SCOTUS: Clean Air Act Doesn't Give EPA Authority to Regulate CO2

 The Supreme Court ruled 6 - 3 today that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide in order to shut down coal fired power plants.  The Court seems to think that Congress needs to give the EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide.  The Left seems to be going nuts, as you can see at Katie Pavlich's post at Townhall.com entitled The Left is Melting Down Over SCOTUS Ruling on Climate Change. I especially like Elizabeth Warren's comment:

Our planet is on fire, and this extremist Supreme Court has destroyed the federal government’s ability to fight back.

This radical Supreme Court is increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis, and we can't let them have the last word.

Last I checked, wasn't Warren a Senator from Massachusetts? Isn't the Senate part of Congress? Isn't the Court saying Cogress needs to act?  Matt Whitlock probably said it best:

An unintentionally hilarious response.

Supreme Court: Congress must act to set new major environmental policies, not unelected bureaucrats

Libs: Congress must act.. to take away the Court’s ability to give Congress their authority back.

How do they have the energy for this?

All hilarity aside, the Left has tried again to get an agenda item through the courts that they could not get through the legislative process. That is why they are so upset. SCOTUS has once again turned them around and pointed them to the Congress.

"How did we get to the point where babies can be killed and murderers can’t?"

 Daniel Greenfield at the blog Sultan Knish asks the shocking question Who Would You Kill?. Greenfield makes the point that I have not hearsd anyone else make: that the same people who are pro-abortion are also the ones who want to regulate the Second Amendent out of existence. The two decisions make perfect sense to conservatives. After all, the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, while there is not a word, or hint of a right to abortion in that document. Still:

"The Supreme Court's back-to-back decisions on guns and abortions have the practical impact of preventing Democratic states from regulating guns — and allowing Republican states to prohibit abortions," New York Times political reporter Shane Goldmacher tweeted.

The conflation of ‘New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen’ and ‘Dobbs v. Jackson’ is compelling to lefty legalists who have never taken the Second Amendment seriously.

But beyond the legal fact that the Right to Bear Arms is in the Constitution and the right to kill babies isn’t, there is a moral difference of values that is worth contemplating here.

And that moral difference makes all the difference. In the case of abortion, we are talking about what is in essence, the execution of a child for having the temerity to be concieved by an act that her mother should have known could result in such a conception. An the other hand, the Second Amendment allows people to carry a weapon for defense of themselves and others. There are few excuses for the killing of an innocent baby in the womb, and there are few excuses for restricting law abiding citizens right to arms.

The moral chasm between the premeditated murder of the innocent and the desperate self-defense of beleaguered men fighting for their lives is both damning and revealing of the fundamental flaws of victimhood utilitarianism and Marxist power dynamics as guides.

How did we get to the point where babies can be killed and murderers can’t?

How, indeed? Hopefully, the Supreme Court has begun to put us back facing toward God, or at least not facing 190 degrees away from Him.

Tucker Carlson lists the political arrests in the former USA

 I go to bed early, because I get up early to get to work.  I even get up before breakfast!  As a result, I record Tucker Carson Tonight. So, as I was drinking coffee this morning, and watching a recording of Tucker Carlson Tonight from Brazil, and thinking that I need to alert gentle readers to Carlson's monologue, I clicked on a post by Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker. Widburg had already done my work for me in her post entitled Tucker puts together the long list of political arrests in Biden's America. Naturally, she embeds Carlson's monologue in her post, which you should watch.  The fact is that when you put it together in one place, it is shocking.  It reminds of Stalin's tactics in the Soviet Union.  You wonder when people will be disappeared, ad scrubbed out of old photos. 

Speaking from Brazil, Carlson notes that in Brazil, the losers of an election are often arrested. Politics there are not for the feint of heart. Anyone with a sense of integrity and honesty should clearly stay clear of politics. His point is that we are heading toward the same fate. Our scavenger class appears to be interested in power for power's sake in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. This is not the intent of our founders. We weren't supposed to have professional politicians. Rather, successful people in business, agriculture, shipping or other enterprises would give back to the community by running for Congress and other political offices for a term or two, and then return to private life.

Today we have people, on both sides, who get themselves into office having done nothing to recommend them, and begin accumulating power, as I say, for powers sake. Along the way, they seem to become millionaires even though they have no other means of support than their salary as Congressmen. It has now gotten to the point where at least one political party has decided to criminalize the other party. This not what was intended, and we the people are at fault for tolerating this corrupt system.

Please go watch Carlson's monologue.

Democrats Don't Care For Democracy, or you, or me

 At The Federalist Jordan Boyd has an article entitled Democrats Hate Every Second Amendment Victory Because It Challenges Their Monopoly On Power.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun licensing scheme as unconstitutional last week, outraged leftists freaked out and started calling for the end of the judicial branch as we know it.

...snip...

The law was accurately ruled unconstitutional, plain and simple, but that’s not good enough for leftists who despise the fact that Americans can and will defend themselves.

Why do Democrats despise the Second Amendment so much that they want to effectively banish a branch of the government over it? Because it strips them of their ability to control everything and accumulate power.

Democrats hate the Second Amendment for the same reasons they hate free speech and fair elections: They want a monopoly on violence, words, and power. The rights to self-defense, free speech, and clean elections are all that’s preventing leftists from destroying ordinary, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans like you and me.

What strikes me is that the theme of Boyd's essay is that Democrats hate. They hate you, me, and one wonders if they even like each other? They remind me of a bunch of movie directors, setting the scene, directing each actors action, right down to how they speak, the expressions on their faces. And when people don't act as Democrats want, they get angry and hateful. Don't the people understand who they are??  But one thing causes me to wonder if Democrats, notice the name, ever listen to themselves because Democrats actually do not like democracy.

Democrats harbor a deeply undemocratic, un-American ideology that strongly contradicts everything laid out in the Constitution. And they will do everything they can to preserve the power they’ve accumulated and abandon the Constitution that denies them that power.

Sometimes One Must Hold One's Nose, and Vote for the Least Worst Candidate

 I received a letter from Senator Thom Tillis after the so-called "gun safety bill" was passed and signed into law supposedly explaining himself.  As it turned out, a number of other members of Gun Rights North Carolina received the same letter.  I meant to fisk this letter, but GRNC beat me to it, and did a better job that I would have.  You can find their take down of Tillis's letter reproduced below.

“Traitor Thom” Tillis parses words to create false impressions 

Members have recently contacted us regarding the boilerplate message Senator Thom Tillis is sending out in response to constituent contacts opposing the so-called “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” As is typical of politicians, his reply carefully parses words to spin gun control included in the act as not gun control at all. Below are relevant excerpts from Tillis’ message to constituents followed by the truth.

Tillis claim:

“I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan manner to work with my Senate colleagues to develop a commonsense proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country. 

Truth: 

His “Senate colleagues” were 50 anti-gun Democrats and 14 other RINOs out of 50 Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, during negotiations, his “colleague” Sen. John Cornyn, who shared in negotiating the capitulation, got booed off the stage by “colleagues” in his own party at the Texas GOP convention in Houston. 

In the Senate, “colleagues” like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Barrasso (R-WY) unsuccessfully tried to substitute alternatives like adding school resource officers, prohibiting Fast and Furious style gun smuggling programs, hiring additional federal prosecutors to prosecute firearm violations, adding $29 million for safe school task forces and combatting juvenile firearm violations, and providing $75 million to provide child-safety gun locks. But of course, Traitor Thom and the Surrender Caucus were having none of that.

Meanwhile, his other “colleagues” in the House such as Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Dan Bishop (R-NC) publicly denounced the act as a “betrayal” while “colleague” Richard Hudson (R-NC) orchestrated Republican opposition to the bill in the House.

Tillis claim:

“The BSCA is a carefully negotiated response to gun violence that will make our communities safer by expanding access to mental health services, investing in school safety, strengthening existing laws, and funding crisis intervention programs.”

