Articles by Herschel Smith

This is a trend, one that doesn’t surprise me in the least.  Nor should it surprise you.

Mises Institute has an analysis up on why we can’t ignore the militia clause of the second amendment.  It’s interesting reading, and I recommend you turn your attention to it for a few minutes.  But I want to issue some warnings nonetheless.

As I’ve pointed out many times before, the context and theoretical framework for understanding the American revolution was and always will be continental Calvinism and covenant theology.  God manages His created order in terms of covenant.

We are all in covenants in every aspect of our lives, all of the time, from marriage, to church, to state and then economics.  If you choose to be unfaithful to your wife and violate the marriage vows, there are consequences and curses for that.   These consequences happen in time and space and also in eternity.

In time and space, your wife will divorce you.  If she doesn’t, the consequences befall her, in time and space.  She has decided to live with an unfaithful man, refusing to avail herself of the remedy God has given her.  In eternity, the unfaithful man will answer for what he did, and so will the woman if she refuses to avail herself of the remedy.

In economics, if you steal you will go to prison.  If a country refuses to avail itself of the remedy for theft, believing that it can rehabilitate criminals to make them better when God has said that is His responsibility, not yours, the country will suffer, as there are consequences in time and space.  Ultimately, the men who made the decisions on national policy will answer to a sovereign God for their recalcitrance.

So too with tyranny.  Tyrants will answer to their people for their tyranny, and if they don’t, the people will suffer in time and space for their recalcitrance, and both will answer to God in eternity.  God will not be mocked.

Turning to the foundations for the revolution, recall that I explained the Christian roots of covenant and its role in the theoretical framework for the war.

In terms of population alone, a high percentage of the pre-revolutionary colonies were of Puritan-Calvinist background.  There were about three million persons in the thirteen original colonies in 1776, and perhaps as many as two-thirds of these came from some kind of Calvinist or Puritan connection.

[ … ]

… by 1776, nine of the thirteen original colonies had an “established church” (generally congregational in New England, Anglican in New York, Virginia and South Carolina, “Protestant” in North Carolina, with religious freedom in Rhode Island, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Georgia) … While this did not necessarily mean that a majority of the inhabitants of these colonies were necessarily committed Christian believers, it does indicate the lingering influence of the Calvinist concept of a Christian-based civil polity as an example to a world in need of reform.

[ … ]

Their experience in Presbyterian polity – with its doctrine of the headship of Christ over the church, the two-powers doctrine giving the church and state equal standing (so that the church’s power is not seen as flowing from the state), and the consequent right of the people to civil resistance in accordance with higher divine law – was a major ingredient in the development of the American approach to church-state relations and the underlying questions of law, authority, order and rights.

[ … ]

It was largely from the congregation polity of these New England puritans that there came the American concept and practice of government by covenant – that is to say: constitutional structure, limited by divine law and based on the consent of the people, with a lasting right in the people to resist tyranny.

I say all of this to set the stage for a reiteration of my observation on the second amendment and the militia.

… all the founders needed in order to object to federal control over such God-given rights is to find a single example of such an infringement that would be found unacceptable.  The militia served as this example.  That doesn’t mean that it is, would have been, or must have been, the only example or reason for the amendment.  The amendment clearly states what the FedGov shall not do, not what it can or may do or the sole reasons for its existence.

So a man has a right to the ownership of weapons if he is a paraplegic and unable to serve in the militia.  A people have the right to overthrow their government whether there is such a thing as a militia or not.  I can tell the militia (whatever that is in this context or any future context) to go pound sand and that I refuse to join, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with either [a] my God-given rights to keep and bear arms for self defense or the amelioration of tyranny, or [b] the fact that that right is recognized in the constitution, which is a covenant under which we have agreed to live.

My rights (and duties) flow from the Almighty, the very fountain of liberty.  The constitution is a mere covenant.

This understanding in the antecedent to the constitution and the second amendment, not vice versa.  Never forget that.  The militia doesn’t justify the second amendment – among other things, the second amendment justifies the militia, both organized and unorganized.

And neither has anything whatsoever to do with the justification of the right of resistance to tyranny.  That flows from the Almighty.

News from South Africa:

THE South African government has begun the process of seizing land from white farmers.

I have thought for a number of months that the smarter farmers would have seen the signs of the times and sold several years ago, moving all of their estate to Australia, New Zealand or the U.S.  Now it’s too late.  The only recourse now is to lose everything or go to war.

Via WRSA, can London be far behind?

Charleston Gazette-Mail:

“The targets we were shooting at had black circles 6.4 inches at diameter, with an inner 10-ring that’s 3.4 inches in diameter,” Fiora said. “The targets were 100 yards away.”

That sounds challenging.  Congratulations to Mr. Fiora.  I’m sure he would do better than I, and I should train harder.

Chicago Tribune:

When Martha Al-Bishara went on a walk near her home in northern Georgia last week, she was on a quest for dandelions. The stroll would end in her getting stunned by a Taser and arrested by police officers.

The 87-year-old woman often ventured outside – with a kitchen knife and a plastic bag in hand – to cut and collect the plants for cooking, her family said. She was doing just that last Friday afternoon when she crossed the street from her home in Chatsworth, Georgia, and arrived at a partially fenced lot belonging to a branch of the Boys and Girls Club. There, she began gathering the plants she needed.

Someone on the property, however, called 911 to report a woman in a blue dress and a brown headscarf on their site.

“She told me she doesn’t speak English and she’s walking up our bike trail with a knife towards me,” a man said in a 911 call obtained by WRCB News. “She’s old so she can’t get around too well, but … looks like she’s walking around looking for something like vegetation to cut down or something. She has a bag, too.”

