The Constitution Is Not a Suicide Pact

 Today, at the American Thinker Mike McDaniel has a post entitled Defining Islam to avoid national suicide. Americans must realize that Muslims are waging a special kind of jihad against us, with the eventual goal to conquer this country for Allah. It starts small. Maybe a family moves into your neighberhood who is Muslim. They seem nice. Then a few more. One day they build a mosque, hire an imam who tells them they must more fully comply with Islamic law and the Koran. Next thing you know, they are demanding Sharia in place of the laws of your community One day the city that once was yours has become theirs and you are no longer welcome. See Dearborn Michigan. We don't have to let this happen.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Yes it says that we may not either establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of such. But, is Islam a religion?

Christianity is a voluntary religion. No one is forced to become a believer, and there is no earthly penalty for choosing to reject belief. One willingly accepts God, or one does not. Christianity does not mandate the conquest of the world for God. It recognizes self-defense, an unalienable right acknowledged by the Second Amendment, but it does not preach hatred of anyone; quite the opposite, as the Second Commandment says:

And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Islam is a system of political conquest and domination. It tolerates no separation of church and state because the “church” is the state. It uses religion as a means, including Sharia, to keep its adherents in line. If you are not an observant Muslim, you risk being labeled an infidel, and if you choose to leave Islam, you’re an apostate. There is only one fate Islam mandates for apostates: death.

Muslims are exhorted to kill all Jews, and to enslave or kill all infidels in Jihad—holy war—to conquer the world for Islam. Islamist Muslims often kill other Muslims they consider insufficiently fervent in their faith. And while some Muslims apparently do not want to kill or enslave anyone, it is Islamists, not they, who are living the intent and text of their faith. The saying that some Muslims don’t want to kill anyone, they just want other Muslims to do it, applies.

It should be clear that the god of Islam is not the same as our God. It should be clear that Sharia is incompatible with our laws. It should be obvious that while we are expected to love those that have a stated goal of killing us, we nonetheless can expect them to either give up their stated goal or return from whence they came. We are not required to bow to their god, who in reality is the Evil One. We already have sufficient laws to deal with Islam, the question is, do we have the spine to implement them?

More sad news for gun grabbers...

 In 1992, Florida State criminology professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted a survey that showed around 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) a year nationwide.  Most DGU involved merely brandishing the gun, not actually firing it.  Naturally, the gun grabbers tore into Kleck's results, claiming it could not be true.  The CDC did a similar study in 2018 and found similar results. A number of years ago, I had a experience of using a gun to defend myself, but in my case, I didn't even have to brandish it. Once the bad guy made himself known, I took a firing grip on the weapon but did not draw it. It remained concealed.  But the bad guy decided I was not an easy target after all.

Today, at Fox News there is an article by Amy Swearer entitle Gun control activists demanded better data. What they got surprised the heck out of them. According to the article:

A Georgetown professor just taught gun control activists an important lesson: When you criticize studies that don’t support anti-gun talking points, be careful what you wish for — you just might get it. In this case, they got an unprecedented amount of new data that obliterates their narrative.

In 2021, Professor William English published the findings of his National Firearms Survey, by far the most comprehensive assessment of gun ownership ever conducted. The data demonstrated that defensive gun uses were commonplace, that ordinary Americans really like the weapons gun control activists hate most and that longstanding stereotypes about the "sort" of Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights were misplaced.

Gun control activists predictably hated this. They attacked the report’s conclusions and author, blasting the survey over nitpicky concerns. English explained how the alleged problems wouldn’t have significantly impacted the results. Critics categorically dismissed the report anyway.

So, English humored them. He re-administered the survey, "fixing" its alleged "mistakes."

If gun control activists hated the 2021 conclusions, they will likely lose their minds over the new ones, which English just released online. The improved and redesigned 2026 survey fails to vindicate their criticisms and deals even mightier blows to anti-gun narratives.

Gentle readers can read the whole article at the linked site. I don't expect this survey to change any minds among the gun grabbers. They are stuck in the belief that if we only banned the tool, that criminals wouldn't kill others. But the first recorded murder in the Bible was when Cain killed Able with a rock. Indeed, nearly anything can be used as a weapon. It is the criminal intent of the killer rather than the tool he uses that makes the difference. What surveys like the one conducted by English show is that guns are inanimate tools that can be used for both good and evil.

It is, of course, a utilitarian survey, but as such things go, it proves that the principle is correct.  God says you shall not murder.  But when someone chooses to break that commandment, we have the right, and even the duty to defend ourselves.