Truth:

By spinning his nightmare as “crisis intervention programs,” he carefully avoids mentioning that federal bribes in the form of $750 million include state grants to implement “red flag” gun confiscation laws under which firearms may be confiscated from unwitting gun owners without due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

He also neglects mentioning that the “crisis intervention” gun confiscation orders he funded, according to a 2018 study by Dr. John Lott and Professor Carl Moody of the Crime Prevention Research Center, have “no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.”

Tillis claim:

“…the [Bipartisan Safer Communities Act] strengthens existing laws to help crack down on criminals who abuse our firearm laws, while also protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This includes encouraging states to upload juvenile records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), providing for an investigative period for buyers under 21 to review juvenile and mental health records, criminalizing straw purchases, clarifying the definition of a firearm dealer, and providing protections for domestic violence victims.

Truth:

Once again, Tillis spouts nonsense about “protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.” The juvenile review process, including sealed juvenile records, will almost certainly permanently bar thousands who’ve had adolescent indiscretions. 

On the topic of “clarifying the definition of a firearm dealer,” it changes the definition from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “to predominantly earn a profit,” potentially encompassing even collectors who routinely trade firearms. The objective, of course, is to force as many transactions into NICS as possible in order to aid the ATF in the illegal gun registry it is building.

Tillis claim:

“Does this legislation create new background checks and waiting periods?

“No, the BSCA does not expand the background check system, does not change the age to purchase a firearm, and does not create a mandatory waiting period for all purchasers. Instead, the BSCA works to strengthen our existing background check system by ensuring juvenile records and mental health adjudications are considered before issuing a firearm to an individual under 21. For someone without a juvenile record, they will still be able to purchase a firearm on the same day. If a juvenile record is found, there will be an investigative period in which authorities can determine if the juvenile record would be disqualifying had the crime been committed if the individual were an adult.” [Emphasis added]

Truth:

This is perhaps Tillis’ most disingenuous claim. When he says it “does not create a mandatory waiting period for all purchasers” he avoids saying that it does create a waiting period for some purchasers, namely as long as a 10-day waiting period for purchasers under age 21. And before you say, “Well, that’s just for buyers under 21,” understand that he has just created a brand new “loophole” for gun banners to “close.” Rest assured they will be back soon, demanding that all purchasers be subject to the waiting period because, after all, it is working so well for under-21 buyers. Incidentally, the waiting period will make it difficult if not impossible for under-21 buyers to purchase firearms even from licensed dealers at gun shows.

Tillis claim:

“Will this legislation create a national “red flag” law?

“Absolutely not, the BSCA does not create a national “red flag” law. Further, it does not compel states to enact crisis intervention programs. Instead, the legislation provides formula funding for all states to enact violence prevention and crisis intervention programs that are best suited to the needs of their state. This funding can go towards crisis intervention programs, mental health courts, drug courts, veterans courts, and other programs to reduce violence and keep our communities safe. It is ultimately up to each state to determine how this funding will be used to best serve the needs of their residents.”

Truth:

While it is true that BSCA does not create a national gun confiscation law and that “Byrne Grant” money can be used for “crisis intervention programs” to include other types of programs, the money can be applied to “red flag” gun confiscation laws which allow for guns to be taken in “ex parte” hearings in which the accused has no opportunity to defend himself in court before guns are confiscated. 

Worse, the accused has “the right to be represented by counsel at no expense to the government,” meaning that if you can’t afford to pay a lawyer yourself, you won’t get your guns back.

Tillis claim:

“I am very concerned about protecting and preserving our constitutional rights, which is why I fought to ensure strong due process protections were included in this legislation. For states that choose to use crisis intervention order programs, the legislation requires strong due process and evidentiary protections to protect our constitutional rights and prevent abuse. That means new due process guardrails for states with existing crisis intervention order programs and for those that choose to implement new ones. This includes both pre and post-deprivation due process rights that include notice, the right to an in-person hearing, unbiased adjudicators, knowledge of opposing evidence, right to present evidence, right to confront adverse witnesses, and the right to be represented by legal counsel. It requires heightened evidentiary standards to justify crisis intervention and requires penalties for those who attempt to abuse the program.”

Truth:

Again, Tillis avoids mentioning that his “guardrails” such as “pre and post-deprivation due process rights” include ex parte hearings in which the accused has no opportunity to defend himself prior to gun confiscation, but must instead fight to get them back, after confiscation, at his expense.

And nowhere in his claim to be “protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners” does Tillis mention the so-called “boyfriend loophole” (is that sexist?), which expands the Lautenberg Amendment’s “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” – the first instance in which a misdemeanor rather than a felony barred people from gun ownership. Specifically, it would now include a vaguely defined “dating relationship.” Although the bar to gun ownership is five years rather than permanent, expect anti-gun Democrats to quickly look to close that “loophole” as well.

Thom Tillis is an absolute embarrassment to North Carolina Republicans. I suspected him of being a gun grabber when he was in the state house. He is one of those that says "I support the Second Amendment, but..." So why did we vote for him, you say? Because he is better that the Democrat the other side put up. He will no doubt be better than the Democrat they put up against him when he runs next. For the sort of reasoning that leads to electing Republicans who are really closet Democrats you need to read Selwyn Duke's article at the American Thinker entitled Tucker Carlson's Misguided Attack on Republicans. Carlson is right to be upset. I am upset. But Duke is correct when he quotes Bismark saying "Politics is the art of the possible." Sometimes, one has to have faith that God will make something good out of our blundering about. Sometimes one has to hold one's nose, and vote for the least worst candidate.

Not In The Emanations and Penumbras of the Constitution

 Allen West asks the question Does The Progressive Socialist Left Read the Constitution? West is commenting here on two of the recent Supreme Court rulings in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen and Dobbs. These things should never have been allowed in the United States. In the first case, they overturned the Unconstitutional Sullivan Act that had stood since 1911 and prevented the average citizen in New York from carrying a gun for self defense. In the second case, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade that had Unconstitutionally made abortion legal nationwide.

In the case of New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Second Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, clearly states that "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room. But of course, the Left doesn't care, and so they continue to attempt to restrict our rights.

In essence, the left in America wants citizens to be subjects and victims to the criminals that they are releasing in droves back onto our streets. I find it quite perplexing that the Second Amendment is a specified, enumerated right of the people in our first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Yet, it appears that the leftists have never read the Constitution to garner that pretty basic concept.

Instead, the leftists advance their ideological agenda, disarming legal, law abiding, responsible gun owners. Remember what leftist Congressman from Rhode Island, David Cicilline said, "I don't want to hear about constitutional rights BS."

And of course, not to be outdone, a number of Republicans, John Cornyn of Texas among them, stabbed us in the back by negotiating and voting for a so-called "gun safety bill" that gives the Left everything they wanted while getting nothing in return. You can read about it at Townhall.com in an article by Kurt Schlichter entitled Is Senator John Cornyn On Drugs? We should have gotten nationwide concealed carry reciprocity for that one. We didn't get anything but "Red Flag Laws" which are themselves Unconstitutional. So, one supposes that Cornyn is a Leftist as well.

 Next, West takes a look at Roe v. Wade. Notice the Court accurately states the case that abortion is none of the Federal government's business. It rather belongs to the states.  The issue of abortion, the morality of it, and when and where it may be restricted are matters for the indivdual states to decide.  I personally think that abortion is the murder of an innocent child.  I suspect that Col. West does too, and so does Amy Coney Barrett.  But that is not the point.

That leads to the next case of leftist derangement, the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Let's go to Article III of the Constitution where we find the duties, roles, and responsibilities of the Judicial Branch of our government. The courts are supposed to interpret the law, not make law, nor create individual rights. Sadly, this is all lost on our rather misguided leftist friends. They believe that courts should make law rather than issue decisions. Roe is not and has never been the "law of the land” because it cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution and the legislative branch has never passed it and submitted it to the executive branch to become law.

