, there are constructive and there are disastrous ways of establishing social and legal bright lines, and the proposals that are simmering around the gun-control movement’s fringes fall decidedly into the latter camp. Having been widely chastised for their stupidity, both “Little Black Dog” and “joe villa” removed their boorish warnings and slunk, chastened, back into their festering holes. Their friendlier allies at MDA and beyond would do well to follow suit, politely advising the hotheads that this really isn’t a game.

Exactly.

Anniversary of Restaurant Carry

Yesterday was the 1 year anniversary of being able to carry our weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol. HB 937 became law effective 1 October 2013, which law also permitted carrying at funerals and parades, venues that charge admission, and on school property when you are picking up your child.  Ammoland has published the story here. Of course, you still can not carry in a restaurant serving alcohol if you are drinking, but if not, then you are permitted.  I have often noted that most of the people eating in typical establishments that serve alcohol are in fact drinking the National Drink of North Carolina, sweetened iced tea.  Mrs. Polykahr and I went out last night to a casual dining facility, where Mrs. Polykahr had our National Drink, and I had water with a twist of lemon.  I was armed.

Readers may remember the editorials excoriating legislators for even considering this expansion of concealed carry, claiming alcohol and bars just don't mix.  To the argument that the law did not permit a person to be standing at the bar ordering drinks while armed, some made the ridiculous claim that even so, some drunken fool would just grab your gun and start shooting up the place.  That claim was easily shown to be specious.  After all, your weapon is concealed, right?  But, nonetheless we were treated to editorials claiming blood would be running in the aisle of North Carolina restaurants.  Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee had all passed similar laws previously, and there was no uptick in crime as a result.

So, after a year, how many incidence of concealed carriers committing crimes in bars and restaurants have occurred?  According to Grass Roots North Carolina, the number is: zero, zilch, nada.  Just as we all predicted.

Rational Solutions

I read an interesting article recently in Concealed Carry magazine, Volume 11, Issue 6, August/September 2014 entitled What Have We Learned About School Shooters by Michael Martin. Sorry, I don't have a link. I read the (horrors) paper version. In the article, Mr. Martin took apart several of the so called solutions offered by the anti gun crowd to school shootings in particular, and mass public shootings in general, by analysing actual statistics from each.

One such solution is to limit legal magazine capacity to variously 5,or 10 rounds.  Martin decided to test whether limits on magazines would have any affect on the outcome. He used live fire tests, shooting at a conservative rate of fire of 2 rounds per second, with magazine changes as required, and came up with the amount of rounds fired in one minute for magazines containing 5, 10, and 30 rounds. He then compared the actual rounds fired for a given shooting incident, and the time the event lasted, and found that all were well below the rates of fire achievable with even a 5 round magazine. His conclusion was that limiting magazine capacity has no effect on the number of people killed or injured in a school shooting.

Martins work confirmed in my mind that the goal of limiting magazine capacity was for reasons other than to solve the school shooting problem.  As soon as news of another school shooting appeared on the wires, hysterical people, most of whom wouldn't know which end of a gun to point at the target, began crying that if only the shooter had less rounds, the damage would have been limited.  The numbers touted by the antis seem to be grabbed out of thin air and have always struck me as more of a marker. If they can limit magazine capacity at all, they can then squeeze the number down later. The point is to get the precedent into law.

He then look at time the killers had without armed intervention to see if that affected the outcome.  He notes that in the case of the Aurora theater shootings, the first 911 call was made within 90 seconds, and the police  arrived in record time, but the killer still had 9 minutes during which to shoot victims unimpeded by anyone with gun to stop him.  Ft. Hood represents a similar situation.  Although a military base, with many guns on base, those guns are locked in an armory, and the base is essentially a gun free zone.  The Ft. Hood killer had 10 minutes to kill anyone he could find, before station security forces were able to respond, and bring him down.

So what is the rational solution, if limiting magazine capacity is not it?  Martin thinks, as do I, that eliminating the legally required "gun free zones" is at least a major part of the answer.  He notes that the Aurora theater killer passed up a number of movie theaters closer to his home that were showing the same movie that night. Instead he chose the Aurora theater.  What is so special about that theater?  Well, the one difference was that the Aurora theater had a no guns sign on the door, and the others did not.

