Several examples of Christians opposing all violence and means of self defense have been in the news lately, and I can't deal with all such examples. But three particular examples come to mind, and I first want to show you one example from Mr. Robert Schenck in a ridiculously titled article, Christ or a Glock. "Well, first of all you're making an immediate decision that if someone invades your home, they are going to die," Rev. Schenck replied. "So you are ready to kill another human being [read more]
Paul Ryan is no stranger to gun control. It’s important to remember that, and what we’re going to discuss isn’t anything new for Ryan. As an aside, it’s remarkable that the Congress, when they lost that horrible worm John Beohner, couldn’t even break from the establishment any more than to put in a man just as connected to the establishment. Let’s be clear – Paul Ryan isn’t controlled by the establishment, he is the establishment. At any rate, he’s promised to give gun control a hearing in Congress.
A week after Democrats staged a nearly 26-hour sit-in demanding a vote on gun control measures, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the House will vote next week on legislation to block suspected terrorists from buying guns.
In a conference call Thursday, Ryan told rank-and-file Republicans that the House will take up a terrorism package that will include measures to disrupt radicalization and recruitment, as well as a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, according to a source on the call.
It’s unclear exactly which bill will be brought to the floor.
Democrats launched a daylong protest on the House floor last week demanding a vote on such legislation in the wake of the Orlando shooting rampage that killed 49.
Ryan on the call reiterated that it’s important to ensure suspected terrorists can’t obtain guns, calling it common sense. But the Speaker said he wanted to approach the issue deliberatively to protect due process and Second Amendment rights.
The House next week will also take up a bipartisan bill by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) that seeks to address gun violence by overhauling the mental health system. That bill recently cleared the Energy and Commerce Committee.
A Democratic source said the more controversial gun-purchase provision may be similar to a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that’s backed by the National Rifle Association.
Democrats say the Cornyn bill doesn’t go far enough since it includes a “probable cause” standard that would require law enforcement officials to prove that a gun buyer is an actual terrorist rather than a suspected terrorist.
David Codrea weighs in on this.
Define “due process.” Is it being charged, tried in accordance with laws respecting rights, and found guilty before being denied a fundamental right? Or is it some law enforcement careerist using a secret list of undetermined sources and reliability convincing a judge or panel of unknown political sympathies that some tenuous “probable cause” alibi exists?
The same concern applies to mental health-related gun prohibitions—has the “accused” been afforded the equivalent protections of a jury trial, or is someone who may be quite learned in the field of mental health and quite ignorant and opinionated about “gun control” all that’s needed to sign off on a “no guns” life sentence?
And I’ve argued the same, but quite frankly I’m becoming very disillusioned at the so-called “criminal justice system” in America, all of it, and I see no reason to believe that a trial by jury would yield anything better than an empowered federal executive. Remember that half of America routinely votes for communists anyway, and most of the other half is often confused.
David issues this warning though.
The correct position for the Republicans to take on guns, since the only clear mandate is the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, is to reject all citizen disarmament attempts, and make the monopoly of violence cult fight for every inch. We know that’s the end game, so why cede any beachhead from which they WILL launch further attacks? Why make any concessions, even on a floor vote? What, are we going to find out which politicians are anti-gun? We don’t already know?
Of course, there is no legitimate reason to pursue this any more in Congress. As I’ve observed before, gun confiscation on a massive scale won’t happen in America. The progressives will nickel and dime us to death, with everything from mental health checks to domestic abuse record keeping where the mere perceived threat of harm is enough to place a person on the no-gun list with all of the white patriots in flyover country who believe in the second amendment.
The thing progressives have going for them is that they aren’t purists. They aren’t looking to get everything at once. They are incrementalists, and will take less than perfect in their eyes in order to achieve the desired end state. The grand progressive plan isn’t to go all in on collection of guns at once. It’s to bleed the country dry, death by a thousand cuts. Paul Ryan is currently negotiating what the next cut will look like.