As well, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants an individual right to privacy that permits murder, by dismemberment, of an unborn child. But facts seem to get in the way of the abject irrational emotionalism of Marxists. They do not believe in the three branches of government, but rather the three branches of rule: media, academia, and the courts. Therefore, through those mediums they can force their tyrannical will and agenda upon the people by way of centralized totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, the left wants to tell us all that we cannot defend ourselves nor the most vulnerable in America—the unborn. The decision goes back to the States, where it should have been. Matter of fact, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the 18 duties, roles, responsibilities, purview, and jurisdictions of the federal government. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people. Joe Biden has said, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. I have to wonder if he has ever read the Constitution.

I frankly hope to see more rulings like these. I may not always agree, mind you, but if the Court is actually following the Constitution as written, including the current Amendments, that is the job of the Court. It should not be making laws. It really should not be giving deference to the political branches either. I would like to see other laws brought up, for example the Social Security act, Obamacare, National Firearms Act, and many others. It is high time that the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court acted as if the Constitution was actually the "law of the land" and stopped with the citing of the "good and plenty" clause, which is not in the Constitution; not even in the emanations and penumbras of that inspired document.

Justice Thomas's Most Important Words?

 Gary Green, at Townhall.com has an article entitled The Most Important Long Term Significance of the Recent SCOTUS Ruling on the Second Amendment. That Significance? That the priciples upon which the Second Amendment stands as a right are to be used to evaluate American's rights, rather than the utilitarian arguments implicient in "means-end" testing, so beloved by lower courts.

The case’s specific victory for gun possession outside the home for self-defense has been rightfully lauded as the central positive Second Amendment take-away. However, the other major ruling from the case—that the “means-ends test” used by lower courts in deciding the limitations to the 2A is no longer allowed—seems to have been given far less attention. I will focus on it here because it will have the most far-reaching effects on future interpretations of the 2A, and perhaps other constitutional analyses as well.

The traditional means-ends test used by courts first looks at whether a government’s interest in over-riding an individual right is reasonable, and then at whether the government’s proposed actions are arguably a rational method for furthering the government’s interest goals. A third, subsequent component of the means-ends test often can also be applied—whether a state’s achievement of its same interest can be met by a less restrictive over-ride of an individual right.

The means-ends test in relation to the regulation of citizen gun ownership can almost always put forth a “reasonable” interest for the state because guns can injure and kill the state’s citizens through criminal misuses, suicides, and accidents. Likewise, limiting citizen access to guns could conceivably always be seen as a rational strategy to reduce these harmful outcomes. And it will almost always be plausible that there is no less restrictive means to restricting gun ownership or possession that will result in the same level of injury and death avoidance.

While careful statistical analysis, such as John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" supports the notion that shall issue concealed carry is a good thing for society, such arguements are utilitarian. What if such analysis instead showed a net negative for society as a whole? Should the rights enshrined by the Second Amendment be restricted? Fortunately, the Court ignored such utilitarian arguements and instead focused on the principle arguments. Thank goodness such utilitarian arguements have been disposed of.

Justice Thomas’s majority opinion in Bruen may ultimately serve as his most important words ever—it is the original historical intent and context of the constitutional issue being examined by the courts that must be paramount.

Praise God Who Knew Us Before the Foundations of the World Were Established

 Mario Diaz has an article at the American Thinker entitled Justice Restored -- Roe Overturned that rightly praises God, but also notes that this return of justice is because of logical legal reasoning. It is, in other words, the opposite of judicial activism.

“The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion,” the Court wrote. First, the Court acknowledges the obvious, “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion,” and turns at once to the many theories that have been offered throughout the years to manipulate the constitutional text and read a right to abortion into the Constitution. “Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” the Court explains. Casey shifted that and “grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Still, others tried the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is refreshing to see the Court refuse to play the usual pro-abortion games in law and instead conclude, “regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures.”

...snip...

Justice Alito summarizes the opinion honestly, writing: “Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

We praise God for such clarity and boldness from the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, much work lies ahead for the pro-life movement to care for mothers and their unborn children. But we are up to the task, and we celebrate today’s significant step toward recognizing the intrinsic value of every human life.

In an article at The Federalist John Daniel Davidson asks Why Democrats Oppose Emancipation for the Unborn?, and aswers this question here:

Those quotes are broadly representative. Southern Democrats believed the denial of all rights to black people — and indeed the denial of their personhood — was integral to what they understood to be their constitutionally protected rights, without which they would cease to be citizens with equal rights as their northern counterparts.

The exact same thing can be said of today’s pro-abortion Democrats. They believe that the denial of all rights to the unborn is integral to what they understand to be women’s constitutionally protected rights, without which they will cease to be citizens with equal rights as their male counterparts. If women are not allowed to kill their unborn babies, they will be stripped of their full humanity, just as stripping slavery from southern whites meant, to them, stripping full humanity from white people.

If Davidson's analysis is true, what a pinched view of the Constitution these people have. But the truth is that in overturning Roe, the Supreme Court is recognizing that there are things that are not the Federal Government's business. We need more such decisions. The idea of federalism is that each state makes its own rules, within the bounds of a federal constitution. The idea of one size fits all laws at the federal level, outside those things delegated to that government, is the opposite of federalism. 

Even more important though, from a moral point of view, the killing of our children is something of which our God, the creator of each of us, vigorously disapproves. God knew each of us before the foundations of the world were established. Think about that. It sends goose bumps up my spine each time I think of that.  One thinks he must cry each time one of these little gifts is killed by its own mother.

The Massacres of 1964

 Tom Knighton has an article today at Bearing Arms about the author of the Bob Lee Swagger books, Stephen Hunter.  Hunter made a excellent point at Powerline.  Do you remember the massacres of 1964? No? Well maybe that's because it didn't happen, despite the sale of 240,000 actual weapons of war to the general public. They even shipped these weapons of war directly to peoples homes! Yikes! ( No I don't really think there's a problem with shipping guns directly to peoples houses.  That's the way we did it back then. ) 

Except that dispite the flooding of the nation with thousands of surplus M1 carbines, there were no massacres. Maybe guns are not the problem? Maybe we shouldn't concentrate on the tools used by criminals, and go after the criminals themselves?  Criminalizing guns to stop crime is like criminalizing forks because they make you fat.  Go read Knighton's article, as well has Hunter's article.

The Second Amendment is not Second Class

 The Supreme Court today handed down a decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and it has been a long time coming. One is tempted to quote Conan the Barbarian: "What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"  But that would wrong. Still...You can find the story at Townhall.com in a post by Matt Vespa entitled Liberal Completely Melt Down Over Supreme Court Ruling.

The ruling, written by Clarence Thomas, is quite long, in part because he goes into the long history of the right to self defense and the Second Amendment. Unlike what the David Hoggs of the world think, the Founders didn't just come up with the idea on the spur of the moment during a drunken night at the pub. Rather, it has roots in antiquity and in Anglo Saxon common law.

Naturally, the gun grabbers are not giving up.  I expect they will make giving people their rights as difficult as possible, and there will no doubt be a need for yet more suits.  But this ruling makes great strides toward an understanding of our Second Amendment rights as being just as important as our First Amendment rights.

Cooking Fires are Heating Up

 According to Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker the Senate 'gun safety' bill is even worse than I thought. Much of it is just pablum. For example, 'mental health' funding. The real risk to firearm owners specifically, and to people in general are the so-called 'Red Flag' laws being pushed under Byrne Grants to states. 

Red Flag laws usually violate multiple constitutional protections including 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and possibly first Amendment rights. This is no small matter. Red flag laws often permit someone to anonamously complain to a court that you are a dangerous person and should have your guns taken away. In some cases, the complainant need not actually know the individual, making the public disclosure of concealed carriers particularly dangerous.  The court then, in an ex parte hearing to which neither you nor your attorney are not invited, orders the sheriff to confiscate your guns. The first you know about it is when the sheriff shows up at 0600 A. M. to present you with a warrant. But since you are described as having guns, and thus being both armed and dangerous, they may enter with flash bangs in full SWAT gear, ready to kill anything in site that looks vaguely suspicious. You better not be holding the portafilter to your espresso machine when they enter.