The law is fundamentally based on a belief system.  People generally obey that law either because that believe that doing so protects everyone, or they believe that the potential penalties present too great a risks to their life or liberty should they get caught (I sadly suspect that more people fall into the later category than into the former.)  Moreover, having effective enforcement of a law ensures compliance by all but the most hardened criminals.  So, if you want to declare that schools must be gun free, then you have to treat them like a court house, with armed security roaming the hallways, and manning magnetometers at each entrance.  And while that level of security would pretty much kill the "atmosphere for learning" so touted by educators, nothing less ensures the facility is truly gun free.  Short of that, the law becomes a paper tiger that only the law abiding take notice of.  Yet, the law abiding person can walk through  the school carrying a loaded BAR and no body would get shot.

Mr. Bloomberg's latest attempt to eliminate guns is variously "Every town for Gun Safety" and "Moms demand action on guns."  The Demanding Moms go about the country harassing business large and small demanding that guns not be allowed on their property.  They have managed to elicit luke warm responses from Starbucks and Target which amount to a plea that guns be left out of their stores.  The latest target is Kroger, which chain seems to be holding the line.  Good on them.  These Demanding Moms claim a "right" not to be around anyone who happens to be carrying a gun, whether they know it or not.  They are so sure of that "right," they even have put up "no guns" signs even when the business turned them down, because they no better what the business owners interests are than the business owner does.  What many business owners have concluded is that their best defense against liability claims is to follow state laws.  Otherwise, the only way to enforce a no guns sign is to have armed guards manning magnetometers at the entrance.  Somehow, I don't feel very much like eating in a prison, do you?

Interestingly, I agree with the Demanding Moms in this:  that they, their children, and everybody else should be able to walk everywhere they want in complete safety.  But that vision is of a perfect world, not the world we have.  The world we have is messy, and not everyone plays by the rules.  Shocking, I know.  But, how I choose to deal with reality should be of no concern to anyone else.

Targeting Target Stores

A hat tip to David Codrea at the War on Guns for pointing me to this article at the Inquisitr.com website entitled Target's Gun Ban has Unexpected Results as Assailants Attack Store's Unarmed Customers.  I take no joy from this, and feel no sense of schadenfreude.

 I guess the first thing to note is that Target didn't really issue a ban. Instead, it issued a request that folks leave their guns at home when shopping at Target stores. Is that a ban? In one sense it might as well be, if concealed carriers choose to honor the request. For myself, if a friend of mine asked me not to carry in his home, because I valued that person's friendship, I would certainly honor that request, though I would also have to question whether that friend valued my friendship as much as I valued his. But I don't have "friendships" with giant corporations.

If you are watching only the MSM news, and you are of a criminal mindset, you didn't get that nuanced message that Target issued. Instead, what you heard was that Target stores are now a target rich environment of unarmed victims with money to spend and merchandise free for the taking. Everything that is happening at stores in the Atlanta area was fully predictable.  I think the word "Unexpected" in the title of this piece is therefore a little naive.

That the Demanding Moms would hail the statement made by Target as a victory for their cause was absolutely predictable.  That the mostly anti gun media would trumpet it as a victory for "common sense" gun control was equally predictable.  Target's message was essentially that Target stores want to sell stuff, and stay out of the fray over guns.  Instead, what they got was customers being robbed at gun point by armed predators.

The lesson in this, for those who may be looking for lessons, is that nobody can give in to, or attempt to appease anyone who is shrieking at them.  And the Demanding Moms are definitely a small, AstroTurf, group of shrieking harridans, funded by Micheal Bloomberg.  They do not represent any one's actual customers, but instead represent Michael Bloomberg.  The ploy of shrieking at the current target is to get him to do what they want, and not to think about it.  If he thought about it, he would probably have come to the conclusion that the status quo ante was the best policy. But by raising a ruckus, they hope to stampede him into doing something that is  not necessarily in his best interest.  Contrary to what you may have heard or read, the State legislatures in every State that passed "Shall Issue" laws debated the topic ad nauseum and passed them because these laws are the most fair, and protective to everyone involved. And having a policy that defers to State law is probably best for most businesses.
/>

The NSA Spying Program, and What it Means to Americans

Jacob Sullum has a good article today on the NSA's spying program under Section 702 of the Patriot act. You can find it at Townhall.com at The mass online dragnet warrantless surveillance hits the target, along with many other people. Sullam ends his article thusly:

According to the Obama administration, all this is old news and no big deal. "These reports simply discuss the kind of incidental interception of communications that we have always said takes place under Section 702," Robert Litt, general counsel to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told The New York Times on Sunday. "The most that you could conclude from these news reports is that each valid foreign intelligence target talks to an average of nine people."