The 911 caller added that the woman “didn’t try to attack anybody or anything.”

Soon afterward, at around 4:30 p.m., two officers and the chief of the Chatsworth Police Department arrived at the scene, according to a police report. There, a Boys and Girls Club staff member escorted them to the back of the property, where they spotted Al-Bishara standing on a hill, still holding a “a white plastic bag in her left hand and a steak knife in her right hand.”

It was unclear if the officers realized Al-Bishara did not speak English but, according to police, the woman did not respond to multiple verbal requests to put down her knife. Instead, she reportedly continued walking and collecting dandelions.

“While we were approaching the female she bent down to the ground and cut a weed and stood back up holding the weed in her left hand with the plastic bag,” the police report stated. ” We kept telling her to drop the knife. The female would look at us. Her demeanor was calm even seeing us with our guns out.”

The Chatsworth police chief at one point threw his own pocket knife on the ground “in an attempt to show the female that we wanted her to drop the knife,” according to the report. When Al-Bishara still didn’t respond and began walking down the hill toward the police, one of the officers turned on his Taser and pointed it at the woman, the report said.

When she about five yards away, with the same “calm” demeanor and facial expression, the officer shot his Taser, striking Al-Bishara in the chest and sending her to the ground, the report said.

If you’re afraid of an 87-year-old woman cutting dandelions, you may be a pussy.  In fact, if you are prone to call the police and say something like this:

“She told me she doesn’t speak English and she’s walking up our bike trail with a knife towards me,” a man said in a 911 call obtained by WRCB News. “She’s old so she can’t get around too well, but … looks like she’s walking around looking for something like vegetation to cut down or something. She has a bag, too.”  [she] “didn’t try to attack anybody or anything.”

You may be a pussy.

America is full of pussies, making it ripe for takeover by barbarian hordes.  But the good news is that at least the old woman now knows her boundaries.

Don’t know the language – too bad.  Can’t hear – too bad.  Have dementia – too bad.  You’d better be cognizant enough to obey the commands of the lords and masters, “Officer Safety!”

John Lovell on use of a suppressor for home defense.

I would choose to use a suppressor.  Frankly, I think the decision to involve the police quickly is the most dangerous thing he could possibly do.

Shooting Sports USA:

From the standpoint of interior ballistics, the ideal match rifle bullet would be a bore-diameter, homogeneous cylinder with flat ends perfectly square to its body. Such a bullet would be cheap, easy to manufacture and have maximum bearing surface for superior accuracy.

From the standpoint of exterior ballistics, an efficient match rifle bullet would have a high length-to-diameter ration; a sharp, drag-reducing point; and a tapered base (boattail). Such a bullet would offer high retained velocity, flat trajectory and minimum wind drift.

From the standpoint of terminal ballistics, the ideal match rifle bullet would offer a center of gravity displaced toward the base, a jacket with no sidewall variations and a core with no weight variation. Such a bullet would offer consistent, reliable, sub-minute-of-angle (MOA) accuracy from lot to lot.

These requirements pull match rifle bullet designers in different, often mutually exclusive, directions. As a result, all match rifle bullets are a compromise—none are perfect.

I think it might have been clearer if the author had said “from the standpoint of gyroscopic stability, the ideal rifle bullet would be a bore-diameter, homogeneous cylinder with flat ends perfectly square to its body.”

But overall, this is an informative article and worthy of a little time.

Shooting Illustrated:

For those who may not know, the .327 Fed. Mag. operates at pressures around 45,000 psi as opposed to 17,000 to 20,000 psi of the .38 Spl. The resulting upgrade in performance is enormous with .327 Fed. Mag. ammo providing 1,400 fps using the lighter bullets and more than 1,100 fps with the heavier weights. The other bonus is the Ruger LCR .327 Fed. Mag. holds six rounds rather than the usual five typical of small-frame revolvers.

I was about to say that this article is misleading and quoting chamber pressures in a pistol rather than a revolver, but I’m wrong.  These velocities are associated with a 3.5″ wheel gun barrel length.  I see that the 5.5″ barrels are getting more than 1600 FPS muzzle velocity.

This is impressive.  How did I miss this hot little cartridge?  As I said, it’s really difficult to keep up with the cartridges nowadays.

Tampa Bay Times:

Ron DeSantis told a gun rights advocacy group that people should not need a permit to openly carry a firearm in public, according to the group’s lawyer and a release sent out by the organization this week.

Eric Friday, the general counsel for Florida Carry, said he met with DeSantis in Kissimmee while the Congressman was there for the Republican “Sunshine Summit” in June, which featured a debate between DeSantis and his rival in the governor’s race, Adam Putnam, as well as prominent speeches from prominent Republicans like Ben Carson.

DeSantis’ position was originally touted in a roundup earlier this week of various lawmakers’ stances on gun issues based on conversations they had with the group.

[ … ]

“What Congressman DeSantis said is he doesn’t understand why you need a license to exercise a fundamental right in the first place,” Friday said in an interview with the Times/Herald. “He did not make a commitment to support open carry or unlicensed carry. He didn’t say he would he would push for it in the Legislature (if elected governor).”

“We were very pleased with his answers and very pleased to hear him express support,” Friday added.

If he’s merely throwing scraps from the master’s table and refuses to push for this or say he supports open carry, then why is Friday pleased with DeSantis?

Am I missing something here?

And as for our God-given right of open carry, how is this proceeding in the other more liberal states in the country, like California, Hawaii and South Carolina?

South Carolina?

He’s fortunate he didn’t kill someone.