According to Sarah Arnold at Townhall.com Republicans Fear Red Flag Laws Will Be Abused By Government. Given the long, sad, history of laws being abused by government, it is not unreasonable to think these too will be abused. The first person killed by such laws was a guy in Maryland who was turned in by his sister because of an arguement. She was all sorry over it, but he is still dead, and committed no crime. And she is still free to injure another gun owner.  You can expect more of that. Sure, there may be consequences written into the laws, but really, how likely is it that the perpetrators will be caught? This becomes a way for people who don't like you to sic the law on you.

But, now looking ahead, what if these laws stand, despite the obvious defects of constitutional law? What else might society decide to solve without the need for that pesky stuff called evidence of a crime. People forget that we have been here before. The demands of the Left are similar to what the Puritans demanded of people. I say similar, because at their heart, both demand conformity to arbitrary rules designed to punish people who didn't agree with them.

Eventually people got tired of the smug, self appointed arbiters of what people could do and say. They rebelled, and today the Puritans are gone. But there is always a puritan strain in people, and the Left has taken it to the extreme. People are already rebelling. They are getting tired of having to use the Left's made up on the spot preferred pronouns. Most people know that there is no climate crisis. Most people can see that the people kept in solitary confinement for over a year because of a riot at the Capitol are political prisoners. Most people see the January 6 hearing as being akin to Soviet show trials.  Oh, and they are figuring out that what the government can do to those people, can be done to anyone. They don't like that sword hanging over them. Fairness says that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and the cooking fires are heating up.

As for the Republican Senators who have betrayed the people by giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the people...Senator Burr (NC) is retiring, so can show his true colors. Senator Tillis has always been a gun grabber, thinly disguised for election purposes. NC voters will not forget.

Guns and Poses: The issue is never the issue...Culture is.

 G. Murphy Donovan has a suitably vague resume that includes being a military veteran and a retired member of the "intelligence community."  But it is enough to know that he has some idea of what he is writing about in a piece entitled Guns and Poses at the American Thinker.

If I were to sum up the article, it would be that the solution to violence (notice I didn't say "gun violence" because a bat is just as deadly a weapon as a gun) is to be found in raising children who respect the lives of others. It is, in other words, culture.

 Donovan is not shy about the lack of enforcement of criminal laws already on the books. Nor is he shy about calling out blacks in particular for taking advantage of our idiotic welfare laws which leave too many children without a father to provide that balanced discipline. He isn't shy about calling out the liberal moral morons who have foisted this cultural nightmare on us from the gated communities and ivory towers where they remain unaffected by it all.  Donovan is nothing if not a realist.

The bottom line on gun ownership is simple. Most Americans have guns, not because they don’t feel safe, but because know they are not safe. Available data demonstrate that a criminal shooter is not likely to be caught, prosecuted, convicted, or punished. In the nation’s capital, Washington D.C., the closure rate on gun homicide is 40% (Infographic here). If you kill in Washington, better than even money says you will not be caught, prosecuted, or convicted.

Violent crime is gun justification; the kind of Second Amendment safety that the city, state, or federal government is unable or unwilling to provide these days. Why not ransack the local pharmacy or loot Louis Vuitton, or even blow someone away over a pair of Michael Jordan sneakers, when the scales of justice are weighted in favor of the misfits among us? Criminals, not victims, are usually the heroes of most woke social narratives these days. San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, take a bow here.

...snip...

Few rifles, including the AR-15, are used for murder.

The weapon of choice for more than half of the nation's homicides is a semi-automatic handgun. Rifles kill or wound at a distance; a handgun maims in close quarters. All weapons are “assault” weapons, including ball bats, drunk drivers, drug dealers, and especially the semi-automatic handgun. And the whining about “high-capacity magazines” is claptrap, too. Uvalde mass shooter Salvador Ramos could have done the same damage in Uvalde, Texas, with a .22 caliber Ruger target pistol with just one spare clip. A clip can be ejected and replaced in the time it takes to clap your hands.

The high-capacity clip argument is bogus, unless the idea is to audit and verify clip or ammunition caches. And what would be done about all that legacy or extant firepower; nationwide house-to-house search and seizure? All realistic remedies need to be proceeded by honest assessments of the problem. Historically, noisy demagogues, not common sense, dominate our gun arguments.

...snip...

Between social indoctrination, social promotion, and now disease sabbaticals; we have cultivated several generations of innumerate, semiliterate, malcontents. Are we really surprised that some kids attack the very families and schoolhouses that nourished their ignorance, confusion, resentment, hate, and anger? The best primary school is a stable home where both parents teach adult values and set boundaries long before high school. If values are not learned at home, neither the streets, nor Hillary’s “village,” will ever fill that void.

Is it possible that we have failed the very children we pretend to protect and educate? Salvador Ramos shot his granny in the face at home and then wasted a host of kids at Robb Elementary. Ramos’ grandfather said his grandson was upset because his wife had “asked the teen to pay his own cell phone bill.” Yet, we pretend to be puzzled about the killer’s inspiration or motives.

The above are some snippets to give you a good taste of exactly where Donovan is coming from. It is a place of total honesty about the true cultural rot facing the nation today. Those issues result in violence as teens who have been cheated of a real education are tossed away by society, and lash out. Still most of them do not commit violence and murder. Most of them do seek a better life, though they are handicapped in their pursuit by lack of knowledge. We voted these scavengers into office. Isn't it time we voted them out. It would be a very mild punishment compared to what they deserve.

As for the "education system," we need a new one. We need to re-establish respect for teachers, who need to be respectable. We need to bring back prayer in schools, and emphasize the teaching of academic disciplines, and get rid of the teaching of identity politics, queer theory, and the other "woke" crap. See also J. B. Shurk Here.

Bottom line, as David Horowitz has written, the issue is never the issue.  In this case, guns are not the issue, culture is.  We need to reassert Western civilization and culture, and jettison the low brow rot that surrounds us today.

Scandal: Existing Gun Laws Not Enforced.

 Selwyn Duke has, what for Democrats may be counterintuitive ideas about gun control.  His idea?  Enforce the laws already on the books!  What an amazing thought!  So, naturally you will want to read Duke's article at the American Thinker entitled You really want federal gun control intervention? Here's an idea for you.

Word is that the Senate has the necessary votes for federal gun control legislation designed to, among other things, pressure states into instituting “red flag” laws. These measures are controversial because they involve suspending a person’s rights (i.e., seizing his weapons) without due process. Wherever you stand on them and federal firearms laws in principle, however, a simple fact is under-emphasized in this debate: Laws mean little if not enforced.

What’s more, they’re actually instruments of evil if only enforced to the degree where good people will comply.

Here’s another fact: Corresponding to the general unwillingness among left-wing district attorneys to punish criminals (who aren’t also political opponents), these officials, though claiming firearms are a plague, aren’t punishing most gun crimes. Odd, huh?

We already have an incredible number of restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns. The idea that it is easy to buy a gun is an out and out lie. Try it! Yes, you can purchase a gun on the internet, as in pay for the thing. But you cannot have it shipped to your door. Instead, the person who took your money will instruct you to designate a Federal Firearms Licensee who will still put you through the process of filling out a Form 4473 and run a criminal background check. Gang members who have been convicted of a felony cannot pass the background check and would be refused. Most criminals obtain their weapons from the black market or steal them themselves. Occasionally they get them by having their girlfriends purchase them, which is itself illegal as well. Duke points out that fully 50% of murders occur in certain parts of 2% of counties. Fully 73% of counties had no murders whatsoever in any given year.

Enforcement of local laws makes far more sense than any one-size-fits-all policy, too, as crime is not an evenly distributed phenomenon. Consider that more than half of 2016’s murders occurred in just certain parts of two percent of our land’s counties, and 68 percent of the homicides were committed in only small pockets of five percent of the counties.

Oh, these would be exclusively, or almost all, Democrat-governed areas.

In contrast and on average, “73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders from 1977 to 2000,” reported Fox News in 2017. (These would generally be GOP areas.)

In other words, we don’t have a “gun problem. We have a Democrat population/governance problem.

What’s so disgusting about enacting more laws but not strictly enforcing those on the books, especially the important ones, is that only good people are affected. They tend to follow laws even when enforcement is lax and punishment for violation is minimal; miscreants won’t without the threat of Draconian measures.