If the mass collection of sensitive information about law-abiding people is to be expected, as my Reason colleague Scott Shackford observes, it is not really accurate to say it happens "inadvertently" or "not wittingly," as Clapper put it in congressional testimony last year. When such a wholesale invasion of privacy is the inevitable and predictable result of certain intelligence methods, choosing to use those methods means you are doing it on purpose.

Indeed.

The program may, or may not be effective at stopping terrorism.  I personally suspect it is not.  Finding the true terrorists in a sea of ordinary Americans is like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.  But, in any case, the debate about the NSA spying on Americans comes down to deciding whether as a nation we value liberty, or a smothering all protective government.  For there can be no true safety.  Our government can smother us with "love," but it can not guarantee our safety.  Put in such stark reality, I'll take the liberty to defend myself, thank you.

Happy 4th of July

It's the 4th of July, and if you are a fan of the 1911 pistol, as I am, Townhall.com has a great piece on the history and the continuing popularity of a pistol design that is now 103 years old. You can find the story at The 1911 Pistol by Mark Kakkuri.  In saying I am a fan of the 1911, I am not disparaging Glocks, Barettas, or any of the other polymer framed pistols.  I have fired Glock 9mms, the Springfield XD 45, and of  course, the Kahr PM 9.  All of these are fine, reliable, and accurate pistols that go bang every time you pull the trigger.  They will take a beating, as the old Timex commercials used to say, and keep on ticking.  But for all the reasons mentioned in this article, the 1911 is the gun I shoot best, and most of the time its the one I carry.  And modern 1911s have become just as reliable and accurate as the wonder nines. Still, the 1911 is a tool, and like other tools, is designed for a specific purpose, and compromises were made in its design that render it unsuitable in most other situations. I carry my 1911, but pray I will never encounter a need for it.

Target Stores Want to be Left Alone

While reading today, I discovered that the Target chain of stores had declared itself off limits to guns. Mrs. PolyKahr likes to shop at Target, and occasionally drags me into the store as well. So, I grumbled, "another place where I have to take my gun out of the holster, secure it in the car, before going into the store. Great."

But not so fast. It seems that Target took a neutral stance. Dave Workman has the actual statement made by Target stores interim CEO, John Mulligan at the Examiner site Did Target Really Accede to Moms Demand Social Prejudice?.  In essence, Target said to follow the law, but we would appreciate if you left your long guns when you come into the store.  It is hard to argue with that.

The old saying that you can "catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is still true today. Sure, you can be shrill, confrontational, and insistent that YOUR rights be respected. Or, you can go through this world with a smile on your face, having patience and understanding for you fellow man, and respecting the rights of others as much as you expect them to respect yours. Frankly, my first reaction to the Demanding Moms is that the group is shrill, and suffers from selfishness and carries an ego driven message which can tolerate no other point of view. Even if I were not a gun rights advocate, I would be repelled by their antics, and I am sure many store and restaurant owners are equally repelled.

My advice, for what it may be worth, is to take the opposite approach from that of the Demanding Moms.  If you are as old as I am, you have seen, and experienced the loss of freedoms in the country.  I can remember a time when everything you think and do was not a matter for public debate at the national level.  We do not live today in the United States I was born into.  Realizing this can make you angry, and righteous anger can make you take counterproductive actions.  The gun rights community can do what it wants, of course, and it will, but think hard before baring your teeth.  You will probably make more allies that way.

