The Left's Rejection Of God

I have been reading Dennis Prager's book The Rational Bible: Genesis lately. Genesis introduces us to God, who God is, what his character is, what our relationship to Him, to other humans, and to His natural world should be.  ( As an aside, Prager points out that a part of God's character is that he doesn't mind, indeed he wants us to struggle with him.  The idea that we should blindly believe is not a correct notion.  This, by the way, is one way I know Islam is wrong.  For Islam rejects the struggle with God that Judaism and Christianity involve.  Islam means "submission," and every good Muslim submits to the will of Allah, who brooks nobody asking questions.  Prager doesn't say this, but I think God also has a sense of humor, and expects us to have one as well.)

If you have never read Genesis itself, I recommend you do so. But you will never see all that the book has to say without reading Prager's commentary. The Jew's have been thinking about and discussing the Torah (Hebrew word for the first 5 books of the Bible) for some 3,000 years.  Their thinking is contained in the Talmud.  So all this thought and pondering can certainly help when we Christians read the Bible.  In addition, having grown up with the Bible, and without much understanding of ancient history, I did not realize all the innovations in religious thinking that Genesis introduced. Now, I have made the point myself that the God of Creation has to stand outside of time and space, because he created time and space. But I did not realize how revolutionary the Genesis story actually was, and is again.

Thus it was that I was drawn today to a piece by Trevor Thomas over at The American Thinker today entitled Rejection of Moral Absolutes Plaques the Modern Left. Whether it is abortion (Genesis states that all human life is sacred because God breathed a soul into the man, Adam, that he did not breathe into any other creature), or gender (male and female he created them), or countless other issues, the Left recognizes no power higher than themselves. Whether they realize it or not, they claim the power of God. They claim the right to tell everyone else what is right and wrong based solely on their feelings. But God created the universe, and only He can tell us whether our actions will be good or evil. And their truly is no other choice: either something is good, or it is evil. There is no category called "white lies," or "being naughty." It is with this understanding that Martin Luther declared that all of a Christian's life is repentance. I see this daily in my own life.

Thomas writes:

If death — anyone's death — brings you joy, you should intently re-examine your worldview. Even the just execution of a mass murderer — which I support in every case — should not bring anyone joy. As a Christian, I often find myself opposed — spiritually, politically, and otherwise — to those outside my faith. However, I take no joy in anyone's death, especially those outside of my faith. Christianity teaches that "each one of us will give an account of himself to God." Any death that results in eternal separation from God is always particularly tragic.

However, for those who have put their faith in the things of this world, who are determined to rule their own world, death usually has no such significance. Thus, for such people, like the death of an "inconvenient" child, the death of an enemy is often something to celebrate. The most recent case in point is the death of the wealthy philanthropist David Koch. After Mr. Koch died, many on the Left again found themselves in a celebratory mood. We shouldn't be surprised that those who engage in or promote the evil "shout your abortion!" movement would celebrate the death of a political enemy.

Thomas concludes his list of the sins of the Left with this:

I hope there is soon a political reckoning. There will certainly be a spiritual one.

I too hope for a political reckoning, but I suspect there will not be one. And I agree that there will eventually be a spiritual reckoning, which I do not wish on anyone. But at the same time, a spiritual reckoning is a natural consequence of the actions that are being taken. God is merciful to those to whom he grants mercy, but he is also a terrible judge to those on whom he passes judgement. Hope for mercy, but fear the judgement. For we all deserve to be punished!

We All Need To Be The Grey Man

Today at the American Partisan, the Gray Man has a post entitled Are The New "Red Flag" Laws The Gun Grab We've Been Warned About? Please read the entire post, as it is not a long one, but in a nut shell, the answer is "yes."

RFL allow the advance confiscation of firearms from a person’s property based on little more (or in some cases, nothing more) than someone, ANYONE, reporting to “authorities” that the person may have said, done or otherwise indicated at some point in time that they might be a danger to themselves or someone else at some point in time in the future. The law enforcement is able to obtain an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) and forcibly confiscate all firearms from that person.

Due process comes later. That’s the problem with the laws. You can have your guns taken away and be forced to undertake a lengthy and costly legal journey in order to get them back, all because someone accused you of being dangerous. They don’t have to have hard proof. They just need the “authorities” to believe them enough to do it.

Obviously the legal process of getting your guns back is the punishment in itself. That’s the whole point.

Also, obviously, your accuser could be anybody you have ever met, even briefly. Have an argument with your neighbor? He could "Red Flag" you in revenge. And of course, the woman scorned, or just imagining herself scorned, could use these laws as a further way to take revenge on a man. But even people living miles away from you, and whom you have never met may "Red Flag" you based on reading your name and address in a newspaper list. Remember when newspapers were publishing the names of people with concealed carry permits?

Make an angry, politically-charged Facebook post? A RFL can be used to confiscate your guns. It has happened.

Make a Twitter post that “authorities” interpret as being Islamophohic? A RFL can be used to confiscate your guns. It has happened.

You get in an argument with your woman and piss her off? A RFL can be used to confiscate your guns. It has happened.

Spare me the talking points on the legal limits of RFL at the present time. All they needed to do for now is get the laws into place. Rest assured they will be administratively and bureaucratically tweaked and adjusted so that it gets EASIER for the boys wearing the Oakleys to kick your door in, and those bureaucratic and administrative tweaks will make it harder and more expensive for you to get your guns back. Assuming that you ever get them back at all.

So, what is a gun owner to do?

All the talk that’s been had in your group about being quiet about your guns… Put that into action now. Ditch the NRA stickers, stop the good old boys gun discussions down at the local watering hole, remove the vanity pics from Facebook (why do you still have FB?). No one needs to know about your guns if they don’t live in your house. It won’t be easy to change those habits, but it’s time now. The legal framework for taking your guns away simply for being a wrong-thinker is in place. The local Kommissar has his eyes open and the police will follow their orders to knock on your door when they get the order.