Perhaps instead of giving money to incentivise red flag laws, which are unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down, the incentive should be to actually enforce the most important of the gun restrictions: felons may not own or possess guns. This charge should always feature in any arrest of a felon. The NRA has also said that before any new gun laws are passed, perhaps it might be a good idea to enforce the laws already on the books. And while it is true that so many laws have been passed as to make owning a gun somewhat risky, it is still true that both at the state and federal level, the ability of felons to own guns is a scandal of our law enforcement.

There is one God, and we are not He

Following onto yesterday's post, and picking up the same theme, is an article at the American Thinker by Michael V. Wilson entitled Who's the Real Radical Individualist?. Wilson points out that it is the Left in which everyone did what was right in his own eyes. The quote is from the book of Judges, and indicates that they are not doing what is right in God's eyes. Whether it is aborting children in the womb, of pretending that there are 57 genders, or much of the rest of the Left's agendea, including materialism. Indeed, the fact of the Left's radical materialism makes me wonder how the Catholic church can justify so many priests being Communist.

The left tries to pretend that radical individualism describes Americans who care more about protecting their personal liberty than the health of their communities. If you want to be left alone to make your own decisions about vaccinations, masks, guns, morality, how to take care of your children; if you think abortion is murder; if you refuse to bow down to the claims of the LGBTQ-whatevers; if you insist there are only two sexes — in short, if you disagree with anything the left supports, you're engaging in dangerously radical individualism.

Furthermore, they claim that radical individualism harms everyone, even those who practice it. But, as is frequently the case with those on the political left, they're indulging in the art of projection, accusing someone else of the very thing they're guilty of themselves.

...snip...

Any honest person would be forced to admit it's not those on the right who are involved in radical individualism, but those on the left. In the Bible, in the Book of Judges, there's a phrase that is repeated several times and captures perfectly the zeitgeist of the modern left: everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Wilson likens the Left to a giant blob, an amoeba if you will, constantly moving, and swallowing up the culture, with everyone doing what is right in his own eyes.  They accuse the Right of not caring, but in truth they don't care.  They are grooming our children, uncaring that we don't want them to do that, indeed look upon their doing so with horror.  We don't care that some people may want to lie with the same sex, but we also don't want it shoved in our faces either.  We look at so-called "trans" people as simply confused.  They deserve compassion.  But they don't get to force us to pretend that their confusion is reality.

In the end, God created everything that is and everything that is not, the visible and the invisible.  He knows best what is reality in His creation.  And He has even given us a handbook of sorts we call the Bible.  Man continually wants to be their own gods.  Life is better if we surrender to Jesus, and recognize that there is only one God, and we are not He.

Our Leaders Need A Bit of Humility

Over at Crisis Magazine a theologian named Regis Martin has an article entitled Yes, It Can Happen Here, in which he recounts Bishop Galen's sermon calling out the Nazi practice of killing those deemed to be "life not worthy of life." It should be obvious that the thinking which leads to such actions is deeply evil. It involves turning away from God, who made each and every one of us in His image.

In the most scathing terms, the bishop denounced the wholesale killing of those whom the state had deemed unfit to live—“The destruction of life not worthy of life,” or Lebensunwertes Leben, to quote the official Nazi designation for eliminating entire categories of unwanted life. The “Lion of Münster,” as Count Clemens August von Galen came to be called, was having none of it.

Recounting in heartbreaking detail what was taking place all across Germany, of incurably ill and defective patients being rounded up for shipment to secret gas chambers, their ashes to be returned to grieving families upon request, his sermon so enraged Nazi officialdom that he was at once arrested, only to be released shortly thereafter, owing to widespread public protest.

Please read the rest, gentle readers, because you, like me, may notice similarities to events happening today. Of particular concern is the thinking of World Economic Forum futurist Yuval Noah Harari who has some ideas about what to do with what he calls "useless humans." Of course, what both of these ideas sprout from is the original sin, believing ourselves to be God. If we are God, then we can take the life and death of others in our own hands. We can determine who should live and who should die.

As Christians, we can easily see the hubris and the arrogance of Harari and people who think like him. Who appointed him to make these sorts of decisions about me or my family? Certainly I was never asked. But when people turn away from God, as Harari has done, this is what comes out of his mouth. And Harari is thinking much bigger that even the Nazis did, though we are talking only about matters of degree, not kind:

And, of course, given the implicit logic, why limit the practice of euthanizing to only the ill and the infirm? Why not extend it to others, to whole peoples, in fact, determined—by those who know best—to be unfit, less than human even. Jews, for example. Such a lot of them, too, just waiting to be eliminated. Why not, therefore, transpose the technology of extermination onto a much larger canvas and construct countless factories of death, equipped with state-of-the-art gas ovens for the swift and efficient removal of all the enemies of the German Reich?

Martin is at pains to point out that we are not (yet) living in the sort of nightmare that was Nazi Germany. And that is true, but there are troubling parallels nonetheless. for instance, we are keeping political prisoners by keeping accused January 6 rioters in solitary confinement for so far a year and a half. And Democrats are actively attempting to keep Republicans off the ballot. And of course, our scavenger...er...ruling class isn't hiding the fact they want to turn America over to the WEF.

In addition to electing someone other than the current crop of scavengers to be our leaders, perhaps we should also demand that they show some humility.

Tucker Carlson Today: The Exorcist

Something different today: A Tucker Carlson Today episode in which Carlson interviews a priest, Father Vincent Lampert who is an exorcist. It is an interesting interview, to say the least. At around the halfway point, Father Lampert makes a point that he isn't doing anything, but it is the power of God that does it all. It goes by quickly so if you watch it, don't let it pass by unremarked. From what this man says, he is truly a man of faith. Moreover, this is consistent with everything we believe about Jesus: that he is God himself, made flesh, that He died for our sins, that at the moment of His death on the cross, the devil and death were defeated.

He describes, at the prompting of Carlson, a number of things he has observed. If one were unprepared and happened to participate in an exorcism and these things happened, it would surely frighten. Father Lampert describes observing eyes rolling back, growling and uttering blasphemies, having superhuman strength, speaking in languages unknown to the individual, and even levitating. In this chaotic environment though, Lampert calmly prays the prayer of the Church and orders the demon to leave the person in the name of Jesus Christ.  It is only through the authority of Jesus, and not the priest that he is able to accomplish these things.

God does not always answer our prayers in ways that we understand. So, doubts can creep in. Is there someone on the other end of my conversation? Does He exist, and if He exists, does He care? I will confess that these doubts sometimes creep into my thoughts. They have to be batted away. But here is a priest who with full throated voice tells us that "Yes, God not only exists, but He cares, He wants us to have a relationship with Him. He wants what is best for each of us, if only we repent and turn to Him.

How refreshing.

Hey, Here's An Idea: Let's Just Take Away Guns Without Due Process

 D. Parker tells us that Red Flags Stand for Tyranny at the American Thinker today. So-called "Red Flag" laws are Unconstitutional, and frankly, not the Federal government's business. States already have laws that can do the same thing, but with the Constitutionally required due process. The Left, being the Left, is all about changing the meaning of words, and softening what they are actually talking about.

This is a typical leftist tactic: avoiding certain words because they would convey what is really taking place. Democrats routinely have their best wordsmiths conjure up soft language for wholesale gun confiscation. Start with those so-called “red flag” orders, which imply a government promise to confront serious dangers. Now that the people have become wise to this crass word manipulation, they’ve even starting to roll out a new version: “Yellow flag” orders. It’s got all the unconstitutional gun confiscation as before, but with a slightly brand new name.

That’s just the beginning of the naming frenzy, all intended to show that the government is just here to help. These unconstitutional abominations are also known as Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders (ERFPO), Risk Protection Orders (RPO), Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO)  Liberticidal leftists have also been wearing out their thesaurus conjuring up harmless descriptions of how these things work. Instead of talking about how an innocent person’s means of self-defense and personal property will be taken at gunpoint, they talk about how these laws “temporarily” separate people from their guns or keep guns out of the hands of individuals perceived as a danger to themselves and others.