If you thought Demanding Moms were "teched," you may have been right

If you have ever thought that such leftists quests as "gun control" and "climate change" were...well...sort of neurotic,if not down right crazy (a technical term), you may have been on to something. Jeffrey T. Brown has an article today over at the American Thinker that makes that very case entitled Zero Tolerance, Evil Objects, and the Psychosis of the Left. And, if polls are to be believed, at least half of the population is like this, though I discount that fact. On guns, for instance, 55% want less strict gun control according to a Gallup poll, as reported by Katie Pavlich here. Still, 55% of the population that has figured out that guns do not just leap out of holsters and start shooting people on their own is a deplorably low percentage. That these people are immune to facts and logic, and can not largely be convinced by such is unfortunate. In any case, go read the article.

The Washington Times is just Noticing the Demanding Moms

A recent piece appearing in the Washington Times breathlessly tells readers that the gun grabbers have a new tack, to wit: Gun control groups turn to private sector to push crackdowns. I say "Hallelujah!" At last they understand what they are supposed to be doing, having supposedly given up on their favorite methods, namely getting government to make it illegal, or finding a judge who agrees with them to "reinterpret" the Constitution into saying what they want. They have tried suing gun manufacturers for the acts of third parties.  They have in some cases gotten legislatures to make concealed carry so onerous as to be impossible in practice.  Ultimately, these fail because when shown the truth, most people do not agree with them.  But if they can get a Starbucks or a Staples to post their stores as gun free zones, more power to them. A private business owner is the ONLY legitimate person to decide what patrons that business will serve.  We can equally point out to the management that as legal gun owners and carriers, we will not shop where we are not wanted, but will instead send our business to their competition.  it is up to them to decide.

For many years, North Carolina had a law on the books that a concealed carrier of a handgun could not carry into restaurants that served alcohol, despite a law that also said that a concealed carrier could not consume alcohol while carrying.  Interestingly, one could carry into restaurants that did not serve alcohol, yet such restaurants were not posted against carrying.  I am sure many concealed carriers went into such restaurants, many of which are fast food type places that attract parents with children in tow, but there were never any incidents due to concealed carriers.  They come in, like anybody else, order, eat, and leave.  The same with Staples, or Wal Mart, or indeed almost any other business enterprise.  There have been armed robberies of such restaurants, but these are usually committed by people who have a record of ruthlessly breaking the law, and thus can not legally possess guns anyway.  If a person is willing to obtain a firearm illegally, and intends to commit a crime (also illegal, in case anyone was wondering) do you really think he is going to be deterred by a gun free zone sign on the door?

Now that North Carolina has stricken the provision about restaurants that serve alcohol from the books, a group called 'Moms Demand Gun Bans er... Action' is suddenly trying to get businesses to post their businesses as gun free zones.  Fine.  Let them try.  But be warned that most businessmen and women will weigh the advantages and disadvantages to such demands, and will likely decide that going with State law is a good defense against potential lawsuits, not to mention that concealed carriers tend to be good customers.  Oh, and note to the Moms:  if a business doesn't give into your demands, please don't decide to post a "No Guns" sign on their door anyway.  That would be considered vandalism, a crime in itself.

Connecticut Police In A Squeeze

There are certain commentators that I like, and return to time and time again, because they often pose ideas in ways that force me to think about them again. Selwyn Duke is one such writer, and this week's American Thinker piece entitled Cop: I'd love to bang down your door and come for your guns is one intended to get police officers in Connecticut, who may be called upon to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, to think about where they draw the line in the sand.  I first confronted that question years ago when gun writers of all stripes began to see the outlines of a totalitarian state forming here at home.  As always seems to be the case,   those who first alerted us all to the danger were derided as kooks and John Birchers, but as time has gone on, a substantial minority has awakened to the reality of our position.

Duke makes the point that mindlessly saying that "Others make the law, I only enforce it" doesn't really cut it.  He alludes to the Nazi genocide, without saying as much, and to the Nuremberg trials, where following orders was not enough to save many defendants. Duke points out that by using discretion on whether or not to enforce things like traffic laws, you have made clear that you can decide to not enforce certain laws.  The question becomes which laws will you enforce, and why?  Duke writes:

Even good people can live lives of contradiction and entertain ideas that simply aren’t true. For instance, if you’re a cop, it’s easy to justify an action by saying that your job is only to enforce the law, especially since, on paper, this is certainly so. But the implication that you enforce every law, across the board, every time, without discretion is absolutely untrue and you, I and everyone else knows it. You don’t ticket everyone driving 31 in a 30 zone, and many times even more egregious law-breakers get off with a warning. Some laws aren’t applied at all, such as a parking law in my town an officer told me was on the books but that “we don’t enforce.” You use discretion all the time.

