Thursday, January 31, 2019

Look at poor Venezuela

I will admit when reading the news, or listening to yet another Leftist spewing lies, that I often feel as though my efforts have no effect, and I should just pack it in, and hope I do not live to see the day this country becomes a great big Venezuela.

As for Leftist lying, go read The Safest Bet: Assume the Left Is Lying by Trevor Thomas at the American Thinker today. Whether they are lying about abortion, or climate change, or guns, it is a safe bet they are lying. The truth usually wins out in the end, but it usually also requires a great deal of tragedy before that happens. See Venezuela for the latest example.

Yet, I am also often reminded about having faith, and that because of that faith, I need to proceed with doing what I am doing, even though I do not see the results myself.  St. Paul put it like this, from 1 Corintians Chapter 3, verse 6 "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."  And so, I continue in faith that I may say the thing that turns another to faith in Him.

So, as Rush point out yesterday, we continue to educate one person at a time.  It is therefore fitting that I also point you, dear reader to Bearing Arms where Tom Knighton points out Why Combating Ignorance is Vital to Pro-gun Efforts. Knighton becomes discouraged reading letters to the editor from people who should be on our side, but who, for whatever reason, choose to side with the gun grabbers in hopes, one supposes, of being eaten last. After reading a letter written by a poor gentleman thinks that his revolver should be okay, but a semiautomatic is not. Knighton writes:
The idea that some guns are “offensive” and others are “defensive” is popular in Fudd circles, to be sure. There are those who believe that at some point, a gun becomes less of a tool for self-defense and more of one for villainy. But that’s just stupid.
And here is why. Guns are tools. Just as a chainsaw can be misused and cut off an arm or a leg, so can a gun be misused. Just as a table saw can cut off a finger, so a gun can accidentally injure or kill. Guns are just tools, no more and no less. Whether a gun is used offensively or defensively is not a function of the gun itself, but a function of the intent of the user. If the users intent is offensive, certain weapons may be chosen which will enhance his efforts, but those same weapons may also be utilized by the side defending itself.

Why would want less effective weapons when one is defending his or her life? Yet that is what this poor gentleman is arguing for. "Give me a less effective weapon, because I WANT to die." He apparently thinks a revolver is "enough." Well, good for him.  But why should his measure of "enough" be enough for everyone else?  Doesn't each individual get to evaluate his or her own level of risk? If not, why not? I do not doubt that someone in the public eye may need to carry himself, and have armed security to boot. Further, I don't begrudge him. My only complaint is when these people (Michael Bloomberg I am looking at you) try to take away my guns while hypocritically keeping theirs.

 Here is the bottom line, if you could magically fix the people, we wouldn't have need of guns. But since neither one of us can fix the people, and since even if you could rid yourself of guns, there would still be knives, screw drivers, hammers, fists, feet and rocks, lets keep our guns. There will be no heaven on earth. That awaits the second coming of Christ, when "swords shall be beaten into plowshares..." Meanwhile, if you impose gun control, you will enable a lot of hell on earth.

 Look at poor Venezuela.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Why You Should Support A Fully Developed Second Amendment

Tom Knighton today at Bearing Arms makes the point that rather than having one party looking to repeal the Second Amendment, it should be treasured by all Americans as the guardian of all our other liberties, and a direct threat to tyranny in Why The Second Amendment Should Be Considered a National Treasure. Knighton is not the first to note this either. No less a sage than St. George Tucker, writing in Blackstone's Commentary that the Second Amendment was the "true palladium of liberty," is a good example.  Tucker was writing in 1803 and his Blackstone's Commentary was highly influential on legal thinking throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.    But a number of the founding fathers also made that point, including George Mason.

Knighton believes that the Second Amendment should not be a Left vs. Right issue, or a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It should be a universally supported issue, because as we have seen, one party then another takes the reigns of government. No one wants to be herded into concentration camps because the current head of government doesn't like us. So, Knighton seems to be puzzled:
The Second Amendment is anything but a relic of a bygone era. It’s an integral part of the American fabric, one that should be embraced because it serves no master. Preserving it shouldn’t be a conservative or libertarian issue, but an American one. Yes, liberals should support and embrace it as well. Feminists should see the armed woman as empowered and the equal of any male predator. Those who think Trump is “literally Hitler” should embrace the Second Amendment as their great hope, their way to make sure he doesn’t create death camps or whatever.
It should be a universally supported position. More than that, it should be considered a national treasure, the ultimate insurance policy for liberty anywhere in the world.
Let me take a stab at dispelling the seeming paradox of having one party, the Democrats, on the side of restricting our gun rights, ultimately either repealing the Second Amendment, or making it irrelevant.