Of course, the reality is quite different. As Tucker Carlson eloquently stated last week:

"Yesterday, they unveiled their plan to seize firearms from American citizens who have not been convicted of a crime or even accused. Now, under normal circumstances, it would be instantly obvious that that is unconstitutional. In our system, you have to be convicted before you can be punished, but in the hysteria that understandably follows a tragedy this horrible, politicians know that they can suspend civil liberties."

Let's be clear, whether we are talking about so-called "Red Flag Laws," or banning of certain weapons based on cosmetic features, the Left fully intends to take guns away from the law abiding, not the criminals. They intend to be in control of a monopoly of violence. They want the power to shove their ridiculous ideas down our throats, and then tell us to eat cake.  Their program goes directly against the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment is what has preserved our liberties so far.

Democrats Love Felons. The Law Abiding, Not So Much

 Today, at the American Thinker Frank Friday asks Will the Supreme Court put a stake through the heart of gun control? They should, of course. If you want to know how long our government has been corrupt, the law in question is the infamous Sullivan Act of 1911, that got the ball rolling on gun control. It was yet another Tammany Hall middle finger to the population of New York and the nation.

In yesterday's post, I spoke about how the Second Amendment was intended to work. Young men would join a local militia, train with them under regulations set by Congress, and take their weapon home, to maintain both the weapon and a certain number of rounds to fit it. It was understood that this militia would serve in various capacities: as a readily trained source of soldiers in times of invasion and as needed for sheriff's posses and other emergencies for which the county or state might need them. In today's post, Friday mentions something similar

When this case is decided, there will of course be the usual gnashing of teeth by the gun-grabbers, who will shriek about how the Second Amendment is not a personal right, and it's just for members of a state militia.

This argument was annihilated several years ago by Prof. Volokh in his 1996 article "The Commonplace Second Amendment," where he shows that the Second Amendment enshrines a right of the people individually: "Early Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont Bills of Rights speak of 'the right of the people to bear arms.' Since these provisions secure rights against the state governments, they must recognize a right belonging to someone other than the state or entities whose membership is defined by the state — this likewise suggests that 'the right of the people to bear arms' refers to a right of individuals."

The Kentucky state constitutional language, written just a year after the U.S. Bill of Rights, by men who were friends and colleagues of Madison and the other Virginia framers, is particularly on point: "[t]he rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Furthermore, the "militia clauses" of the original U.S. Constitution give the Congress extensive powers over the organization and training of the state militias. If the Second Amendment was somehow intended by such oblique phrases to then modify this power of Congress, it is all but impossible to see how.

The real meaning of a "well regulated" militia, as used by 18th-century Americans, means much more than just a well trained and equipped military force. It is a political concept that assumes an armed populace as an integral part of society and good government. Both American and English patriots were deep admirers of the Swiss model of militia. Diplomat Abraham Stanyan even wrote in 1714 that the "Swiss have a ... well regulated Militia ... that may overturn a Government at Pleasure."

It is long past time that we should see the end not just of Roe v. Wade but also Sullivan The problem with crime in our streets has nothing to do with guns per se, nor with who has them, but with who is willing to use them against fellow citizens. These people need to be dealt with tout de suite.

We have been here before with soft on crime District Attorneys and laws painting criminals as the victims of society. It wasn't true then either, and we had to toughen up our laws. Unfortunately, we toughened up the wrong laws while letting the real felons free to recommit. The Democrats love felons, after all.

"No compromise on our rights. Not now. Not ever. "

 One of the things Mike Vanderboegh of the blog Sipsey Street Irregulars used to say was "We will not back up (on guns) one more inch." Mike noted that the patriots had constantly given up gun rights while getting nothing in return. Indeed, no compromise has been the policy behind this blog as well. Starting in 1968 the Left has chipped away at our supposedly Constitutionally protected rights, and then come back the next year for another bite of the apple. Well, if we must give up a Constitutional right, they should also give up a constitutional right as well, like, oh, say...the right to vote ever again. Yet there are many reasons why that just won't work, so let's go with 'not one more inch!'

Today at Townhall.com Kurt Schlichter echoes the no compromise proposal in an article entitled No Compromise on Guns. He even says we should repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Yes!

Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let's also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent.

There are several Republicans who are apparently eager to come to a compromise on guns with the Democrats, whose ultimate goal is to rule unchallenged over a nation of disarmed, supine Canadian serfs. Some are lawyers, which explains why they are in Congress and not raking in bucks lawyering. If I went to one of my clients and suggested, "Okay, I propose we resolve this matter by giving the other side a lot of money and getting nothing in return," I would have to find an alternate income stream too.

The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that's how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning "assault rifles" completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that's a tangent – the proposed "compromise" seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I'm missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory.

If we were truly to follow the Second Amendment as intended, each able bodied (and mentally sound of mind) male would join a local militia, train with said militia, and take his M16 or M4 home with him. Each year he would qualify, and train with his weapon, and would maintain the weapon and keep a certain number of rounds constantly on hand. Please note that no army in the world has ever issued the AR 15 to its troops as weapons of war. Their troops would be slaughtered. The AR 15 is semiautomatic, while the U.S. Army issued the select fire M16 which was capable of fully automatic fire.

So, let us end the call for banning AR 15s and other so-called "assault weapons." Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, and other elected federal officials have no such right. The Constitution stands, as does the Bill of Rights, and these people have taken an oath to uphold and defend it.

The Real Agenda of the Left

 At the American Thinker today, Christopher Skeet asks Which Amendment Is Worth 'The Children?' Skeet's starting point is the all to obvious fact that after (almost) every mass shooting, the Left dances on the bodies of the dead while exhorting us to 'do something,'  hopefully without thinking too much. Because if we do think about it, we will realize that it's a bad idea. And just exactly how bad the idea is, is the what this article is all about.

Discussing gun control options with the eunuch class members of the press, President Biden quipped, “You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.” He continued: “It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds. The idea of these high caliber weapons – there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of, about self-protection, hunting – and, remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.”

In four sentences he told five lies, which is impressive even for him. But these five lies are central to the anti-gun argument, so I’ll briefly expound:

“You couldn’t buy a cannon…” Actually, you could. In both the absence of a standing army, and in the war against the British, private American militias procured cannons at their own expense.

“You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.” Actually, you could. There were never any colonial laws limiting the number of guns or amount of ammunition you could purchase.

“It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds”. This would be news to gun owners, as no ammunition magazine holds anywhere near that amount. The standard magazine capacity for an AR-15 is thirty rounds.

“…there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of, about self-protection, hunting…” The Second Amendment offers no such basis. The purpose of the Second Amendment isn’t for self-protection or for hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment is in its “being necessary to the security of a free State.” And for that purpose, there is an overwhelming rational basis, of which Joe Biden is Exhibit One.

“…the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.” Actually, it is. Amendments can be overturned, and Biden is free to try. But until then, the Constitution and its amendments are not subject to change at the whim of the mob. They are the absolute foundation from which all our laws derive. That’s the whole point.

Skeet points out that Biden has never needed a gun for self protection, having been protected his entire life by others. And while this is not part of the article, I feel it is important to point out that many people living in perilous neighborhoods, or having perilous jobs, do indeed need weapons for self defense. And a huge number of those people are the very people Biden depends on to stay in power.

Joe Biden has never needed to own a gun for self-protection or otherwise, seeing as he was able to defang the mighty Corn Pop utilizing nothing but the ol’ Scranton One-Two. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Biden is able to either 1) get the Second Amendment overturned or, 2) forum shop to get an anti-gun ruling by a favorable court, appellate court, or the Supreme Court. This would all no doubt be conducted in the name of “public safety,” or “protecting our children,” etc. The Constitution and its Amendments, we are told, are ossified relics of white supremacy.

But if that’s the case, why stop there? In the interests of “protecting our children,” why not re-imagine, as they say, additional amendments? As these mass shooters are attempting to create as much carnage as possible publicity, why not deny them this by revoking the freedom of the press under the First Amendment? How many children would be protected by criminalizing the publication of any information about mass shooters, their backgrounds, their motives, their manifestos, indeed even any information about the crime itself? How many would-be mass shooters would be dissuaded by the knowledge that the world will never know what they did?