Shhhh...we all need to be the grey man.

Why Are Republicans So Willing To Give Up Our Rights For A Mess of Pottage?

It has been some years since I have broached this topic, and now is as good a time as any to remind my dear readers that the gun grabbers have never negotiated in good faith..  It is why so much of the gun community says "not one more inch!"  Today, at The Federalist Max McGuire has an article entitled Why Does "Compromise" Always Mean Gun Control Wins? In particular, since the American people are being asked to give up a Constitutionally protected right, at least in part, shouldn't the other side have to give up a Constitutionally protected right as well? It seems to be properly symmetrical to me, but what do I know?

 McGuire makes several good points.

Gun rights supporters are so unwilling to compromise because we know we are getting nothing in return. The left’s idea of a “compromise” is that gun owners get to keep some of their guns instead of having to give up all of them. But even if that were palatable — and it’s not — we know any deal we agree to now will not be honored in the future.

McGuire then goes on to illustrate an example where the gun rights side did indeed compromise, by allowing the Fed to run background checks, but of course, those could only be a maximum of 72 hours. Otherwise, the government could simply ignore background checks and essentially keep anyone from obtaining a gun. But now, of course, the compromise reached then is being re-litigated by gun grabbers who now want so called "universal" background checks.

Herein is the problem, then. The Left would never agree to give up a Constitutionally protected right, such as freedom of the press for itself.  But it works tirelessly to force the law abiding gun owners to give up a slice of their rights here, another slice there.  Meanwhile is the Socialist Rifle Association on board with giving up gun rights? See for yourself. And what about the various John Brown Gun Clubs, this one in North Carolina. You think they are going to give up their guns? Why do I not think so?

Now, McGuire mostly concentrates on the current round of background check laws, which, quite frankly, are a form of security theater, as I have posted on this site before. Law abiding gun buyers will abide by the law, while criminals will evade it. They will steal a gun, or obtain a stolen gun from the black market. Of course, law abiding people do not need a background check, which is why I refer to these as security theater. They are feel good legislation for symbolic purposes only.

But what about "Red Flag" laws? These violate the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Amendments all at once. Are the gun grabbers giving up anything; anything at all? Why are so many Republicans willing to give up our rights for a mess of pottage?

The Mediocrity Of Our "Elites"

So, I am an old man, but not so old that I do not remember how it was, back when.  So it is that the piece by Kurt Schlichter today resonates with me.  Kurt Schlichter writes that All the People who Think They Are Better Than You Are Much, Much Worse.

Never before have so many snobs had so little to be snobbish about. It’s not like the ruling caste that turns up its collective snout at the people who actually make this country work has a CV full of achievements to back up its arrogance. Our elite is anything but. It’s a collection of pedestrian mediocrities who inherited our civilization from the people who actually created it and fought for it, and like every spoiled child who was handed free stuff by his doting mommy and daddy, our elite is resentful and obnoxious.

We’re ruled by a bunch of Veruca Salts.

...snip...

We know what America achieved under the old ruling class. It beat the Nazis – the real Nazis, not the fake bugaboo “Nazis” that the left labels everyone to the right of Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. It fought through the Depression. It trashed the Democrat’s Jim Crow regime. It designed the ’65 Mustang, created the Big Mac and put a man on the moon. It crushed the dirty commies in the Cold War.

The old elite was not perfect, but at least you can point to some tics in the “WIN” column. Not so with the coterie of half-wits running our institutions today. It’s all check marks under “LOSS.” Iraq. The Wall Street Meltdown. Obamacare. Obama himself.

Oh, and then there’s Jeffrey Epstein.

I know there have always been scandals, but truly the record of achievements of the cast of clowns that pretend to know better than I how to live my life and spend my money is appallingly small.

The first small scale circuits were designed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I remember seeing people walking around with the earliest transistor radios.  (Indeed, I got one for Christmas one year, and it was a cherished item for many years after.  For those too young to remember, the transistor replaced the older vacuum tubes that had powered electronics for a generation. I can remember the television repair man coming to our house to replace worn out tubes in our black and white television set.)

Thus were born the first solid state electronics. Then came the early integrated circuits, when I was in college. I acquired, at considerable expense to me at the time, an early example of the new integrated circuitry in the form of a Hewlett Packard 45 calculator. It cost some $400 back in 1974. That was a lot of money for a college student to spend. I used the new calculator to study civil and structural engineering, things that are now not even spoken of as "technology," though of course without that technology, the so called "tech" stuff would not be possible. Imagine if you didn't have clean running water in your home, or paved roads, or if your home was a yurt built from sticks and animal skins. Amazon would be useless because there would be no trucks to deliver goods.  Yes, truck trailers are designed to carry the loads they do by engineers.  And we in turn stand on the shoulders of giants as well.

Young people today have little sense of history, or science and technology building upon itself.  As late as the early 1990s Mrs. PolyKahr and I ran around all over the place with no way to communicate with the other.  We didn't have cell phones, though mobile phones had been available for at least a decade by then.  What would the modern child do without a cell phone?

What the cast of clowns trying to run our lives do not realize is that the average man and woman doing things like plumbing, heavy equipment operating, working in a factory building goods for sale, and more have more in the way of useful accomplishments than Filonia Van Pantsuit or Pocahontas.   All they have really done is lie and cheat their way to wealth and power.  But an excessive desire for wealth and power is not a good look.  For better to have actually earned your wealth and power by...you know...serving real people with things they really want. 

Florida Man Denied Second Amendment Rights By Red Flag Law

Beth Baumann has a piece over at Townhall.com entitled Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity. Baumann in turn refers to an Ammoland article which can be found here. Please read both articles.

