Articles by Herschel Smith

This is well worth the time it takes to watch it.  If you still have a mushy head on these issues, John will fix that.

A.A.J. DeVille.

If God had granted such a right, one would expect it to show up in, say, Scripture or in the broader Christian tradition. But in fact the entire language of rights is a modern novelty. None of the biblical writers knew such rights, nor the Fathers of the Church, nor the late medieval and early modern philosophers and theologians. Knowing this history, the great Catholic moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre wrote, “there are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.”

In the modern period, for theological rather than historical reasons, the Church was initially reluctant to embrace the language of rights because it was thought to marginalize God. After the Second World War, however, Catholics played a significant role in drafting the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Since then Catholics have embraced the language of rights even more fulsomely. But a review of magisterial statements since 1948 reveals no such thing as a right to bear arms, God-given or otherwise.

In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII denounces the abundance of arms: “We are deeply distressed to see the enormous stocks of armaments that have been, and continue to be, manufactured in the economically more developed countries.” What would the saintly pontiff say today of a country that, according to the Congressional Research Service, has more than 300 million firearms — more, per capita, than any other nation? 

The Second Vatican Council’s decree Gaudium et Spes discusses human rights extensively, but makes no mention of gun ownership as a right. Likewise, Pope Paul VI spoke in defence of human rights before the UN in 1965 but neither there nor elsewhere did he ever once mention a so-called right to bear arms. In fact, in New York he said that “a person cannot love with offensive weapons in his hands.”

Similarly, when Pope John Paul II addressed the UN in 1979, he made nearly 60 references to human rights, but never once mentioned a so-called right to bear arms. In 1991 in Centesimus Annus he makes dozens of references to human rights, but his encyclical lacks even a hint of a right to bear arms. It is the same in the 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Likewise, the writings of Popes Benedict XVI or Francis contain nothing close to a right to bear arms. In fact, Pope Francis has been vocal in denouncing  guns and weapons manufacturing. 

Why, then, do some Americans claim such God-given rights?

One commenter replies that ” I find it interesting that Deville is taking a sola scriptura approach to guns. That’s a Protestant view of things.”

He really doesn’t, he leans toward the multiple leaky buckets approach to logic, and he’s so unfamiliar with the Holy Writ that he doesn’t interact with even the most basic passages.  Furthermore, as a Protestant I can honestly say that I couldn’t care less what any pope has to say about anything.

Calvin was clear on the “right” to restrain the willfulness of kings (Institutes, 4.20.31).  We’ve already addressed the continental and English Calvinist underpinnings of the American war of independence.  We’ve also seen that believers have an unmitigated right to self defense and defense of home and hearth.  But also take note that I’ve been careful to couch this more in terms of commands, or God’s Holy ordinances, rather than rights.

Rights do have a rather Hobbesian or Lockean ring, as opposed to fallen mankind, redeemed by the blood of His only Son, expected by the Father to engage in creative and redemptive work in mimic of our Holy Father.  So in that vein, I have said this before.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

…

If you believe that it is your Christian duty to allow your children to be harmed by evil-doers (and you actually allow it to happen) because you think Christ was a pacifist, you are no better than a child abuser or pedophile.

…

God demands violence as a response to threats on our person because of the fact that man is created in God’s image and life is to be preserved.  It is our solemn duty.

…

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

…

If you’re willing to sacrifice the safety and health of your wife or children to the evils of abuse, kidnapping, sexual predation or death, God isn’t impressed with your fake morality.  Capable of stopping it and choosing not to, you’re no better than a child molester, and I wouldn’t allow you even to be around my grandchildren.

Indeed, all gun control is wicked.  The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

John Calvin’s comments on this subject.  We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

Our writer had to look no further than the Decalogue, but stopped somewhere short of there.  Perhaps he needs more time in seminary.  Or simply just to believe on Jesus Christ and see men, women and children as made in God’s image, worthy of protection.  Perhaps his problem isn’t one of education, or lack thereof.  Perhaps it’s an ethical and moral problem.

Cheaper than Dirt.

If it’s not USGI-pattern (that has 20 “scallops” around its circumference), most provide a head to match their nut. But I’ve seen a few I just had to wing it with, which often meant resorting to a large adjustable wrench to fit the wrench flats on the nut.

To fit the drive, ask for a “crows-foot” attachment at an auto parts store.