At least since the Civil War, the Democrat party has been about controlling people. In the South, after the war, the Democrats created laws that disarmed blacks in particular, but also white Republicans as well. Laws like North Carolina's, that require a person to obtain a permit from the Sheriff's office to purchase a gun were originally part of the black codes known as Jim Crow laws. Fearing the black population, they didn't want to arm that population. The Ku Klux Klan became the militia wing of the Democrat party to put down any unrest, while giving the official wing of the Democrat party plausible deniability.

 Democrats have also sided with the criminal, often romanticizing what is, at heart the ugly business of people taking what they have not earned. In 1911, gun control came North to New York in the form of the Sullivan Act. People were rightly concerned about the immigrants to New York who were thought to bring a new violence to the city.  But New York had long been plagued by gang warfare.  The problem was it was spilling out under the noses of the blue bloods, and they didn't like it.  Sullivan, a state legislator who had ties to criminal gangs came up with a way to disarm potential victims, which became the Sullivan Act, and it just got worse from there.

Disarming the law abiding is what any gun control measure is all about.  Whether it is the government wanting to know where every gun is, and who owns it (as if that is their business) or restricting what may be owned, or telling us where we may not be armed, all gun control is designed to set up a monopoly of violence.  The criminal class will not give up their guns.  No matter how many laws you make, the criminal will find a way to have a gun when they need it.  Think about it.  If they can smuggle drugs into this country, isn't it a simple matter to smuggle weapons as well?   The government is not worried about the criminal class, who generally harass the general public.  What they are worried about, what keeps them up at night, is that the vast majority of law abiding citizens might have as much fire power as they do. 

At the time of the founding, the government only possessed muzzle loading, single shot, muskets, and cannon.  We the people also had the same weapons.  There was, therefore, a balance of firepower on the peoples side, because of our far greater numbers.  However, today the government possesses fully automatic assault weapons, machine guns, tanks, armored vehicles, and so on, while we are "allowed" to possess semiautomatic handguns, semiautomatic rifles, as well as hunting rifles.  There is no balance of firepower, because of the technological advantage.  If we could possess the same weapons today man for man, as the government does today, then there would be the proper balance.  Then we would be safe from tyranny.  As it is...not so much.

All this why you should support a fully developed and expressed Second Amendment, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal of a conservative.  We, the people, must have the firepower necessary to disuade would be tyrants.  Its the only language they understand.

New York State Spits on God Given Life

In ancient, Pre-Christian times, infanticide was common in all societies.  In Greece and Rome, the father would take the new born, and if it appeared weak, or sickly in any way, would leave it out to exposure, which typically resulted in the death of the child.  In many ancient societies in the Near East, the people worshiped the Ba'als, which were fertility rites calling for the sacrifice of children.  But these "religions" had ritual prostitutes, who, when pregnant, would bear the child to term and then lay it out for exposure.  The discovery of 100 infant skeletons under the bath house in Ashkelon, Israel, is a stark reminder that we have been here before.  Indeed, the most famous case of infant exposure is told in the founding of Rome, where brothers Romulus and Remus were left to die, but were raised by wolves instead.

Christians recognized that a child, even an unborn one, is a human being, beloved by God, and therefore to kill that child is murder.  Indeed, it is murder made more foul by the fact that the child can have done nothing wrong, yet.  So, throughout Christendom, it became law that abortion was no longer legal, and places were set up for the care of children who were without parents.  The goal is always to preserve God given life, which is made in the image of God Himself.

Today, at the American Thinker, Avrohom Gordimer has an article on the subject of abortion with respect to the latest New York law entitled New York State Declares War on Life

New York State's Reproductive Health Act, under the guise of progressiveness and liberality, is in truth a regressive act of intolerance toward the state's religious communities. By sanctioning abortions literally until a moment prior to birth, in deference to women’s “right to choose”, and by decriminalizing illegal abortions, Governor Cuomo and his political allies have declared war on human life, which is a reflection of God's image. This brazen offense against Biblical law and values and against millions of New Yorkers who object to the Reproductive Health Act's radical message speaks volumes about the state government's respect for faith and human life.
The hypocrisy is biting. Progressive politics is used to serve special, liberal interests, whereas the sensitivities of large religious constituencies in the state who oppose this new law are trampled upon without comment.
But worse is the offense against Biblical morality. New York State has in effect asserted that a woman’s convenience and whim are more important than the life of another. Have any of the politicians who supported this law ever really thought about this, or have they brushed this concern under the carpet in their idolatrous quest to satisfy every senseless progressive goal?
After giving Cuomo and the Democrats in the state legislature what for, Gordimer has much condemnation for the voters of New York. For example, while the majority of voters in New York District 14 are Catholic, they nonetheless sent Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress to represent them. His point is that if these Catholic Christians take their faith remotely seriously, they can not possibly think AOC represents them. They are, therefore committing a sort of civics malpractice.  We get the government we deserve because we do not pay enough attention to the policies those we send to represent us are espousing, and we do not hold their feet to the fire.

