First up, I had failed to mention that David Codrea did a followup at Ammoland on the commentary Rob Pincus co-authored supporting universal background checks.

Second, Anthony Garcia, president of Save The Second, ostensibly a Rob Pincus organization, wrote a commentary at Ammoland defending Rob, or so it seems from his words.  He pleads for unity.

I am sure by now most of you have read Rob Pincu’s article. And if you haven’t read his co-authored article with Dan Gross and only the commentary about it then I would highly suggest you go read it and listen to his videos about it. Nearly all the attention that has been focused on the article has revolved around his discussion of background checks.

What this article has done is laid bare the state of the Second Amendment community. And this has shown us that there is a demonstrable lack of unity, far too much knee-jerk reactionism, and little to no focus placed on messaging and narrative. A portion of Rob’s article was related to those last two topics, narrative and messaging, yet no attention has been paid to them. Ironically, controlling the narrative is one of the few ways that we will win and something that everyone can play a part in. Let’s discuss these topics one at a time, beginning with unity.

Gun control extremists and proponents of citizen disarmament have shown us for decades why it is important to maintain a united front. They have maintained an appearance of unity through thick and thin, regardless of nearly any scandal that comes out against one of their own, and they have plenty of legislative and cultural victories to show for it.

We must stay on point with our messaging and not allow ourselves to be distracted by internal politics.

There, you have the gist of it.

But the problem is that a discussion about whether we are going to support a bill that effectively creates a national gun registry isn’t about internal politics.  We covered that in my response.  This commentary by Garcia reeks of a demand for agreement with Rob, with the tool of extortion being the appearance of lack of unity.

But the lack of unity wasn’t created by me, or most of my readers.  It was created by Rob.  One cannot simply defenestrate one of the core doctrines of liberty and then demand agreement with those who love liberty by simply appealing to unity.

This has been the trick of traitors, quislings and turncoats for millennia.  It has occurred that way in politics (witness the tide of collectivism in America over the past 150 years), the church (witness here the agreement of the mainline Presbyterian church [PCUAS] with the Auburn Affirmation in 1924, and in gun control (witness the push towards UBC, a renewed AWB, permitting schemes, etc.).  Many more thousands of examples could be given.

The example of the Auburn Affirmation should be telling.  It reads at the beginning, “An Affirmation
designed to safeguard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America Submitted for the consideration of its ministers and people.”  Unity, they said.  Unity means everything.

In that document, the ministers and elders of the PCUSA denied that the Scriptures are the word of God (they only “contain” the word of God), denied the deity of Christ, denied … They had the audacity to affirm that “The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ.”  A bolder lie cannot be imagined.

Concerning the person and work of Jesus, they affirm that “we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.”

This all led to the separation of the PCA and OPC from the PCUSA.  And unity in politics has led to the separation of the people from the controllers.  And we must separate from Rob Pincus and anyone else who affirms that UBC must be approved.  Amos 3:3 rhetorically asks, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”

They can’t.  And we cannot walk with Rob Pincus, or Mr. Garcia for that matter.  Unity in error is no unity at all.  No, we can’t all just get along – not when core values are at stake.

Here is the last question: Is this the sort of commentary we should expect from Ammoland in the future?

Just The News.

A strong majority of U.S. voters in a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen – including nearly half of Democratic voters surveyed – say they would prefer to live in communities where gun ownership is legal.

Sixty-three percent of voters said they would prefer to “live where individuals are allowed to own guns.” Just 26% said they would prefer to reside “where guns are outlawed.”

The remaining 12% was unsure.

Well that rather harshes the narrative, yes?  Remember that the vast majority of people believe in the right of self defense.  Not that it should matter to you whether people recognize your God-given duty when it concerns your conduct, but it’s interesting to note that the constant barrage of narrative in support of gun control is just that – a barrage, sound and fury signifying nothing.

If people really believed what they say people believe, then they wouldn’t have to repeat it all the time.

How to deal with Nazis.

Absolute legend 👊🏻 pic.twitter.com/aRlFoDfIpL

— Tony (@Mrtdogg) April 3, 2021

This apparently occurs somewhere in Canada.

One of my sons sent me this and had some salient and quite insightful remarks about it.  He didn’t focus on the pastor, although his words were powerful and he didn’t back down.  He is to be commended.

Notice the police.  They are there to support a mouthy “Karen.”  She wouldn’t stop talking.  She is a controller.  They are waiting like dogs in the background for her next commands.

Men who have been eviscerated of morality and manliness, and who have jettisoned their God-given duty of leadership, retreat into a Nietzschean suffering.  They are all in bondage.  They could no more properly think their way through what’s happening at that moment that an animal.

But they are responsible before God because their slavery is self-selected and voluntary.  The Soviet empire was also keen on the use of women as controllers and informers, and men as the thugs who backed them up.  Such men beg for abuse by the nearest dominatrix.

You should find such men to be sickening. Their actions are shameful, and yet they will go home and look their wives and children in the face, eat dinner, and go to bed as if they have done well today.