If your barrel nut is USGI-pattern, get a wrench head that fits over and into as much of the nut circumference as you can. My favorites give 360-degree contact, but most are half that (or less). And make sure the doggone thing is securely fitting into those scallops!

I hold in against the wrench head when I work the wrench handle to keep the head from slipping.

Longer wrench handles are better than shorter ones. Longer makes it easier to make those often-necessary small-but-high-effort nudges easier to feel, and to initiate. I use both a torque wrench and a breaker bar, and the latter is because of the next important item.

Anti-seize! This auto-parts store item is a critical component.  It’s a copper-based lubricant intended exactly for what we’re doing here—it prevents galling.

Galling is abrasive wear from the friction that occurs when metals that are compressed against one another are put into motion.

If the compressive forces are high enough between the surfaces (and they sure can be), the friction can create heat sufficient to weld the materials together and that then removes material from one surface and places it onto the other. Not good!

To get the operation going, clean off all associated surfaces (inside of the upper and outside of the barrel extension). Slip the barrel extension into the upper (there’s a pin on the extension and a notch in the upper that line up).

Put an even coat of anti-seize around the circumference of the upper threads (I use a flat artist’s brush) and thread on the barrel nut. Using something other than a torque wrench, tighten the nut down firmly—give it a good pull—and back it off.

Repeat that three or four more times: tighten it to snug-plus and back it off.

Why?

Because that helps mate the surfaces by facing down any small imperfections (which will usually be on the upper). The anti-seize allows this tactic.

The tighten/loosen procedure is compressing tiny bits of metal, and the lube is preventing galling, as well as make it easier to loosen.

Now for more about that “alignment with the gas tube receptacle in the upper receiver. ” That is absolutely critical, or it is if you want your AR-15 to shoot as well as it can.

With a USGI-pattern nut, that means one of the scallops has to be dead center in the gas tube receptacle in the upper so the gas tube isn’t touching the nut—not even a little bit. With another style barrel nut, it might not mean a thing.

The point is that if there is an opening on the nut that should align with the gas tube receptacle, it has to align!

That is now when and how the gas tube alignment tool really helps. Remove the bolt from the bolt carrier group, insert the tool in the carrier key, and slip it into the upper. There should be a gap 360-degrees around the tube. It’s a tiny gap, but it’s a gap.

Ultimately, final check it with the gas tube itself, and the test then is that the gas tube should rattle—move freely all directions.

This isn’t an evolution I’ve performed.  I’d like to think I could watch before doing it.

News from Oklahoma.

Gun control advocates say they’ll spend October distributing “firearms prohibited” window stickers to Oklahoma business owners who don’t want untrained and unlicensed consumers carrying guns into their establishments.

The effort marks gun-control advocates’ next effort to thwart the new controversial gun law, which takes effect Nov. 1.

“We know that our businesses are allowed to prohibit guns on their property,” said Kay Malan, of Tulsa, who volunteers with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

In recent weeks, the gun-control group also participated in a citizen-led ballot initiative that sought give voters a say on whether to accept or reject the legislation. The effort failed to garner enough signatures to get the issue before voters.

The legislative measure allows anyone at least 21 years old without a felony conviction or other criminal records to carry with no permitting, licensing or training. The bill does not allow people to brandish firearms nor does it change where Oklahomans can legally carry. For instance, people would still be prohibited from carrying on college campuses.

So let’s make a prediction and see how accurate it was later on, say, a year from now.

There will be blood running in the streets because of this.  Or not.

As readers know, I like wheel guns.  I want one of these.  I can’t have one, so says my bank account.

The Cornell Daily Sun.

Charles’s Duke biography states he joined the Center for Firearms Law as executive director after practicing in the appellate group at McGuireWoods LLP, where he briefed cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits as well as in numerous state intermediate and high courts.

“I am here to convince you that an assault weapons ban would not violate the Second Amendment,” Charles said. “This is a fraught and contentious debate, and the people and their representatives — not lawyers in robes — should be the ones to decide whether an assault weapon ban best serves the public interest.”

Charles gave three reasons as to why an assault weapon ban would not violate the Second Amendment: history does not support the right to own an assault weapon, current constitutional doctrine does not impede an assault weapons ban and there are no good normative reasons to suppose that there is a constitutional right to own assault weapons.

In the title of the article, he’s called a “firearms expert.”  Very well, Jacob.  Can you supply us with a lecture on the controlling mathematical models and formulae for ballistics coefficient and sectional density?

I didn’t think so.  Some expert.