Skeet goes on to suggest other of the Bill of Rights that might go by the wayside in the interests of protecting 'The Children.' And as you may have noticed from this examples, this examination of what rights might be given up for the sake of stopping school shootings is within the satirical tradition of Jonathon Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their own children. Going on:

But these Amendments prioritize the individual over the overall safety of the collective. And if the Left wants to reverse this prioritization, does it not stand to reason that these amendments are obsolete inhibitors to a better society? Why should the accused have so many safeguards? The truly innocent, if indeed they be of noble and “woke” character, will gladly accept the burden of proving their bona fides…just like they do in corporate anti-racism workshops, in public schools, and on Twitter. And if a few innocents do get imprisoned with the criminals? Meh. To paraphrase the New York Times’ Walter Duranty’s defense of the Ukrainian genocide, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. What’s more important? The fate of a few so-called innocents, or “protecting the children”?

What about the Eighth Amendment, which protects against both excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishment? Many leftist DAs are trying to eliminate bail altogether. But in the interests of “public safety” and “protecting the children”, shouldn’t we instead push for excessive bail? And why not inflict cruel and unusual punishment? If you apply the punishment a certain number of times, it ceases to be “unusual” and becomes “usual.” And wouldn’t so-called “cruel” punishment, if applied unsparingly and uniformly to every violent criminal, not deter others? If criminals realized that their crimes would be answered not by the usual slap on the wrist, but by being drawn and quartered in a public square, would this not drastically reduce crime? Is not “public safety” and “protecting the children” worth it?

While this piece is satire, it points out that to take away the Second Amendment is not enough. To then actually take away the guns requires that the breaching of every other protection Americans have enjoyed against tyrannous and authoritarian government. Recognizing that the Left does not intend to do so, what can be their real agenda?

Which brings up The Unspoken Wisdom of the Second Amendment by Anthony Matoria at the American Thinker. In it Matoria points out that if we are to have a free state, we must be able to be our own first responders in any situation that might arise. The government can not be everywhere all the time. The truth is that the there is no such thing as absolute safety. We are more or less at risk every second of every day that we are alive.

A free state implies necessary restraints on the armed agencies of government that are vested with the authority to use force. These restraints lessen the risk that such entities will become agents of tyranny, but they also impede their ability to defend the lives and safety of individual citizens. Unless the people are willing to accommodate an oppressive and intrusive police presence in the interest of "public safety," the citizens of a free state (i.e., one in which government force is restrained in the interest of individual liberties) must be allowed the right and means to provide their own defense. The idea of a free state is incompatible with the degree of surveillance, control, and intrusiveness necessary for police agencies to provide the elusive and illusory security that forms the basis of gun control appeals. Onerous restrictions on the ability for citizens to defend themselves against violence and criminal threats are hallmarks of authoritarianism, and authoritarianism is incompatible with a free State.

A central inconsistency at the center of progressive thought is the manner in which it regards trade-offs inherent in its agenda. The progressive is only willing to consider cherry-picked and ideologically favorable consequences in formulating his worldview. These ideology-compatible consequences often infringe the rights of others, but the progressive ideologue refuses to acknowledge that human reality cares little for this selective, naïve, and reckless dismissal of consequences. Examples of such inconsistency abound: we can give up fossil fuels without the elite having to sacrifice their private jets or standards of living; universities can replace rigorous intellectual inquiry with woke pieties without impairing graduates' readiness to contribute meaningfully to society; we can accommodate drug use and untreated mental illness without incurring increased crime, homelessness, and drug-related deaths. The progressive sees those as tradeoffs to be borne by others, and therefore not worth considering.

Nowhere is this penchant for selective consideration and disregard of consequences more apparent than in appeals to "safety." Safetyism is a pernicious doctrine that ultimately impedes the ability of a free society to function and survive. Consider, for example, the number of times during the COVID pandemic that officials of various sorts and competencies assured us that "the health and safety of [someone or other] is our top priority," or that everyday life and economic activity were disrupted "out of an abundance of caution." Now imagine that the chief of the Uvalde School District's police had stood behind a podium and said, "The health and safety of my officers is my highest priority," or "We did not attempt to enter the school out of an abundance of caution." Such an admission would strike the average person as odd, and perhaps evoke protests, yet it appears that it would be close to the actual scenario. When safety becomes an obsession, it paradoxically becomes a peril. Caution is like Tylenol: helpful in small doses, toxic in large ones.

The "safety" the Left offers with gun control is illusory. In fact, anything can be used as a weapon, and some things are more indiscriminate than any gun. The 9/11 terrorists used planes to kill 3,000 Americans. The Waukesha killer used a car to mow down Christmas celebrants. But no one is suggesting that we ban assault automobiles or limit airplanes to only those with a special need. No, I think the answer to what there real agenda is this:

Despite their incessant jabbering about the “structural racism” of the Constitution, leftists have no intention of scrapping any Amendments other than the Second (at least not without reworded protections for their own shock troops). This is because their exclusive goal is the complete centralization of tyrannical power, the helm of which they feel they’re entitled to commandeer. It is not, never was, and never will be about “protecting the children.”

The Personhood of the Unborn

 Most gentle readers are aware that the Catholic church has an absolute teaching that abortion is the murder of a person, the image of God himself.  The fact of each of us being the image of God is what makes each of us a precious creation.  And by "image" we obviously do not mean that we look like Him, since no one has seen Him, but in the sense of having a soul and spirit like God.  We are thus different and set apart from all other animals.  We indeed can have a relationship with God.  But, what is the thinking in the Catholic church?  As you might imaging, it is both deeper and broader that one may realize.

At Crisis Magazine John M. Grondelski has an article entitled The Visitation and Personhood of the Unborn. The article discusses the visitation of Mary, Mother of God, to Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist. The visitation is in the book of Luke Chapter 1, verses 39-56.

The Council of Ephesus formally declared the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the “Mother of God” in A.D. 431. That declaration came in response to the heresy of Nestorianism, which claimed that Mary was “Mother of Jesus” but not “Mother of God.” According to the Nestorians, Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus.

The Council properly grasped that Mary gave birth to a person, not just a nature. Mary gave birth to a whole, complete Person who had both the natures of God and of man. Just as no woman gives birth to “1.4” children, so Mary did not give birth to a part of her Child.

...snip...

Both women needed each other. Again, in terms of today’s debates, the Visitation not only acknowledges the reality of unborn human life but also encourages us to lend practical assistance to mothers in need. Those tasks are complementary, not contradictory.

The Gospel account of the Visitation clearly presents the encounter as a foursome. When Mary greets Elizabeth, John the Baptist “leaps” in her womb for joy. Elizabeth clearly differentiates between “my womb” and “the baby,” and it is she who attributes agency to her son: “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” In response to all those who deny the humanity of the unborn on the claim that they lack “agency,” Elizabeth—who, as the mother involved, should know—clearly declares that her boy’s movement is a happy reaction not just an involuntary movement.

I have argued against abortion both from a secular and a religious perspective. But to me, the more compelling is the religious argument. But either way, the Supreme Court should return the issue of abortion to the individual states, where it always should have been.

Democrat Gun Grabbers Violate Oath of Office

 As Tucker Carlson said the other night, the government wants to disarm you and me because the government considers us an enemy.  Think about that.  While that statement should be all you need to know, there is more.  At the American Thinker today Stu Tarlowe has an article entitled Following Biden's Gim Control Speech, An Inconvienient Story Surfaces. Spoiler alert, the "inconvenient story" involves a tattooed Latino escaped killer who, unsurprising killed an entire family before himself being killed by the police. But before Tarlowe gets to this inconvenient story, he takes apart Biden's speech with a bit of the truth:

Thursday night’s news programs were dominated by the story of President Biden’s speech earlier in the evening, in which he pressed for more stringent gun control measures. If I were to pick apart his remarks—and, believe me, there is fertile ground on which to do so!—I might zero in on his claim that “...the Second Amendment...is not absolute. It was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote: ‘Like most rights, the right Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’ Not unlimited. It never has been.”