This is a sad day for America

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Cycling Your Carry Ammunition

Here is a topic that I have known about for years, yet I do not regularly cycle out my carry ammunition.  The article Out With the Old: Cycling Your EDC Ammo, appeared at Bearing Arms but was originally published at Oh, I try to keep it in mind, and do cycle on an infrequent basis. But do I have it marked on my calendar every six months that I will cycle out my old carry ammunition and replace it with fresh? Unfortunately, the answer is no. But maybe I should set up such a routine.

 If you are like me, you take your carry gun to the range at least once a month, or preferably twice a month if time and finances permit.  In the meantime, you probably do some dry firing at least once a week.  Each time, you take your carry ammo out of the weapon, clear the weapon, then either dry fire, or load range ammo.  While your carry ammunition may cost upward of a dollar to a dollar and a half a round, range ammo is much cheaper, perhaps 20-30 cents a round.  So it makes sense.  However, when you leave the range, or are through dry firing, you then load the same round that was in the chamber before back in as the chambered round, then shove the rest of the magazine into the weapon.  The result is often set back of the bullet in the case.

Set back occurs when a round is slammed into battery by the action of the recoil spring.  It is a small amount, and if the round is immediately fired, there is not a safety issue.  However, if a round is repeatedly ejected and then re chambered again and again under the action of the recoil spring, the setback can become quite noticeable.  The problem is that the pressure inside the cartridge can become excessive, and exceed the pressure allowance of the weapon itself, resulting in what is known as a kaboom.  A kaboom typically destroys the weapon, perhaps injures your hand, and may result in death.  It certainly ruins your range trip.  You don't want a kaboom.

You can cycle your old ammunition several ways.  One is to take all the ammunition out of the magazine in order, replace the top round with the next in line, and reload the magazine, in order.  Or, when you go to the range, take out the magazine, then shoot the chambered round.  When through, you just replace the chambered round.  Or you can shoot off the entire carry ammunition magazine.  When through, put your spare loaded magazine in the weapon.  Load up another spare magazine when you are done cleaning the weapon.  You do carry a spare magazine, right?

However you do it, you need to change out the ammunition you carry every day as protection for your life, and those of your loved ones.  How frequently you do it will depend on many factors.  But it just makes sense to cycle your old ammunition, and after all, once a year isn't too often. 

Monday, January 21, 2019

An M1911 Fan Boy

And now something a little different, but not much.  I want to do a little fan boy piece on the M1911A1 and similar pistols.  To help with that, Bob Campbell has written a valuable contribution to the liturature over at Cheaper than Dirt entitled Winchester's New Win1811 Loads Work Well With Colt 1911. For the true 1911 snob, of course, nothing but Colt will do here. I have neer been a fan of Colt, however, and I consider Kimber, Springfield, Les Baer, as well as imports like Rock Island to be excellent copies of the original John Browning design. Indeed, any of today's 1911 style guns are more accurate, tighter fitting, and have better triggers that the M1911 that entered WWI.

Note for those that will, no doubt, take umbrage that I did not favor their favorite brand of handgun, I have nothing against Glock, Sig, Beretta, Kahr, or indeed, any other brand or style of handgun.  I must confess that the "wonder nines" are indeed wonderful.  Having 15 or 17 rounds at your disposal has a quality all its own.  And I confess that it is a burden to lug around all that steel every day.

Each gun was designed around certain priorities, for which it is eminently suited.  You must make decisions for yourself about what may be your priorities.  I don't question those, as you have to live with them.  I don't.  You may have a lifestyle that demands extremely deep concealment.  There are guns designed around such situations, and I applaud the fact that you carry despite these hardships.  You may have a background in cowboy action shooting such that you are more comfortable shooting a Single Action Army revolver.  Fine, carry it.  Oh, and tell us about your experience in the comments.    

The 1911 style pistol has its detractors, of course.  They will point out, quite truthfully, that 1911s are heavy (typically 38-40 ounces) and have a very limited capacity (typically 7, 8, or 9 rounds.)  They will point out that the weapon requires an extra step to fire it, namely remembering to snick off the safety.  Some will even point to the typical carry method, having the hammer cocked, and the safety on is itself unsafe. (I do not agree with this assessment.  People who say this have an irrational fear that needs to be overcome.) Why, oh why won't these knuckle dragging troglodytes come into the 21st century and learn to love the polymer wonder nines?