As for legislation such as Connecticut’s new gun restrictions, ask yourself this question, guys: If I caught my brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter with some legally acquired but now illegal 30-round magazines in his car trunk, would I slap him in cuffs, haul him in and put him in the system? Let’s face it, you know the answer. And, well, the person you would haul in and arrest for this newly minted “crime” would be someone else’s brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter. Of course, this argument could justify refusal to enforce most any law, since family will virtually always receive special treatment. So is there a sound rationale for refusing to enforce a law across the board?

Any sane person agrees that no one can simply follow orders blindly, that, at some point, a command itself can become criminal in the moral sense. For instance, would you enforce a law stating that all members of a certain racial or ethnic group were to be rounded up for extermination? Yes, this is an extreme example, and I don’t pretend that the new Second Amendment violations even approach such wickedness. The point, however, is that everyone draws a line -- it’s just a question of where. And I’d certainly hope that you, my friends in law enforcement, would take a stand somewhere below genocide.

Of course, that leaves the person who decides not to enforce an unconstitutional law in a quandary. If one enforces such laws, in the short term there will be no consequences, but in the long term there may be serious consequences, as the defendants at Nuremberg discovered. If one chooses not to enforce such a law, against explicit orders to do so, one may be disciplined or fired. One may then find it difficult to obtain work to maintain one's family. As Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." Many of the founders lost their fortunes, and even their lives, in the struggle, yet were ultimately vindicated.

Leaving aside those people who know the Constitution, and what the Founders meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, there are people who are genuinely confused about the true intent of the amendment.  I sympathize with such people, but at the same time, the writings of George Mason and others make abundantly clear that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure the people had access to, and possession of the small arms commonly in use by the armed forces of the our nation.  This today would mean fully automatic, select fire weapons, not semi auto look alikes with a limited 10 round magazine.  The standard capacity of even many handguns used by police for personal defense exceeds the 10 round limit imposed by the law.  The ruse used to impose these new restrictions is that it would make crimes less lethal.  But there is no evidence that this is true, and much evidence that more liberal gun laws are actually more protective of the public.

I can offer no rational way for you to decide whether or not to participate in rounding up peoples' property.  My only advice is to let go and let God, if you believe in a higher power than the State. Your legislature has forced you to take sides, and you are in the thick of it. You obviously want to be on the right side, the winning side. I understand.  Unfortunately, the two may not coincide. Again, I urge you to pray on it, leave it up to God, and do whatever he says is the next right thing.

The Democrats Iron Gauntlet

Today at the American Thinker today there is an article I hope readers will pay attention to entitled Democrats Unleash the IRS Tyrant by Karin McQuillan.

McQuillan is correct about Republicans slow rolling this.  Speaker Boehner and the "Republican establishment," I am convinced, do not like conservatives or TEA party types any more than their Democrat friends.  They are embarrassed by conservatives and conservative ideas, and their TEA party members have embarrassed them by breaking ranks and going a different way on some major issues.  The TEA party has forced the Republicans to show some backbone, and they don't like the mocking that the Senate Majority Leader delivers from the Senate floor; a place where he is immune from slander charges for his outrageous lies. The main difference between the Democrats and the Republican establishment seems to be that the Democrats want the iron gauntlet of fascism around the necks of the common citizen, the Republican establishment want the iron glove to be covered by velvet.  If there is any other difference, I have yet to see it.

Connecticut Gun Owners to Gun Grabbers, "Molon Labe"

According to Michael Schaus of Townhall.com, Connecticut gun owners are saying Molon Labe-Come and Get Them. Schaus:

Lawmakers in Connecticut have already threatened current gun owners with confiscation in accordance with the new regulation requirements. And despite a fraction of state gun owners deciding to comply with intrusive registration requirements, the Governor has accelerated his anti-gun rhetoric. (Colorado voters decided to hold recall elections… Connecticut gun owners have decided to take the Barack Obama approach: Ignore inconvenient laws.) Letters have been sent to “known gun owners” demanding registration, or the surrender of their “assault weapons”. The birth place of the Constitution, it turns out, is still home to armed students of human liberty.