Baumann's point in writing her piece is that here is the exact thing many of us feared, and have warned about.  A law abiding Concealed Carry permit holder has been disarmed because a court made a mistake.  Now he must prove to the courts satisfaction that he is not the guy they are looking to disarm.  And of course, disarming a person who has gone to the trouble of going though all of the hoops to obtain a Concealed Carry permit, and probably obeys all the places where one can not legally carry (thus requiring constant taking off and putting back on the gun, and risking an accidental discharge each time), is much easier than taking away a drug dealer's guns.  That drug dealer might well shoot back.

Meanwhile, nobody except Carpenter, of course, seemed shocked that in the United States his due process rights could be so easily violated.  Carpenter will have to prove his innocence after the fact.  I wonder if the complainant will show up in court?  And how much will it cost to go to court with competent counsel?  No requirement apparently for the State to pay even though they had a description of both the drug dealer and this Carpenter, and they could have seen immediately that the individual they were targeting was not the correct individual.

But then, this is the plan.  The Democrats don't plan to disarm us all at once, sending people into neighborhoods to collect all the guns.  No, instead they intend to take  them one by one, under color of law.  And apparently our Congress is unconcerned that all of this is entirely Unconstitutional.  It is as if they are saying "Constitution?  We don't need no stinking Constitution!"  And they will depend on the average gun owner not making a fuss because the few reports they hear about will be couched in the language of this person or that was a danger to himself or others.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I seem to remember that there is a crime with which people can be charged for violating rights. Perhaps Mr. Carpenter could swear out a warrant against the people who denied him his rights? Or does a Federal prosecutor have to decide to take up the matter. I know where that would be heading.

How to Nullify the Second Amendment

David Codrea at the blog The War On Guns pointed me to a piece at Conservative Review entitled The same people who pushed for early release of gun felons now want to take guns without due process by Daniel Horowitz.

For every person who fits the profile of the El Paso shooter, there are likely thousands who fit the profile of Maurice Hill, the man arrested for shooting six cops in north Philadelphia yesterday. Based on a quick look at court documents from Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Hill has a rap sheet dating back to 2001 that includes charges for illegal gun possession, drugs, driving offenses, assault, burglary, theft, robbery, kidnapping, and attempted murder. However, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, he was only “convicted six times on charges that involved illegal possession of guns, drug dealing, and aggravated assault.”

...snip...

Nope. Instead, they very people who have created the drive in the criminal justice system to let these people out of jail are pushing a war on guns for law-abiding people. Meanwhile, the criminals who illegally get guns every day in places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago are never punished!

Most Americans understand that bad criminals do the most harm to public safety, not any single weapon or object. Yet the very people pushing a war on guns are the ones who support letting out dangerous criminal from prison. That begins with Lindsey Graham, who, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now teaming up with Richard Blumenthal to push a “red flag” bill stripping guns from people without due process, without addressing the issue of locking up the actual dangerous people with criminal records. This is the “lock up the guns and let the criminals out” approach.

As Codrea rightly notes in the title to this posting, So It Can't Be About Crime Control... No, it can't. Which begs the question, what is it about?

Lindsay Grahamnesty may have been the hero of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, but just as a leopard can not change his spots, Graham has not changed his either. He has always been a Democrat disguised as a Republican doing the Democrats bidding. In other words, a RINO.  While Senator McCain was alive, of course, he palled around with John McCain because these two shared much in common. But neither would miss a chance to stab conservatives in the back if the opportunity presented itself. Now he wants to release gun felons while making as many normal Americans felons as possible. What a guy.

But then, you ask, what is it the Democrats want?  They want to create as much hate, discontent, and chaos as possible.  When society is at peace, and peaceful, nobody is seeking someone to "do something."  The Democrats want to create the conditions to have a majority of people crying for someone, anyone, to "do something," anything.  And of course here come the Democrats with their gun control bills, their Universal background checks, their Red Flag laws, their Ammunition restrictions, and every other thing they have dreamed up to limit the Second Amendment.

And why is that so important to Democrats?  In case you haven't notice, most Democrats, and I am sorry to say a lot of Republicans, hold a dim view of you and me.  They feel sure they know better how to live our lives than we do, and they are prepared to shove their ideas down our throats if they can just get us to give up our guns.

NFA 1934: A Massive Infringement Of Our Rights

William Sullivan explains How The Federal Government Nullified The Second Amendment To 'Ban' Automatic Firearms. Remember that the Second Amendment says that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What the Federal Government did was to use a subterfuge, a ruse that they were only taxing automatic weapons, not really banning them. In 1934, to attempt an outright ban might have roused the natives with pitch forks tar and feathers. Now, why the supreme court didn't squawk can perhaps be chalked up to the same type of events that seems to have upheld Obamacare.

Both Daniel Webster, and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall said that "The power to tax is the power to destroy."  Most of the legislators who passed the law, the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the Justices of the Supreme Court would have been very aware of the truth of the quote.

This is the progressives’ magic trick, and some Americans fall for it due to a simple deficiency in human nature. For example, Chris Cuomo of CNN recently tweeted that “[t]here was no individual right” in the Second Amendment even “contemplated” until Antonin Scalia inferred the “individual right” in the Heller v. District of Columbia decision.

...snip...

This was a roundabout infringement upon Second Amendment rights that is somehow still championed by conservatives looking to score sensibility points with the left, and aligning with Cuomo’s position.

“Machine guns were outlawed because there was no need that justified the risk. Was that wrong, too?” Cuomo asks.

The short answer is, yes, that was wrong, too -- if the Second Amendment is the measure. And to be clear, the Second Amendment is the only sentence in the Constitution where an individual right to firearms is addressed.

I have made the point before that any time the government does not trust us, we should not trust the government. It means the government is doing something that will, as cited above, cause the natives to break out the pitchforks, tar and feathers.  I can not see how any intelligent person could not see through that ruse, and I suspect that the NRA at the time could see it too.  But the NRA actually thought that machine guns were too much for the average gun owner too.  The NRA had come a long way from its founding by Northern Civil War officers concerned about the lack of marksmanship by Americans.  But that is the state of the NRA:  they often compromise our rights because they lack the guts to stand up for them.