To find out, you need to read Bob Campbell's article, which mirror's my own experience with the 1911:

My handgun is a 1911. The term 1911 once meant the Colt Army gun, although now the term encompasses dozens of makers and numerous variations of the 1911 theme. There is no handgun that suits me as well. I have been taken to task as to that choice more than once, and no matter how the argument is planned, or how skillfully the opponent measures his skill at linguistic jousting, he cannot persuade me to feel differently. Every year that goes by reinforces my faith in the 1911 pistol and, in fact, it seems that more and better 1911s are yet to come.
I did not arbitrarily choose the 1911. I did not choose the 1911 because it is a good-looking gun or because it was expected. I recognized the 1911 for what it is. You simply cannot undermine the persuasive evidence in favor of it. If a Smith and Wesson Model 10 .38 Special revolver had been the ne plus ultra of handguns, I would have kept my old, heavy-barrel Military and Police. It was not. The Browning High Power was not, either; the low-bid, polymer-frame guns also are not. The 1911 offers the best combination of fighting pistol attributes of anything I have tested.

The term synergy comes to mind. Synergy is the interaction between elements or forces in a manner that makes the combination of those elements more effective than the individual elements operating separately. While I favor the 1911, I have not avoided firing every other type of handgun. I have gone through case lots of ammunition testing all types of firearms. I do not believe I wasted the ammunition because I learned a great deal about handgun construction and performance.

Handgun geometry is rather simple. The grip has to be comfortable and the controls in ready reach of the digits. The grip should be angled to present the sights toward the target. I discovered the 1911 early in my quest; just the same, I continued to test others. After 40 years, I concluded that nothing equals the 1911 in the important particulars. Few handguns even approach the deadly efficiency of the 1911 in trained hands.
Campbell goes on to explain what he is talking about in more detail before getting into Winchester's new offerings, which I have yet to try. I suspect though, that Winchester has developed a good combination of training ammunition, on the one hand, and carry ammunition on the other. I have, over the years, put thousands of rounds of Winchester 230 grain FMJ in 100 round value packs through a .45 Auto 1911. I have experienced only very rare malfunctions. But the truth is that malfunctions are a fact of life for any weapon system. In my more recent .38 super auto musings, I have found that Winchester Silver Tip ammunition runs smoothly through that weapon, and I like its lower recoil.

While it is possible to improve on the execution of the M1911 pistol, as evidenced by the modern builders who are making remarkably better products than the original, it is pretty hard to beat the design itself.  This is not unprecedented, however.  Like the Mauser M98, that still shows up in modern hunting rifles, John Browning's M1911 is not an old design, but rather a timeless one.

Faith is what counts.

John E. Tutten has an article at the American Thinker today that discusses the Intelligent Design theory as one that is eminently reasonable. Indeed, in Is Religion Anti-Intellectual? he makes the case that belief in the Intelligent Design theory may have more scientific basis, and in fact be more intellectual than not believing. Interestingly, Tutten doesn't call it "intelligent design" perhaps to avoid prejudicing people before they have heard the arguments.

I will ask you to read the whole article.  I will say that many of the people I have noted find intelligent design plausible are engineers, and scientist such as mathematicians and physics practitioners  that observed a growing body of inconsistencies in the established theories.  To take just one, Cosmologists have for years been working to calculate ever closer and closer to the Big Bang.  They know what the universe looked like within a second or so of that event, but they can not "see" what happened before the Big Bang.  What we do know is at the moment of the Big Bang, apparently all the energy and the mass that exists in the universe sprang out of nothing, or a "singularity," which is a fancier way of saying "nothing."

Now, here is a more interesting thing.  There are apparently six variables that must be chosen precisely to achieve the universe we have.  The probability of a random process picking the right number for one of the six variables is very small.  The probability of a random process picking all six numbers correctly becomes so vanishingly small as to resemble impossible.  Oh, of course the probability that the universe came into being as it did through random chances is greater than zero, but even the most incorrigible gambler wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

The original idea that Darwin conceived was that species evolved through  survival of the fittest. As far as it goes, that theory is apparently sound.  The trouble with Darwin's theory is when it is extended to say that one species evolves into another.  If true, the fossil record should be full of so called "missing links."  But there has never been found a missing link.