Despite the strong rhetoric, and threatened legal action, citizens have remained stunningly unphased by the authoritarian nature of Connecticut’s gun registration scheme. In fact, Connecticut Carry (a decidedly pro-Second Amendment group) has even gone so far as to challenge the state to go door-to-door: Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision:

Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.

The gun grabbing legislature and the Governor's office in Connecticut have forgotten the basic rules for making sound laws: if you want the people to comply, they must first agree to the laws. Mike Vanderboegh explains it better than I have in this video. In this case, the people affected, gun owners, did not agree. The gun grabbers were operating on the premise that each owner of a banned gun would feel isolated and alone, and would not risk the personal loss of family and fortune that a Class D felony would entail by resisting the law. But something happened the gun grabbers did not expect. One of their own, Al Gore, invented something called the Internet, which allows like minded people to communicate with each other over vast distances, compare notes, and devise strategy. Then, another one of their own, Barack Obama, decided that the law doesn't matter. As President, he has flouted the law, or changed it to suit his purposes, at will. Unfortunately, when a sitting President does such things, it sends the signal that law doesn't mean much. It empowers the People to define those laws they will choose to obey, and those they will choose to ignore also. By choosing to obey only those laws that are convenient or expedient, or worse, choosing to outright flout the law as written by the legislature, the President has created a state of lawlessness, in which any citizen can be brought before the courts at any time he or she becomes troublesome, and put in jail or worse.  Some courts have been so anxious to serve an agenda that their court rooms have become little more than kangaroo courts rubber stamping the tyrants line.  Meanwhile, gun owners who are defying the Connecticut law are obeying the Constitution-the highest law in the land.  Thus, gun owners, not the State, are standing on the moral high ground in this case.

Now, why do I call the Connecticut legislature and Governor gun grabbers? Because their real goal is to ban all guns in their State. Of course, were they to write such a law, the people as a whole might revolt. Even people that do not own guns are sympathetic to owning them. Some harbor a desire to own them, but their spouses have put their feet down on the subject. Others have a live and let live attitude, and as long as their neighbors guns don't interfere in their lives, they could not care less. More, with the nationwide broadcast of every aspect of the Zimmerman trial, a lot of people became sympathetic with Zimmerman, feeling that he was being railroaded by progressives who made fools of themselves and the law on nationwide television.  They became vaguely aware that guns save lives.  So, the gun grabbers strategy was to narrow down the list of guns to a small enough minority of gun owners, that they might get the hunting crowd to say "Take their guns, just don't take my deer rifle." The urban carrier might think "They will never take my handgun. So what if they take those nutcases' guns."  In this way, they hoped to divide and conquer, pitting one group of gun owners against another. I hope we all have learned that if one gun owner is attacked, we are all attacked, and will respond appropriately:

Molon Labe: Come and take them!

Second Amendment Victories, and Gun Owners Showing some Spine

While Dave Hardy had it first at his Of Arms and the Law blog last night, I could not access the opinion to read it. Katie Pavlich has a more accessible piece over at Townhall.com today. The title says it all: Second Amendment Victory: Liberal Court Rules Unconstitutional for Government to Restrict Concealed Carry Permits based on "Need."

I have dubbed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the "Ninth Circus" because the "reasoning" coming out of their opinions is often head spinning. This is a major victory for California gun owners. This ruling is likely to be appealed, and since we have conflicting rulings from other courts, will end up in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in Connecticut, it seems that that tens of thousands of gun owners decided to flout the recent "assault weapon" registration requirement. Hot Air has the story here. I don't envy these people, for surely they have had to make a calculations of the risks of getting caught versus the risk of having their defensive weapon confiscated without a fight. Not knowing whether or not their calculations were correct must cause pain and stress.  But it is good that Connecticut gun owners are showing some spine. Mike Lawlor now has to decide how far he is willing to go to enforce the law, how much he is willing to rile the populations to achieve its goals, which, BTW, have nothing to do with stopping another Sandy Hook school shooting.  But now the political class knows exactly how far they can take the war on guns.  Connecticut gun owners are saying, like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae "Come and take them!"