I believe the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a massive infringement of our right to bear arms, and should have been challenged at the time.  One of the things that make it difficult to challenge today is the fact that it has been on the books so long.  This will end up affecting the thinking of the Supremes.  And then there is the John Roberts factor to consider.  Roberts has become the new "swing" voter on the court, rendering Trump's picks for the court somewhat moot.

Now, I don't "need" a Thompson submachine gun, nor do I "need" a fully automatic M16.  Both would be relatively expensive weapons for which I would have little use.  But I should be able to legally purchase either if I wanted to.  Remember, it is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.  Anyone who starts of with "Nobody needs a ______ (you name whatever weapon of part) ,,, is setting you up for a utilitarian argument.  Don't go there.  Stick to discussion of your rights.

The Arrogance of Socialism; Same as the Gnostics Of Old

Yet more on so called "Red Flag" laws today.  The first comes from retired Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr.  Clarke has special reasons for not wanting gun control.  As a black American, whose ancestors were held as slaves in this country, Clarke does not want to be enslaved again in modern times by people who would take away his God given rights to weapons of self defense.  Clarke writes at  Townhall.com in an article entitled Raising A Black Flag Against Red Flag Laws.

Clarke is pretty clear that he doesn't trust the gun grabbers as far as he can spit:

That brings me to the latest emotion-based idea to stop mass shootings: Red Flag Laws. Let's strip away the good intentions part of this right away. This law would allow the government to violate our Fourteenth Amendment due process rights along with Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to the Constitution and confiscate our property (guns) on an unsubstantiated citizen complaint about something a person might do. That is a lower standard than the reasonable suspicion standard we allow police to use. That is an “anything is possible” standard.

Red Flag Laws will not stop the next mass shooting just like banning the Confederate Flag after Charleston did not nor did banning bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre. Red Flag Laws are an assault on our Second Amendment rights. Period. Anything proposed by the left regarding firearms is a ruse. It's like the left attacking the First Amendment to supposedly curb hate speech. You always have to look for the hidden agenda within their “good intentions.” They do everything stealthily to conceal their real objectives. They are exploiting El Paso and Dayton like they exploit any horrific incident to catch a nation in shock to hopefully give away their liberty.

Of course, Sheriff Clarke is more concerned than many about liberty, having had a more recent family history of not being allowed liberty. But I stand with Sheriff Clarke. My people came from Northern Europe, where we were serfs and peasants. A serf is just a different kind of slave.

Which brings us to Michael Smith's piece over at the American Thinker today entitled Mass Shootings, Politics, and The Law. Smith takes as a point of departure the famous James Madison quote "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." It has been a while, but I have pointed out many times, to those who insist that the police will protect us, so that we don't need guns ourselves, that the police are drawn from the same population as the rest of us. They are not angels, nor even any better or worse than the average citizen.

Regulations are never simply for the criminal, like the law of gravity, they are equally applicable to all. Therefore, any across-the-board restriction of access to firearms to reduce gun crime also necessarily restricts protective use by law-abiding gun owners. In all honesty, gun owners are suspicious of the motives of those who push for increased legislation while ignoring the failures of the current legal regime without honestly considering the statistical facts of gun use, in suicides, in homicides and in defensive usage. The greatest of these facts is new restrictions will impact not only criminals but the 99.997% of gun owners who have never committed a crime.

In point of fact, the proposed regulations will not impact criminals at all. They already can not buy guns legally. How they acquire them is by different illegal means. And while some may be outed by those living close to them, the majority will likely not be impacted by red flag laws because those who know them fear the criminal, with good reason.  But it is the law abiding who are the real targets of such laws. 

Many note the right to life is the first right identified in the Declaration of Independence -- and that positioning must mean it is a “supreme” right, one rising above all others -- but if one truly believes in such a supreme right, one must also accept the defense of that right must also be supreme, that it must be defended at all costs and with any means necessary. To do otherwise puts the lie to the idea the right to live is supreme and renders the phrase “right to life” into trite political sloganeering.

In 1850, the noted French economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat wrote, “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

And here, Bastiat has hit on the problem with Socialism, which was all the rage in France at the time and still is). The Socialist believes, like the Gnostics of old, that he has the secret knowledge. These self appointed elites believe they know better than you how you should live your life. They believe they know better how to spend your money, how and what you should eat, where and what kind of work you should do, and when your economical usefulness has been used up, when you should die. They know all this because they have been granted to secret knowledge that you are too stupid, or too blinded to see.

It is an arrogance of breath taking proportions.  But it is an arrogance that has always existed in the human heart.  It is an arrogance that allows people to think it is fine to enslave others, and to take as their own what others have done.  It is an arrogance that allows people to think that the police can protect everyone, when the Supreme Court has said that the police have no duty to protect anyone.

I fear that liberty and freedom are too scary for too many of our citizens.  The notion that one lives by one's wits can not be tolerated.  They need to have a government safety net to guarantee against hard times and bad decisions.  But life is made up of just such occasions, when unexpected things happen.  Everyone pays their money and takes their chances.  The government can not guarantee against these things, any more than they can guarantee against the next shooter.  You must be ready yourself to be your own first responder.

Update:  Listen to Armed Lutheran Radio Number 181.

The Mistake of the Left

According to Kurt Schichter at Townhall.com today Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide By Betraying Us On Guns. From Schlichter's mouth to Trumps ear, as they say. Nonetheless, even if no federal legislation is forthcoming, there is still the potential for State governments to enact the heinous "Red Flag" laws.

As has been noted by many, red flag laws violate 2nd, 4th, and 6th Amendment by taking Constitutionally protected rights from individuals on the basis of hearsay evidence, and not affording the individual due process.  Surely some of these analyses have been read.  Surely legislators who have been proposing such laws understand that what they are proposing violates their oath of office.  One can only presume that therefore they just do not care.  Why?