Of course, Darwin had no idea of the existence of DNA and its role in protein synthesis. Today we know an enormous amount about the genetic code and its role in biological life. We understand what it does, but we have absolutely no idea how such a sophisticated set of instructions and their sequencing could have self-assembled through natural unguided processes. The most brilliant software engineers in the world cannot begin to duplicate the eloquence we see in the DNA code. It clearly displays the earmarks of intelligence to those willing to see.
There are more "coincidences" that ensure the world would be amenable to human habitation at just the right time for humans to come on the planet. But that is not the most important thing. You see, even if there is a justifiable reason to believe in an intelligent creator, that doesn't say anything about the nature of such a creator. That requires faith. One must have faith that God did indeed so love us that he gave his only begotten Son, that those who are baptized and believe in him shall be saved.  That there is an intelligent designer at work in the universe doesn't say that this universe was designed specifically to bring about humans capable of appreciating this act, and having a loving relationship with this creator.  That takes faith.  Faith is what counts.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

How Gun Control Led to Tyrnanny in Venezuela

Tom Knighton has an important post at his blog Bearing Arms entitle Op-ed Examines How Gun Control In Venezuela Led to Tyranny. Knighton's posts at Bearing Arms tend to be short, with few links outside the post itself. This is because Knighton wants to highlight one aspect of the gun rights argument or another. This, however, is wide ranging, as the Left has consistently denied the connection between citizen disarmament and tyranny.  At its base, this is one reason for the Second Amendment.  The founders did not want to give the fledgling government a monopoly of violence in the United States.

Many people have noted that the Nazis took advantage of the registration of guns (and their owners) under the Weimar Republic to confiscate first the weapons owned by Jews. But as they became more tyrannical, more and more people's guns were confiscated. Many gun control advocates point out that the Nazis didn't pass this gun registration.  They are right as far as the go.  The Nazis did not initially pass gun confiscation, but they did indeed take advantage for nefarious purposes the gun control laws naively put in place by the previous government for supposedly innocent purposes.

The wide eyed naivete of the average Venezuelan before the disarmament law came into effect can be seen in this quote from the Fox News link in the article:
“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,” Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

He said it didn’t take long for such a wide-eyed public perception to fall apart. “If guns had been a stronger part of our culture, if there had been a sense of duty for one to protect their individual rights, and as a show of force against a government power – and had legal carry been a common thing – it would have made a huge difference,” he lamented.
This shows the need to stay vigilant, to even be unreasonable when it comes to maintaining our right to weapons for self defense. Please go and read the linked article, but more importantly, go read the linked articles, particularly the Fox News article, which contains a number of primary sources.

Friday, January 18, 2019

Abuse of the Innocent

Rob Morse has a post over at his blog, Slow Facts that challenges the current rush to create so called "Red Flag" laws entitled Red Flag Laws: Public Safety or Abuse of the Innocent. Morse's point is that these laws encourage abuse of the innocent by design. Even if these laws sound reasonable on their face, they will in practice be used by unscrupulous attorneys and anti-gun judges to take away the Second Amendment rights of innocent people, while leaving criminals largely untouched.
They are called Extreme-Risk Protection Orders. Some people call them Red-Flag Gun Confiscation. Whatever you call it, we’re supposed to call the cops and stop a bad man with a gun before he hurts someone. That sounds more like the script from a cop-drama on TV than what happens in real life. In practice, these laws are designed for abuse. We’ve already seen them fail to stop violent crime. We’ve also seen police kill gun owners during early morning Red-Flag raids. At best, innocent individuals have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their rights restored after they’ve been served with a red-flag order.
Is that the unavoidable price of freedom, or is that the bigoted abuse of a disfavored minority for political gain? These gun confiscation laws were proposed so that politicians could get facetime on the news and could increase their campaign contributions. When you read beyond the press releases, you’ll see that these laws are a tax on gun owners..particularly on poor gun owners. We know that violence is a very tough problem to solve and red-flag gun confiscation isn’t the solution.
Morse also makes the point that predicting violent behavior is a tricky thing, and even those whose very job should be to predict whether someone strikes out violently have a poor record in fact:
Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. They have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.
Today, we want a court judge to do the impossible with Red-Flag laws. Your vindictive relative can make a phone call based on a post in social media. You’ll have your firearms no cost to them, but at the cost of tens-of-thousands of dollars to you.. or worse. We’ve already killed gun owners during midnight police raids instigated by a Red-Flag complaint. The dead gun owner had no record of violent or criminal behavior.
Morse writes that these laws are designed for abuse. A gun owner becomes embroiled on the basis of an accusation, which doesn't actually have to be substantiated. Domestic abusers will use red flag laws to disarm their innocent victims. And of course, busy body do gooders who believe they are riding the world of weapons will use these laws to disarm friends and neighbors anonymously. No doubt that may be part of the fun. On the other hand, truly dangerous criminals are unlikely to fall victim to a red falg law because the tend to associate with other criminals. Other criminals, whatever else, understand the need for self defense.

Please read all of Mr. Morse's piece at Slow Facts. You will, I think, see why we are against these laws. There is no way to write this type of law that actually doesn't abuse the innocent.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Surprise! Little Marco Rubio betrays gun owners.