A War on Your Freedom

As has often been mentioned by numerous gun writers, the Second Amendment exists primarily to allow citizens to be armed and trained in the use of weapons as a deterrent to both foreign and domestic enemies who would overthrow the Constitutional government.  The implication is that citizens should have access to the same small arms carried by our armed forces.  In other words, fully automatic weapons like the M16 and the M4.  But when it is our own government which is defying the Constitution, and thus overthrowing the government, it does become trickier.  Leftists are fond of saying that the Founding Fathers never envisioned so-called "assault weapons," but what they really never envisioned was that the Constitutional government would be undermined by elected officials within the government.  But that is what is happening, and a major front in the battle to save the republic is an ongoing war on guns.  William Levinson writes about the war being waged at the American Thinker in an article entitled Gun Control: A War, not a Conversation on February 6, 2014.

 Levinson cites the many ways in which the current crop of gun control laws are in fact a war on guns, and on gun owners. These new laws attempt to delegitimize the bearing of arms by making possession of classes of weapons illegal, and those possessing them criminal.  What was legal yesterday has become illegal today.  In New York today, a handgun that carries 10 rounds of 9mm ammunition is a legal self defense weapon, but a similar handgun that carries 11 rounds of the same ammunition illegal.  There is no sense to such a thing, other than to wage a war on guns and gun owners, and further restrict the type of weapons civilians can own.   Noteably, police officers are exempt from such silly rules.

Gun owners have become the new Jews, the scapegoated minority that took the blame for the country's difficulties in Nazi Germany.  The nasty cartoons and articles demonizing gun owners as somehow sanctioning the murders of children by our refusal to give up our guns insults each and every peacefully armed citizen.  The use of the National Rifle Association as a stand in for the "gun lobby" resemble again the propaganda that was run against the Jews in Nazi Germany.  Lest you think that the anti-gun crowd is made up of mere citizens upset at the murders that seem to continually take place, please note that the fact that the NRA is cited so often as an enemy of the anti-gun crowd is due to the Saul Alinski's Rule 13 "Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." The facts do not matter.  The truth does not matter. The only thing that matters is the goal of disarming the American people. Levinson also points out the many other ways the war in being waged, including blitzkrieg legislation, military grade propaganda, and incrimentalism.  Yes, other writers have remarked on any number of these methods, but none has framed them in terms of the debate we are supposed to be having.

After the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Heller, and the Left began its drum beat for a "national conversation on guns," I commented that we had been having a national conversation since the 1950s. Arguably, we have really been having the conversation since the 1930s, with the passage of the National Firearms Act, making fully automatic weapons effectively out of reach of the average man. Heller settled the issue by deciding that the Second Amendment meant that Americans can have weapons, at least at home. McDonald extended that to possession of arms outside the home.  The Constitutional side in the war on guns won that particular battle.  But the Left never gives up, and the current crop of gun control laws illustrates that fact very clearly.

Unfortunately, the Constitutionalists side in this war has never understood it as a war.  Understand, the Jews could not have had a meaningful conversation with the Nazis about differences.  The Nazis were determined to kill them, and either the Jews had to fight back, flee the country, or be killed.  There was no compromise.  Similarly today, there is no compromise with radical Islam.  They are determined to kill us, and the only reason to understand them is to live rent free in their heads in order to fight back.  Gun owners must adopt guerrilla tactics of their own if we hope to win the war on guns.  Failure to do so...

Update:  Bob Barr has an article up at Townhall.com entitled Another Federal Court Undermines the Second Amendment today. It illustrates the war being waged on all fronts. Bob Barr:

Ever since the 2008 Heller opinion (and the companion, 2010 Chicago v. McDonald decision), liberal judges and anti-gun state and local government officials have been fashioning ways to undercut and subvert the ability of citizen to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That’s why Alan Gura, the prominent Second Amendment lawyer who argued both Heller and McDonald, has stayed so busy since 2008. “It's nice that the Supreme Court declared we enjoy a fundamental individual right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean much if they allow lower courts to rubber stamp any infringement of the right,” says Gura. “It's not the judiciary's role to 'defer' to the legislature's alleged wisdom and expertise. It's the judiciary's role to guard our rights and enforce the constitution.”