Which brings us to an interesting discussion, conducted by Alexander Nussbaum over at the American Thinker today entitled The Link Between Today's Leftists and Yesterday's Nazis.

Nussbaum provides a discussion of the current state of Socialism before getting to the specifics of Karl Pearson's influence on the Socialist movement, the eugenics movement, and Communism.  Karl Pearson, born Carl Pearson in 1857, was a genius who was one of the fathers the mathematics of statistics.  He also:

...invented the formula for correlation still used today, as well as inventing chi-square and p-values, all not only still used and taught in every undergraduate statistics course, but central to empirical research.

But Pearson was also a social Darwinist, who believed that society must limit the reproduction of what he believed were inferior races.

Pearson was a social Darwinist, dedicated to proving that Darwinism supported communism. Pearson's ideal collectivist state was, in his words, "an organized whole, kept up to a high pitch of internal efficiency by insuring that its numbers are substantially recruited from the better stocks, and kept up to a high pitch of external efficiency by contest, chiefly by way of war with inferior races, and with equal races by the struggle for trade routes and for the sources of raw material and food supply."

Pearson's writings sought to put the inferiority of Jews (the "parasitic race," as he called them) on a sound scientific basis, and this was not overlooked by Nazi Germany. In 1932, after Hitler's takeover, Pearson was presented Germany's prestigious Rudolf Virchow medal from the Berlin Anthropological Society by Erwin Baur and Eugen Fischer, co-authors of the book that outlined the racial theories of Hitler.

As a Christian, such thoughts are anathema to me. Man is a creature under God, as all other creatures are. It is God who gives us life, and our lives are His. We are not to interfere with Him and His plan.

Eugenicists made one tremendous mistake, a mistake of such magnitude that it rightly relegates them to the status of pariahs. This is a mistake that is the very basis of socialist thought: the horrendous notion that the state owns the individual — that the state has a right to determine who breeds, how people live, what should be their priorities, that the state should have its dirty, stealing hands anywhere near the economic system.

No one, of course, "owns" another. God owns all of us, we are His children. Yes, the Socialists have made a tremendous mistake, one that we all hope will not require bloodshed to correct.

So, the answer to the "why" question above is that these legislators have drunk the Koolaid, and believe that the State owns us.  They must not be elected to serve because they are no longer serving the people, but an ideology that is anathema to the United States Constitution.

A Newer Idea on Red Flag laws

Finally, a new idea to replace the stupid one currently circulating among gun grabbers.  Instead of "red flag" laws, that are Unconstitutional, and would ultimately do nothing to stop criminals, but would potentially burden the law abiding, Lynne Lechter, over at American Thinker proposes instead to Extend the Dram Shop Acts. The idea here is to allow civil suits of third parties who knew, or had reason to know, that someone was a time bomb ready to blow:

Instead of creating another political quagmire, we can utilize a tested, far less-controversial solution by expanding existing Dram Shop laws.

Dram Shop laws currently exist in 43 of the 50 United States. To varying degrees, the individual state laws allow for civil liability to attach to certain third parties for drunk driver-caused vehicular accidents. Moreover they complement rather than impinge on existing criminal laws for the underlying criminal act.

Essentially, these laws allow for a victim, and/or their relatives, to sue third parties to the accident: bartenders who serve alcohol to a visibility intoxicated customer; a parent who permits underage drinking at a house party; and, others who knowingly allow an inebriated driver to drive.

The aftermath to the recent spate of domestic mass massacres, as well as to previous attacks, all followed a dreary script. Multiple accounts of known aberrant behavior, frequent social media-posted threats, aggressive personal relations, botched dates, previous encounters with law enforcement, high school grapevines, open boasting of future crimes and parental a priori reporting of unheeded appeals for help were repetitively and mindlessly recounted , as we helpless, mournfully shaken bystanders collectively pondered the inanity of the seemingly preventable tragedies

Of course, the solution doesn't let politicians grand stand about getting more guns of the streets or whatever, and does place the burden on families of the victims to actually sue, but I am sure some enterprising lawyer will manage to get up a class action suit to bring these accessories to a crime to justice.

Thank you Lynne Lechter.

Meanwhile, let's engage in some "whataboutism," shall we?  From Wayne Allyn Root, over at Townhall.com today in a post entitled My Confession About Gunswe learn that

The 2018 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics reports noncitizens (primarily illegal aliens) makeup 7% of America's population but commit 42% of federal crimes.

The 2018 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics reports noncitizens (primarily illegal aliens) makeup 7% of America's population but commit 42% of federal crimes.

...snip...

In the days leading up to the terrible mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, there were 60 shootings in Chicago. It was so bad Mt. Sinai Hospital had to stop accepting patients on Sunday because it hit maximum capacity in the trauma center. Sixty shot? How did that escape the media's glare?

A year ago, on the same weekend in Chicago, 74 people were shot, 12 of them killed -- yet, no blame for Democrats.

Chicago already has the nation's strictest gun control laws. They are a failure.

And yet, politicians want to put more laws on the book; laws the criminals will ignore and prosecutors won't prosecute. All in the name of looking like they are "doing something." And not just Democrats. It is looking like Republicans are lining up with Democrats to do their "something."

The fact is that Republicans have been less than helpful to President Trump's agenda.  They are, therefore, more vulnerable if gun owners decide to sit out the election.  Were I they, I would take a word to the wise, and reconsider Red Flag laws.  Instead, maybe they would be better doing something like extending the Dram Shop Acts, or just making some of the people who knew about these mass shooters but didn't take action accessories to the crime.