Supposedly, during the Medici's reign in the City of Florence, if one had a problem with a neighbor, a business partner, or some merchant who had done you wrong, the solution was to anonymously put that persons name into a box that was kept at the palace gates.  The accusation was enough to throw the person squealed upon in prison, or worse.  There was no confronting your accuser, no jury of your peers, and no appeal.  If that was you, you were essentially convicted and to hell with your rights.  Today, we seem to be trying to replicate this approach.  It is going backwards, and we don't need to do it.

Senator Rubio, the man Trump referred to as "Little Marco Rubio" has a bill he wants to push, apparently approved by none other than your National Rifle Association to spread so called "Red Flag Laws" nationwide.  A discussion of the bill can be found at Off the Grid Survival (not the greatest language but were all big boys.) Hat tip to David Codrea at the War on Guns.

As I have expressed on several occasions, I have real problems with a law that purports to take away my Constitutionally protected rights on the basis of  ex parte proceeding where the "defendant" has no knowledge that an accusation has been lodged, has no ability to defend his position, and the first time he knows anything about it is a 5;00 AM when sheriff's deputies are beating on his door.

Rubio claims to be solving these problems:
According to Rubio’s team, here’s what the bill will do:
Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.
Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including: Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted. Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal.
Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm.
Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter.
Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order.
Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.
The first problem with such a law is that it targets not those who are truly dangerous, but the generally law abiding who happen to utter an unfortunate comment within the hearing of someone who then runs and files for a protection order.  One can imagine that at a Thanksgiving dinner, Uncle Jim says something like "Well, if they had had guns on those planes on 9/11, they would have gotten those towel heads. "  Eventually, Uncle Jim goes off with the other guys to watch the game, and forgets all about it.  Meanwhile, spinster Aunt Sue, who fears guns and doesn't think anyone should have them, runs to court and says that Uncle Jim needs to be "red flagged" because he wants to kill any Muslim he sees.  Her anonymity is protected, and in any case, the process is ex parte so who's to say she lied?  That will never be prosecuted, though it should be.

Assuming Uncle Jim survives the SWAT team invading his house a 5:00 AM, he isn't rich, and can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to get his weapons and his rights back.  So effectively, he is now defenseless.  In any case, the guns themselves were only worth a few thousand dollars whereas he will have to spend tens of thousands to get them back.  The state will hardly take the kind of care of his property that he would have, so if they are a bit rusted, or seized up, well that's just the price of keeping the community safe, right?

Meanwhile a truly dangerous criminal, who truly means to kill and maim people, will not be reported or have his guns taken from him.  Why?  Because who in their right minds believes that he won't find out who narced on him?  Who believes he won't retaliate?  That guy is truly dangerous, and nobody is going to mess with him, including your courts.  Meanwhile your busy taking guns away from blowhards like Uncle Jim who isn't the least bit dangerous.

No, Mr. Rubio, while your process sounds all nice a legal like, it will not work that way in the breech.  Its just an excuse for gun grabbers to take yet more guns from the law abiding, while doing nothing about mass shooters.  Anti-gun lawyers and judges will, out of an abundance of caution, take away the rights of any honest citizen that comes to their attention, and resist ever giving the back their rights.  But the dangerous criminals among us will remain.  ready to strike at a moments notice.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

What if what he wants is to kill you?

I am amazed whenever this old saw comes up.  A Chicago woman was assaulted by a man with a knife and defended herself with her own concealed carry gun according to a report at The Federalist. Apparently, Think Progress was furious that she did this stating "The penalty for theft is not death, nor do we want it to be." As the post at The Federalist notes:
Ford’s logic concludes that a woman must first determine the motives of her attacker before she has the right to defend herself.
David Codrea put this more succinctly as "What if he wants to kill you?" I first encountered this line of reasoning when I purchased my first gun for home defense. I was at lunch with a county prosecutor and told him about it. He informed me that if I shot an intruder in my home, he would have to prosecute me on the grounds that the penalty for theft is not death.

One imagines that the law therefore expects a home invasion to go something like this:

Mrs PolyKahr: Wake up! I hear someone downstairs moving around.

Me: Ok, call the police. I will go down and find out what he wants.

Me going down stairs.

Me again: Hello? Who's there?

Bad Guy: Why, yes, my name is BG, and I am here to steal your small screen television set and stereo system (this was 1977 remember.)

Me: Oh, good. Just wanted to make sure you didn't intend to hurt us, just steal our stuff.

BG, pulling a revolver out of his belt: Say, now that you mention it, I didn't want any loose ends. I am just going to shoot you. (Keep in mind that BG here isn't a deep thinker, and hasn't played a number of different scenarios out in his mind.)