Really? “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” sounds pretty absolute to me. But that’s just me. What matters more is that Biden’s supposed quote from the late Antonin Scalia isn’t quite accurate. Indeed, it changes a word that is critical to understanding the nature of the rights that the Founders enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

It’s true that, in the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the learned Justice Scalia did raise questions of limitations to the nature of weaponry covered. What Scalia wrote contrasts with remarks from Tench Coxe (1755-1824), a political economist and a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, who emphatically stated that the weaponry referred to by the Second Amendment comprised “every terrible implement of the soldier.” Nevertheless, on the core issue, Scalia got it right and Biden misquoted him. Thus, Scalia did not refer to the rights “granted” by the Second Amendment; rather, he referred to “the right secured by the Second Amendment....”

Exactly so. Biden relies on the idea that no right is unlimited, a statement that nearly everyone would agree with. For example, people who are convicted of a felony are prevented from owning a gun. Now, I personally think that only people convicted of violent felony such as murder, armed robbery, rape etc should be denied their Second Amendment rights. Congress and state legislatures have created too many "felonies" that aren't. Nevertheless, the fact that people convicted of a felony can be denied their rights shows that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. But at the same time, to deny anyone a right as absolute as the Second Amendment requires truly extraordinary proof. But he is proposing to take a person's guns through so-called "Red Flag Lows" with no proof at all.

Another inaccuracy Biden has stated repeatedly is that gun manufacturers are immune from liability suits. Absolutely false.

When it comes to inaccuracies, it’s also important to zero in on Biden’s call for “Repeal of the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability.” This repeats a theme he brought up in his State of the Union address, one that sees him advocating for the repeal of “the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that cannot be sued. The only one.” That was wrong then and it was wrong Thursday night.

The truth is that the firearms industry is far from the only industry that enjoys liability protections. Those liability protections are the same ones that keep you from suing General Motors just because the driver who smashed into your car happened to be driving a Chevy. Manufacturers are liable for badly made products, not for well-made products that are used badly.

So, how to explain how our Congress can even think about so infringing on our rights? Another post at the American Thinker by Andrea Widburg has the answer. Widburg's post, entitled A Democrat finally says out loud what they all think about the Constitution explains it for us.

The Democrats have made it plenty clear over the years that they don’t like the Constitution as written. They hate free speech, a free press, religion that is free from government intervention and, most of all, the Second Amendment and its clear recognition of every citizen’s inherent right to bear arms. Unable to change these principles, they opt for imaginary rights (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage) and dream of packing the Supreme Court to circumvent the intentionally cumbersome amendment process. But they always pay lip service to the Constitution. That is, until Rep. David Cicilline (D. R.I.) spoke openly about his contempt. He is to be praised for his honesty.

...snip...

In the trade-offs that life always demands, the deeply tragic, yet statistically inconsequential number of school shootings does not justify abandoning the Second Amendment. Instead, shootings should be met through different, lesser means—all of which the Democrats refuse to try. They want to seize your guns because, as is true for all political entities that want to control you, your guns stand in their way.

And Cicilline, with admirable honesty, said the quiet part out loud:

"Spare me the bullshit about Constitutional rights"

So there you have it.  The Democrats intend to violate their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by violating your rights.  This used to be considered treason.  Why is it not now?  As I have said before, any government that doesn't trust you should not be trusted.

Election Integrity

 A couple of reports on election integrity from the Epoch Times The first invovles 19,000 invalid ballots that were nonetheless counted in Arizona. Biden won Arizona by only 10,000 votes, so this could have turned the election. Mainly it shows that people were willing to break the law to secure their own desired outcome.  There have to be consequences to force people to do their duty.

The second points to a more serious issue. The title of the piece is Election Integrity Group Unveils Findings on Ballot Trafficking in Arizona. As in Dinesh D'Souza's movie 2000 Mules, True the Vote found substantial evidence that vote traffickers placed an average of 21 votes in drop boxes. So, in effect, in Arizona, instead of one person, one vote, some people get 21 votes.

“The only thing I would like to see come out of this meeting is people going to jail,” said State Rep. Quang Nguyen (R). “I would just like to see people cuffed.”

Of course, but I would also like to see the people who funded this to be in prison, and have their fortunes taken away as well. But that is just me.

Fr. Zakaria Botros Winning Hearts and Minds for Christ

 Some of my gentle readers may have noticed that I am a Christian.  I fled the local Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) for a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod congregation because of the ELCA caved to the current nihilist culture, while the LCMS so far is standing firm.  I have written about that in the past, so won't rehash it here.  But I do urge anyone who is in a church body that substitutes man's thinking over God's scripture, to run as if the Devil were chasing him, or her.  My point here is that confronting Muslims by bringing up their failure to abide by the secular standards of the West will not convince them.  Their God, and their scripture do not abide the West's secular culture.  Frankly, there is much these days that Christians cannot abide either.

So it is that, Raymond Ibrahim. at the American Thinker yesterday had an interesting story telling us This Octogenarian Priest Is The Bane of Islam. Fr. Zakaria Botros is a Coptic Christian priest who understands the Islamic scripture, perhaps better than most Muslims, speaks Arabic, and is thus able to counter Muslim lies with Christian Truth. He has won many Muslims over to Christ. And he is quite open about telling Muslims that Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Creator of everything that is, the Christian God, but Satan himself!  So often, we whisper that among ourselves, but we should be shouting it from the rooftops.  And no, Muslims don't like it, but he is uniquely placed to tell them what they need to hear.

What a world of difference there is between anti-Islamic polemics emanating from the secular West and those emanating from the religiously charged Arab world itself. This is the thought I have whenever I watch Arabic-language programs and debates, which tend to have an unrestrained and animated quality.

Fr. Zakaria Botros, first introduced to non-Arabic-speakers in this 2008 article, is an especially appropriate case study. Originally a Coptic Christian priest from Egypt turned polemicist and evangelist, since around 2000, he has become a major thorn in Islam's side, as evidenced by the many calls for his assassination.

Zakaria appears on a satellite channel, al-Fady TV, where he regularly takes Islam to task, primarily by asking tough questions concerning many of its most authoritative texts (Koran, hadith, sira, tafsirs, etc.) and teachings. And I don't mean the tough questions that we're familiar with — for example, if Islam is a religion of peace, why is the Koran inundated with violence and intolerance? No, he has dug into even the most arcane of Islam's books (almost all of which have not been translated out of Arabic) and unearthed some immensely problematic revelations.

Please read the whole article. Fr. Botros is successful because he is able to reach Muslims where they live, and speaks to them in ways they will understand. Readers who may not be Christian may scoff "There is no God; Satan doesn't exist." Yet the evidence for the existence of God is all around us, and I have written about it in this blog. And if God exists, Satan does too.

In the same way that the Bible is the Word of God, the Koran and the Hadiths are the words of Satan. Note the differences. The Bible has one consistent message-God's plan for the salvation of mankind. The Koran's message changes as circumstances change. God does not condone lying ever, although Abraham lies to save his own skin. The Koran encourages lying if it will advance the cause of Islam. There are, in fact, so many such differences that one must question whether the two books were inspired by the same being. I have concluded they were not.

 One other thing I must comment upon, while on this subject, is the incredible similarity of the tactics of the Left and of Islam. I have often thought it was strange that the Left seemingly wants to glorify Islam by calling it the religion of peace, while destroying Christianity. If the Muslims ever gained ascendency, the Left would be among the first to lose their heads. Similarly, if the Left gains ascendency, as in China, the Muslims are persecuted and killed, like the Muslim Uyghurs. But both employ the same tactics to get what they want.  This suggests that both have the same source.

 Note, though, that I do not speak or write Arabic, so I have trusted others who do. One source has been Robert Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins. Spencer has many books and articles on Islam, by the way.  If you read this book, I think you will come away believing as did Thomas Jefferson, that Islam like its author, has no Truth in it.