The Fallacy of Red Flag Laws

I know I have harped on this a bit over the last week or so.  But it doesn't seem to help, and frankly, so called "red flag" laws are unconstitutional.  I feel sure they will eventually be found to be so.  But in the meantime, the destruction they will do to the fabric of this country could be immense.  I also believe that if President Trump signs these into law, he will likely not be re-elected.  I keep hearing from other gun rights people that in that event, they would sit out the election rather than vote for Trump or, horrors, the Democrat whoever that might be.

Today, at the American Thinker Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. has an analysis of one state's proposed "red flag" law, which can be found at The Fallacy of Red Flag Laws. If you live in Pennsylvania, you may be familiar with Scaringi from listening to his program on WHP, 580 AM in Harrisburg.

 Scaringi reports on a variety of bad things that can happen as a result of these laws, as well as the abuses to which such laws can be put by a host of people who have no way of knowing what goes on in your head:

Democrats are using the shootings in El Paso and Dayton to call for more gun control. Regrettably, Republican leaders are joining the call. From President Trump, to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Republican leaders are calling for the enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Sadly, our political leaders are quick to give up our constitutional rights just to look like they're doing something to prevent the next mass shooting. Yet, even with more gun control, the shootings will continue; but our constitutional rights will be gone.

In response to the latest shootings, the president declared, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws...” Although these laws may be well-intentioned, they’ll be disastrous to our rights, subject to abuse, and ineffective in addressing the real problem.

...snip...

(By the way, you can rest uneasy because the definition of “family or household members” includes your ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and your mother-in-law! Any chance this bill, like its sister-law, the Protection From Abuse Act, will be abused in divorce, custody, or property dispute cases?)

Note that once again, in Pennsylvania, as elsewhere, the hearing is conducted ex parte meaning that if you are the subject of such a hearing, but these hearings go on behind your back.  You are not notified, nor do you get to offer evidence.  You supposedly have a chance to prove yourself innocent after 10 days, but as Scaringi points out, the judge is unlikely to change his mind.  And then there's the fact that proving yourself innocent is impossible.  That is why they should be to prove that you are a threat beyond a reasonable doubt.  After all, they are proposing to take away a constitutionally protected right, similar to denying you liberty by putting you in jail.

Of course, you should go read Scaringi's article.  On another issue, Representative Thomas Massie makes a good point about the constant push to ban this device, and that magazine, this type of weapon, or that type.  Go read Massie's answer to the question "who needs 100 rounds?" over at Bearing Arms. Massie is spot on here. While I don't personally own a 100 round magazine, I would be the last one to deny it to others. I also do not own a bump stock, and frankly, controlling a bump stock equipped rifle is difficult, but that doesn't mean no one needs them.

I had a discussion with a friend who started out with "Who needs a gun that fires 250 bullets a minute?"  Yes he put it exactly that way.  This is pure ignorance on a par with not knowing who the President is.  But he did let me explain the reasons for the Second Amendment, the fact that the militia has been, and still is, the whole body of the people.  If we ran the government according to the Constitution, every young man would join the army at age 18, spend two years receiving training, and then take home his rifle.  He would then attend training once a year, reporting with his rifle and a certain amount of ammunition.  We would not have a large standing army, and we would not be in constant wars around the world.  Our militia would defend the homeland.  That is the way it is supposed to work.  Too bad we are not following the Constitution.  Too bad we are not Switzerland.

What the Democrats Are REALLY Trying To Achieve With Gun Control Push (Hint-It's Not Stopping Criminals)

Another twofer today.  The first is from Stu Tarlowe, who tells us that 'Red Flag Laws' Just Legitimize 'Swatting' at the American Thinker. Turlowe writes:

In a nutshell, a "prankster" in California made a call to the 9-1-1 operator in Wichita, claiming he was being held hostage at a Wichita home, and that a murder had already occurred there. The caller thought the address he gave was that of an online gamer with whom he was involved in a feud, but that person had tricked him into giving police the address of Andrew Finch, who was not involved in the feud and was at home minding his own business.

Long story short, the Wichita SWAT team responded, and when Andrew Finch stepped out his front door to see what all the commotion was about, the officers, thinking he was the murderer and hostage-taker and that he was reaching for a weapon, shot him dead.

...snip...

Why do I mention this? Because, even though it was easy enough for anyone to see how very wrong it was for someone to be able to make a call, even from halfway across the continent, that would result in a perfectly innocent person unexpectedly finding himself the target of a SWAT team at his front door, the "red flag laws" now being proposed to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable persons will actually legitimize and institutionalize "swatting." Such laws will enable anyone, anywhere, essentially to call down a police raid on another person, no matter how spurious the "evidence" of mental instability, for the purpose of seizing the "unstable" person's firearms.

Besides permitting and facilitating patent violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments, such "red flag laws" provide an avenue for vindictive persons (from jilted lovers to anyone with a real or imagined "beef") to use local police as surrogates for their own anger and resentment, with the potential for the confrontations to turn as deadly as that one in Wichita.

The second article was written by Michael Filozof, at the American Thinker entitled Proposed Gun Laws Would Do Nothing To Prevent Mass Killings, And Everyone Knows It.  If Filozof's thesis is correct, one wonders why the 'everyone' is so anxious to pass yet more laws that will be ignored by criminals, and probably won't be used by prosecutors any more than they use the ones they already have?  He does get to that, but first he goes through the history of Federal gun control legislation starting with the 1934 National Firearms Act.  He also lists a number of mass killings that were accomplished without so called "assault weapons."  Then he gets to the point:

That is the real goal of proposed gun confiscations and "red flag" laws: to completely disarm the public, destroy all individuality and all independence, and have the population eating from the hand of the government as if they were domesticated animals.

The notion of treating people like domesticated animals can be seen at any airport in the land every day. Each day people line up like cattle being herded to the slaughter to go through security theater. Indeed, one wonders if the security theater was designed to desensitize people to it. In any case, I believe Filozof has nailed the truth of what the Democrats are really after.