Bang bang, as his gun goes off.

 Now, that is the ideal where you may not defend yourself unless and until you have first ascertained his intentions, preferably in writing.  Not very satisfying, is it?  On this basis you are screwed, either way, and the criminal may or may not get justice.  But this is not how a self dense situation works out in real life.  In real life, you are the first responder, and it is up to you to make the split second decisions that will determine if you breathe another day in this life or not.

Good luck!

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Democrats Pushing Gun Confiscation in Virginia.

I lived in Northern Virginia, or NOVA as we colloquially called it, for 20 years.  During that time, I experienced the attacks on 9.11.2001.  Those attacks woke me up to the idea that my life, and those of my wife and daughter could be snuffed out at any time though no fault on our part.  A random event like a Columbine shooter, or a bank robbery, or just a mugging gone wrong might happen at any time.  I finally came to the conclusion that I needed to carry a gun and went about the task of obtaining training and a weapon.  I also, in the process changed my attitude for the better, because I was no longer a victim.  Win or lose, I would fight back.

Back then, I looked upon the District, and Maryland and the Northeastern states as foreign occupied America.  Virginia was American occupied America, as were the states to the South and West.  Sadly, however, Democrats have slowly invaded Virginia until we find our former home in its currently reduced state, with a Democrat Governor and a slim majority of Republicans in the Commonwealth legislature.  Those Repbulicans, however, are not terribly pro gun either, just to note.  The fact that the Governor thinks it is a winning strategy to propose a seeping  gun grab says that another state has fallen in the civil war that currently exists in the "United" States. According to the Washington Free Beacon:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.
“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”
You can read the whole piece by Stephen Gutowski here. Note that Gutowski calls it a "gun confiscation proposal" and in its current form, that's a fair assessment.

Most people today, when they think about Virginia think about the high population centers.  Those would be the counties of Northern Virginia: Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria and Prince William, and then Richmond, Virginia.  But Virginia consists of vast rural area outside these areas.  The people living there have guns for a variety of legal purposes, and they aren't going to give them up because some highfalutin politicians in Richmond with their too big for their britches attitude says so.  It just ain't happening. And turning all those people who have done nothing wrong into instant criminals won't go down well either.  This isn't about public safety, or common sense, or anything other than the Democrats think this is a winning strategy going forward.  They think they have imported enough new voters to push this out there.

During the 20 years I observed Virginia, and traveled about the Commonwealth, I noted that people from high tax, low freedom states like New York and Massachusetts  were moving into Virginia.  All well and good, but they brought the voting habits with them.  Most did not see any relation between the voting patterns where they were and the high taxes and lack of freedom.  I now see the same thing happening here.  When you get here, don't vote for Democrats.  The only way to change a Democrats mind is to deny them the one thing they want most in life: to gain control over the average American.  Don't give them that.

Monday, January 14, 2019

Why We Continue to Have School Shootings?

Rob Morse asks the question: Why We Continue to Have School Shootings? It's a good question. We have known for a long time what will make our schools a less tempting target. We just have not been able to either convince the nay sayers, or to politically overcome them. Meanwhile, every gun owner cringes when another mentally unbalanced person takes to shooting up a school, because we know that the old, tired, and utterly useless bromides will be circulated again.  So, you want to hear the actual truth? Here it is:
We have not stopped these rampages because the news media and political special-interests feed on mass murder.
That sounds harsh. Would people really want children to die rather than to solve a problem in the first place?  However, Morse points out that the probability of being killed or injured in a school shooting is vanishingly small.  We could not afford to put a SWAT team in every school on the off chance that someone might decide to strike a particular school.  The other problem is that even knowing the solution, no one can guarantee that a shooter will never strike at a school again.  People are not that predictable.