The status of the bill can be found here, with a PDF of the full text here.

The people of Arkansas have vested the General Assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within this state’s borders, subject only to the limits imposed by  the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5.

All acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States Government, whether past, present, or future, that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to  the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, are invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. (b) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations that are null and void in this state under subsection (a) of this section include without limitation:

(1) The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.; 11 (2) The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.; (3) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by  law-abiding citizens; (4) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (5) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (6) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law abiding citizens; and (7) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

This is just an excerpt.  The full text is powerful and deserves a hearing.  Its chances are unknown to me, but readers in Arkansas should contact their representatives about this.

Of course, it remains to be seen if this is just symbolic or if it ends up having teeth.  The wording has teeth.  Whether it will redound to real enforcement of the bill, should it become law, would be up to the people of Arkansas.

The original.

Now for a version re-orchestrated and performed much later in life by Matthew Ward, who still has a beautiful voice.

Via friends David Codrea and Len Savage, nearly 400 million checks since its inception 20 years ago.

That doesn’t include concealed carry checks (where the certification suffices in lieu of the check) or before NICS.

I cannot embed the video.  Go to reddit/Hunting to check it out.

That boar was intent on an attack.  The notion that wild pigs are all “runners” now and won’t charge is clearly false.  A pig tusk can cut a femoral artery and cause death in minutes.

He had an AR pattern rifle shooting 300 BO, with a standard capacity magazine.

But hey, who needs standard capacity magazines anyway?  He could have just let the pig kill him.  PETA would have loved that.  Maybe not so much though when they invade their yards and kill their pets and tear up their lawns and gore their children.

You do the math.  They reach maturity in several years, have three or four litters every year, 12 pigs per litter.

Even if you’re not intent on hunting, carry a large bore handgun when in the bush.

Remember what he says in this idiotic tweet.

Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) March 28, 2021

Now watch this video.

Holy shit! LOL https://t.co/Dmqazqu6nE

— James Lindsay, Donald Trump of intellectuals (@ConceptualJames) April 1, 2021

In order to enjoy the liberties and freedom God granted, we need to follow the declarations of the tyrants in charge.

Admitted to by the buffoon and the controller in the video.  And never forget what this – masks, lockdowns, business and school closings – was all about.

Opinions from S.C.

South Carolina Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Travelers Rest, sponsored a measure in anticipation of federal efforts to bolster gun control.

The senator wants to exempt from any new federal gun laws all members of South Carolina’s “unorganized militia,” which consists of all able-bodied citizens older than 17 who aren’t in the National Guard or the organized militia.

I infer from his measure that the senator is relying upon the Second Amendment to support his measure.

Had the senator taken the time to read the very document he swore an oath to support and defend, he would see that the Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

It says “well-regulated militia,” not “unorganized militia.”

How can we abide having a state senator draft laws who doesn’t even understand the seminal document that our free society is predicated upon?

It would seem South Carolina has greater concerns than gun control.

J. BROOKS DAVIS

Attorney

Coleman Boulevard

Mount Pleasant

This confusion occurs a lot and while it’s impossible to correct it every time, some things bear repeating.

First of all, let’s address the 2A again.  The founders didn’t rely exclusively on the notion of militia to honor the RKBA.  Remember, bearing arms was so common in and among the people in the colonies that it would have been unnecessary to stipulate that people had that right given by God.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

The concern at the time was that the militia could be federalized and put to uses against the states themselves.  The militia comes from the people, is armed by personal ownership, and serves the interests not of the federal government, but of the people.

All the founders needed to stipulate that the constitution honors the RKBA (not grants it, but recognizes and honors it as pre-existing and axiomatic) was one reason, and the militia serves as that reason.

Now that’s out of the way, let’s get to the notion of well-regulated.  It doesn’t mean what the lawyer says it means.  Standing armies were anathema to the founders.  Calling up the militia was calling up free men, calling them from their labors into battle.  Hence the term “unorganized.”

People also misinterpret the intent when they affirm that the existence of state sponsored armies (like the N.G.) replace the unorganized militia.  They usually use the term “well-regulated” to infer that they must exist under formalized, federally recognized statute, regulation, or federal code.

Let’s cover again what the term means.

“It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

It is quite clear that the Founders used the phrase “well-regulated” to denote that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics, so that they can serve in the defense of Republic against both foreign invaders  and the threat of domestic tyrants commanding a national army against the liberty of the citizenry.

A well regulated machine is one that runs correctly.  If a clock doesn’t keep time, it isn’t well regulated.  If your car engine knocks, it isn’t well regulated.  If your scope hasn’t been zeroed, the rifle/scope system isn’t well regulated.

The founders recognized that in order to e effective, free men operating under the axiom of the RKBA need to be drilled, need to know how to shoot, need to have weapons that were zeroed, operating correctly, and in good working order, all operated by men who knew how to do it.

Thus, the lawyer is wrong.  The proposed bill for S.C. is a good start, but still shouldn’t get in the way of either (a) open carry for S.C., or (b) constitutional carry for S.C.