Disarming You and Me Will Not Stop Criminals Behaving Criminally

I have two today; one very serious, and the other snarky, but still very serious.  The first comes from the American Thinker by Taylor Lewis entitled Blowback and Mass Shootings. Lewis makes an important point that both of these mass shooters got started down the path of violence and hatred by being bullied at school.

Both shooters appear to have had a rough go of it in the social hellscape we call high school. The Texas killer was especially bullied. One classmate revealed that prior to being picked on, the future murderer was a “sweet kid.” Everything changed his last year in high school. “He started getting more depressed and a bit more of a loner in senior year when the bullying was pretty severe.”

The Dayton killer was also outcast in school. He authored a hit list of his fellow students. Some of his classmates reported that he was a bully himself -- an ironic harbinger of danger to come.

Go read the whole article, which isn't very long. Children are notorious for their cruelty as well as their inability to see that these kinds of attacks reflect more about the insecurities of those doing the attacking. Also, because they have never known anything but the school environment, for them their current life will continue on, and on, and on forever. It is a depressing thought, and frankly I don't know what can be done. Public service announcements, however, are not the answer.

The second article today comes from the ever snarky Kurt Schlichter in a piece at Townhall.com entitled The Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm. The title says it all, and it speaks a truth. The Left will never let you and me alone.

It was quite a surprise to find out that we Trump voters were personally responsible for the savage murder sprees of a creep who dug single-payer and a satanist fan of Big Chief Warren. The El Paso scumbag decided he wanted to murder Hispanics because migration would somehow destroy the environment, which falls right in line with classical progressive eugenics balderdash. The Democrat from Dayton was full-on #Resistance. But apparently we conservatives were to blame for their actions because we refuse to give up our rights.

Now, those links I just outlined between these idiots’ political beliefs and liberals should not act to place the moral blame for their vile deeds upon liberals, but they must because that’s apparently the new rule. It’s a stupid rule and I think we should go back to the old rule - the person responsible for the crime he commits is the criminal - but since the new rule is in effect then the liberals can enjoy it like a suppository.

Remember, everything the mainstream media tells you at the behest of the liberal elite is a lie and a scam designed to increase their power and wealth by diminishing your power and wealth. Global warming? It’s such a crisis that they need to fly their private jets to fabulous resorts to discuss how you must trade in your Ford Expedition for a Schwinn and how millions of people like you who support their families in the petroleum industry better learn to code. And now the crisis of two left-friendly mutants out of 335 million people means you need to be disarmed. Oh, and you’re also racists so you should be disenfranchised too.

You will want to read Schlichter's article too, if for no other reason that to enjoy the the lawyerly skill of his use of the language. But remember, we are not giving up our rights, we will not disarm. Disarming you and me will not stop criminals from behaving criminally.

The Legal SWATing of Gun Owners

Katie Pavlich points out today at townhall.com that Sen. Lindsay Graham has conspired with Sen. Blumethal to write a Red Flag law. Pavlich seems to be unsure whether the law is a violation of rights or a good idea. If she is reading this, I can tell her that it is not a good idea. 

Oh, of course, at first blush, it sounds like a great idea.  But then you think about the people you know, and it suddenly looks like a way for crabby relatives, feuding neighbors, or just anti-gun cranks to "get even" with someone they don't like.  In most cases, there is no confronting your accusers.  You don't even know that you are the subject of a court proceeding until you are confronted by police there to confiscate your guns.  Be careful now, because the police knocking on your door at 5:00 in the morning know you have a gun, and are alerted that you may be "dangerous."  Best to answer the door with your hands up, because you are about to be proned out even though you have done nothing wrong.  Any move that you make may be your last.  And they will ransack your house looking for the dreaded guns.

Of course, if they don't kill you during the search for your guns, they will eventually leave you to go free.  Interestingly enough, no help will be offered for your supposed mental health issues.  And there are all sorts of other items that can be used to kill people.  Knives, machetes, screw drivers, chain saws, and more can kill.  Why even a pen, poked into the right spot can kill.  And then, there is the oldest weapon known to mankind, a good sized rock. 



In a recent weekend,    9 people were killed and 39 wounded in Chicago. Similarly, in Baltimore over another recent weekend there were 29 Shootings, 9 Fatal. No one gets upset over these killings, apparently. But these kinds of statistics dwarf mass shootings when all of the incidents are taken nationwide. The fact is that your chances of becoming a victim of a mass shooter are very low.

The truth is that this is a stealth gun control proposal being marketed as a mental health issue.  It is no such thing.  The people who are promoting so called "red flag" laws are doing so for no other reason than to add yet another means to take away guns, and to further weaken the Second Amendment.  

Guns and the Lesson Of Pandora's Box

I understand that some Senators have been asking Mitch McConnell,  Senate Majority Leader, to reconvene the Senate so they can pass more gun control.  As stated yesterday, I do not believe gun control is the answer.  For more on that today, please read Paul Curry's article at Townhall.com entitled Pandora's Box Has Been Opened And The 2nd Amendment Is Not Negotiable. Here's the money quote:

A government cannot dictate morality. To say or imply otherwise would ignore the realties of back ally abortions, drug trafficking and the current opioid crisis. When humans have a desire coupled with the knowledge and ability to achieve such an end, inevitably, they will achieve such an end. Now, the gun debate and the Second Amendment debate rages on in defiance of this well-established principle.

Humans have the knowledge and ability to make and obtain firearms. A simple internet search can teach someone to make their own. China, Russia, Italy, and countless other countries produce guns. Are we to assume, in defiance of the lessons of prohibition, abortion, and the drug trade, that the simple criminalizing of self defense will somehow prevent the natural human desire for such? All that would ensue would be an international arms circuit, run by cartels, serving only to arm the very criminals that defy our laws to begin with.