So, who benefits from school shootings?  Have you ever heard the saying "If it bleeds, it ledes"?
...The next mass murderer is inspired by the media coverage given to the last mass murder. Today, the US news media gives these murderers a billion dollars of publicity after they kill. We even changed our language to describe them. “Celebrity murderers” and “celebrity violence” are the terms we invented to describe these killers and what they do. Psychologists and media experts said that a third or more of these mass murders could be stopped if we changed media coverage.
No doubt Morse and I will be accused of grossly overstating the case. Journalists don't have an agenda, they just want to keep the public informed.  Except that coverage always seems to sensationalize these maniacs.  Rather than turning away from obviously deranged people whose actions should be shielded for compassionate reasons, the media highlight them, making them "celebrities."  But they have done nothing to celebrate...unless, of course....the media is of the same mind.
Media coverage has gone beyond the public’s “need to know”. Instead, the media exposure actively promotes the next mass murder. Why would the networks inspire evil? I think the media is desperate in the face of declining credibility and their dwindling number of viewers. Many of the major networks will say anything to keep us watching and to support their political agenda.
Then there are the progressive politicians, and the go along to get along RINOs. Progressives have had a goal of disarming the average American for as long as the they have been operating on these shores. Why> Because as long as we have guns, we can resist the trash they keep shoving down our throats.
The average citizen doesn’t know that we already have 23 thousand firearms regulations on the books. Each law, each regulation, was described as essential for public safety, yet politicians failed to deliver on that promise each and every time.
Firearms prohibition hasn’t worked to stop violent crime or to stop mass murder. Gun-control fails where ever it is tried. Gun-control in the Ukraine and Russia are far stricter any legislation proposed in the United States, yet just a few months ago there was a mass school shooting in the Crimea.
All the wasted ink of legislation hasn’t kept blood off the floor. The political promises made in front of the TV cameras were hollow. Gun laws haven’t stopped the crazies and criminals from killing, so why do anti-gun Democrats propose more of the same failed ideas?
Progressives have always worked to undermine the idea of limited Government. Each school shooting brings calls for more gun-control. Destroying the Second Amendment is essential to the Progressive project because the Second Amendment is a constant rebuke to their primary goal of unlimited government power.
Read the whole thing, of course. Please also remember that if a politician does not trust you and me with a gun, he is probably not to be trusted himself. And if he can't be trusted himself or herself, maybe he or she should not be allowed near the levers of power? Just a thought.

Saturday, January 5, 2019

The Left Culturally Appropriates Christian Doctrine

As a Christian, one who tries to follow my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, but who often falls short, I get a little upset when non Christian use the Bible to try to score political points. Apparently, I am not alone in this, because Deana Chadwell has a piece over at the American Thinker entitled How the Left Appropriates Christianity. Ms. Chadwell writes:
Secondly, the Bible is not a catalog of verses to grab willy-nilly when we want to browbeat someone into agreeing with us. Both legalistic and liberal Christians are often guilty of doing that. Okay, a proof-text is sometimes necessary, but it should never be taken out of its immediate context, nor out of the context of the entire Bible. Nor should it be used without careful consideration of the historical background against which the verse is set; neither should it be applied without checking the correctness of the translation being quoted.
When a person who only knows the Book by reputation (from movies, or cheap novels, or anti-Christian professors) throws a Bible verse at me, I find it very trying. Some of that is pride, which is my fault, but much of it is ire at hearing this astounding Book handled so cavalierly, so belligerently, and so ignorantly.
I am reminded here of a short conversation with a Leftist wherein he brought up the that Jesus advocated heavy taxation for social programs because in his advice to the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18: 18-23) he told the Rich Young Ruler to "So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”" I had to point out that this needed to be a voluntary action, and one taken with joy, not as some horrible duty. Jesus didn't say "Have Ceasar sieze everything you own and distribute it to those most likely to vote for him." There is a difference. As I said, it was a short conversation.

Then, of course, there is the ridiculous issue of border security, of defending our borders against illegal immigration, and allowing just so many in each year.  As always, one must note that one is not against immigration, just illegal immigration.  But while were at it, why must we accept immigrants from countries that want to change us?  I find it odd that people want to come here, and then vote to change us into the places from which they came.  Why not simply stay where you are?  You want Sharia?  Go to a Muslim majority country.  Voila', instant Sharia.  You want Communism?  There are several Communist and Socialist countries to choose from.  Try you luck with one of them.  North Korea, I hear, is a lovely place, as is Cuba.  And according to Michael Moore, you get free health care in Cuba!  What a perk.

Recently, I got into a discussion with a Leftist, who was trying his best to get my goat over my voting for President Trump.  After a bit of back an forth, he came out with how President Trump was keeping children in cages.  I pointed out those pictures were from 2014 when Obama was in office.  He tried to deflect by saying that this was because no one could get in to take pictures now.  I pointed out that even if it was true, and the ubiquity of cell phones with cameras made it unlikely, that it still did not make it Trump's fault that Obama kept children in cages.  Seeing he was losing, he turned to the old "Didn't Jesus say to let the little children come to him/"  Now this guy identifies as an American Indian (think Elizabeth Warren) and practices some version of American Indian sprituality, complete with sacred fires and drum circles.  I then pointed out that what Jesus said was "Let the little children come to me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."  The context had nothing to do with immigration.  After that he said I just did not have enough compassion.  I then point out that there are 5 billion poor people in the world.  Why do these, at our Southern border, deserve any more consideration than the other 5 billion.  Furthermore, if we took the attitude that anyone coming to this country from a poor nation should automatically get in, could we actually afford to take care of them all?  Another short conversation.

Go read the article.  It is good.