Note how in a speech on the constitutionality, he defers to the will of the people rather than whether ownership of weapons is constitutional.  This isn’t by mistake.  His philosophy is one of instrumentalism (Dewey), utilitarianism (Mills), or something else, but he would recoil in horror is you suggested that we pass a law that requires sacrificing someone named Jacob to Baal on alternating Thursdays.  So Jacob is an inconsistent philosopher at best, or perhaps he’s never really thought about any of this.

But his main arguments are all deeply flawed.  His training has all been without philosophical foundation, and thus he would defer to the rule of the majority for notion of rights rather than immutable law.

As we’ve discussed many times before, God is the author of rights and obligations, and the Almighty decides how to deal with His creatures and how they must live.  The constitution is a covenant between men, not a source document for rights.  Obedience to the covenant brings blessings and peace, while disobedience brings curses, both from men and God.  Just as God will never bless a spouse who cheats on covenant marriage vows, He will never bless a stiff-necked people who refuse to honor agreements they have made to live together.

The constitution clearly stipulates not that we may posses firearms of our own choosing, but rather that the government may not interfere with our choices.  As for that silly, juvenile notion that history doesn’t support this (e.g., the founders couldn’t possibly have imagined semi-automatic firepower), we’ve also seen how clearly incorrect that is.

We’ve also studied the obligations that the Almighty places on us for protection of home and hearth.  Little more needs to be said, because while feigning independence and scholarship, one thing is clear.  The Duke University Center for Firearms Law is biased, bigoted and certainly not scholarly.

These folks will never be Dave Hardy, Dave Koppel or Stephen Halbrook.  They’ll always play second fiddle to the real scholars.

Oh, one more thing, Jacob.  I’ll be happy to engage in a written debate with you any time over these pages.

American Thinker.

Since 2015, residents of the state of Maine have been allowed to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit, and now the results are in: crime has fallen to the point where the state is now rated the safest in the nation from the threat of crime. The Maine Examiner reports:

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.

One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.

The controllers always say things like that.  They’re all liars and thieves.  The controllers said open carry would lead to blood running in the streets in Texas.  It didn’t happen.  They said that open carry would lead to blood running in the streets in Oklahoma.  It didn’t happen.

And on we could go.  You know the drill.

News from Georgia.

Deer season for archery is currently open in Georgia, but firearms season doesn’t start until Oct. 19. Meanwhile, Glynn County police and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources is continuing to investigate how a teen was shot dead by another man’s rifle while hunting Saturday.

Bobby Lane, 17, was pronounced dead at a hospital after police say fellow hunter Hector Romero mistook him for a deer, according to a DNR news release.

Witnesses told police that all of the parties involved knew each other and came to the Myers Hill area to go hunting. Police were called to a wooded area in the 500 block of Myers Hill Road in response to reports of a person shot. Once there, officers met with a group of hunters at Friendly Express on highways 82 and 303.

First Coast News spoke with Lane’s cousin who says Lane and Romero were hunting friends and had been on trips before.

Firearms season doesn’t start until October 19 and Rawling said Lane and Romero knew of the state regulations.

“I’ve been hunting for a very long time and in all my years of hunting, I’ve been told if you don’t exactly know what it is, 100 percent exactly what it is, you do not pull the trigger,” Rawling said.

Let’s see.  Four legs versus two, deer skin versus human skin, clothing, etc., etc.  Yea, I can see how the mistake was made.

This is absolutely stupid.  First of all such a shot risks an unethical kill on a deer.  Second, it risks killing a human.

Don’t be this person.

Via Kenny, question asked and answered.

Another misgiven “fact” I see running rampant is associated with comparing stainless steel to chromemoly steel barrels for longevity. Stainless steel barrels will, yes, shoot their best for more rounds, but, chromemoly will shoot better for an overall longer time. Lemmeesplain: the difference is in the nature of the flame cutting effect on these two steels. Stainless tends to form cracks, looking like a dried up lakebed, while chromemoly tends to just get rough, like sandpaper. The cracks provide a little smoother surface for the bullet to run on (until they turn into something tantamount to a cheese grater). The thing is that when stainless stops shooting well it stops just like that. So, stainless will go another 10 to 15 percent more x-ring rounds, but chromemoly is liable to stay in the 10-ring at least that much longer than stainless steel.

Good information to know.

It sure seems like one day Florida LEOs would get the news.  Who trains these guys anyway?