And how would any such prohibition be enforced? By the politicians that run, say, sanctuary cities and states? By local law enforcement that passionately refuse to work with federal officers and agencies to enforce existing laws with which they disagree? Such a proposition is ludicrous on its face. One could fairly submit that, in such an environment, the government would choose to enforce firearm prohibitions on some while tacitly ignoring it on others. Prohibition taught us that.

This is a point I made yesterday, though not as forcefully. It is estimated that the criminal element in society is around 2 percent of the population. They simply don't need too many guns, and what they do need can be supplied by smuggling in guns along with drugs. And any machine shop that was so inclined can manufacture guns for the right price. Making ammunition for those guns is not rocket science either. Truly, Pandora's Box has been opened, and to quote another cliche`, you can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube. Please go read Curry's piece.

Scott Morefield, also at Townhall.com wants to try something that seemed to work in the past: deterrence. He writes in an article today that we should Punish Mass Shooters 1776 Style. Morefield has a point. All too often the calls of the "do something" crowd would punish the millions of others who did NOT do the crime, while seeming glorifying the criminal by spreading his name far and wide.  But that does not do anything to deter the next mass shooter.  Perhaps making his life a hell on earth might at least make the next one think.

Changing Hearts and Minds

Kevin McCullough today penned a think piece on the two mass shootings that occurred this weekend in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.  It seems somewhat premature, as I keep reading that the authorities don't know enough yet.  But one thing that McCullough got right is that people committing these sorts of crimes are cowards.  You can read McCullough's article at Townhall.com entitled The Cowardice of Mass Shooters And The Easy Prey They Always Target.

I agree with McCullough that these cowards choose "gun free zones" 99 percent of the time.  In my opinion, these people are...to use a technical term...nuts.  Oh, not in the usual, clinical sense.  Rather, these people have very skewed views of themselves, their fellow mankind and their own place in society.  But gun free zones are not the answer.  Nor is more gun control the answer.  Both solutions rely on getting rid of a tool.  But tools are easily made, easily smuggled. 

Of course, anti gunners want to sue the firearm industry out of existence.  But let's say they do.  Do they not realize that if the Mexican cartels can smuggle in drugs, why can't they also smuggle in guns?  If one of these "nuts" wanted to commit mass murder, he could easily acquire one of these smuggled guns from the black market.  I am sure other countries would be very willing to supply the United States criminal underworld with guns if there was no longer a domestic industry.

Indeed, if the anti gunners wanted to sue someone the logical defendant would be the mall, or restaurant itself.  The facility is the one that decided to make itself a gun free zone, thus depriving those at that location the ability to defend themselves.  And while school districts can use the law as a shield to prevent lawsuits on the grounds of being gun free zones, perhaps lawsuits could be initiated against individual legislators for their fecklessness.  But nobody sues car manufacturers for the death of people die in car accidents.  Nobody sues knife manufacturers for knife deaths.  Why not?  The answer lies in the fact that any tool can be used for both good and evil.

This leads into Selwyn Duke's article over at the   American Thinker entitled El Paso: The Real Root Causes Of Mass Shootings. I mentioned above that a mass shooters have a very skewed view of himself, of others, and of his place in society. Duke gets to the heart of this issue. Duke's point is that what mass shooters lack is morality. Morality is defined by Divine Law. Man can not define morality because man is the subject of morality. It is because we born in sin, and can not by ourselves do rightly, that God handed down the Law.  The Law is not designed to punish, but rather to show man the moral thing to do, and for the thinking individual, to show him how far off the mark his own behavior is.

Jesus summed up the law in Luke 10:27 as:

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

One doesn't kill one's neighbor if he loves him, but instead defends his neighbor against those intending evil against him. Perhaps the politicians trying to control the means of defense for ourselves should instead work at spreading morality in society. If more people looked upon their fellow man as being made in the image of God himself, they might not be so quick to want to murder that image.

The "root cause" is not that there are too many guns in society.  Guns do not commit crimes.  Guns do not miraculously jump out of their holsters and start shooting people.  And guns are not implements with magical powers to cause people to do things they otherwise would not do.  Fyodor Dostotevsky said it rightly: "Without God, all things are permitted."  We are seeing this played out now.  We must begin to change hearts and minds, or we shall surely perish as a society.  That is the true meaning of "repent," to turn around, to rethink, and to change your heart and mind.

Media Causes Mass Shootings?

Over at Bearing Arms, Tom Knighton has an interesting theory on How The Media AND Politicians May Be To Blame For Mass Shootings. Knighton points out often that he is no expert. Well, I am no expert either, but the theory sounds plausible to me as well.

Knighton spends considerable ink debunking all of the typically hypothesized reasons for mass shootings including too many guns, the rise of concealed carry, and the mental health system.  Then he states his own theory:

One thing we tend to find with mass shooters is that they tend to be domestic abusers. They’re angry people who lash out at even the people they say they love.

Yet what I’m suggesting is that at least part the reason they’re angry is that our society is filled with anxiety due to the media and politicians making every single issue into an existential crisis for the American public. The media, and not just the mainstream media but even yours truly, routinely beats the war drums over almost every issue and now we are at a complete impasse as a society, which only heightens the anxiety as no one is interested in trying to work things out anymore.

Couple that with the media also turning mass shooters into celebrities and you create a recipe for disaster.

Of course, this is just something I’ve come up with based on what I do and what I see and feel. For this to be definitive, it would require actual studies by real experts in the field, something I’m not. The problem is, I’m not sure I actually trust anyone will bother to even look and think about the causes of mass shootings.

(I want to make a point about concealed carry.  Before the modern era, all sorts of people carried small pistols in their pockets all the time.  It was only with the criminalization of concealed carry in the 29th century that people stopped carrying for their own protection.  In all fairness though, this was a time when the police became more professional, and prosecutors took a greater interest in street crime, making citizens safer than previously.  But the police can not be everywhere, and no individual should rely on the police for their personal protection.  That is what has spurred the modern concealed carry movement.)

Go read Knighton's article and see if you too don't think he is on to something.