Articles by Herschel Smith

Nelson Lund has a very interesting article at Heritage concerning the second amendment.  It’s a very lengthy article, and here is one sample.

With respect to arms, however, there was a special problem. The federal government was given almost plenary authority to create a standing army (consisting of full-time paid troops) and to regulate and commandeer the state-based militias (which comprised most able-bodied men). Anti-Federalists strongly objected to this massive transfer of power from the state governments, which threatened to deprive the people of their principal defense against federal usurpation. Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were already armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions: All agreed that the proposed Constitution would give the new federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia, and nobody argued that the federal government should have any authority to disarm the citizenry. Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed only about whether the existing armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalist desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Instead, it merely aimed to prevent the new government from disarming American citizens through its power to regulate the militia. Congress might have done so, for example, by ordering that all weapons be stored in federal armories until they were issued for use in performing military or militia duties.

Unlike many people in our time, the Founding generation would not have been puzzled by the text of the Second Amendment. It protects a “right of the people”: i.e., a right of the individuals who are the people. It was not meant to protect a right of state governments to control their militias; that right had already been relinquished to the federal government. A “well regulated Militia” is, among other things, one that is not inappropriately regulated. A federal regulation disarming American citizens would have been considered every bit as inappropriate as one abridging the freedom of speech or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Second Amendment forbids the inappropriate regulation of weapons, just as the First Amendment forbids inappropriate restrictions on speech and religion.

The only place where I have real disagreement with Lund is his ensconcing the ideological basis for the American war of independence in John Locke.  I’ve made my position clear on that, i.e., it has more basis in the continental Calvinist view of covenant than it does John Locke.  This is especially true of the constitution, and more true of the constitution than it is of the Declaration of Independence.

I’ve also discussed some of these things in Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense, where I rehearsed the historical and cultural context of firearms in colonial America at the time of the war of independence.

That having been said, I commend this paper to you.  Lund has done some meaningful research that will be helpful in how you think about these issues.

This is a short video from Travis that I think is very useful to demonstrate his point.  I’m surprised that there is anyone out there who argues for “stay in your space.”  Regular readers know that I’ve always argued for searching out means of evasion, egress and escape.

Besides, it seems to me that staying in your space means that someone can close the distance, place his hand on your pistol and take it out of battery with a slight movement of the slide.  Better to move, in my opinion.  Fighting over a weapon means that you don’t have complete control over the weapon.  This isn’t a situation you want to be in.

In shotgun fashion, I’m throwing out a number of things for your consideration.

Back in January of 2015, J. R. Dunn had a prescient piece entitled Pedophilia And The American Future at American Thinker.  Read it all, and ask yourself the question, did you know about the extent of this back in 2015?

At Medium.com, Lori Handrahan has a piece entitled State Department Dan Rosen’s Arrest: Cheat Sheet For Journos.  I notice that WRSA also picked this up.  The article has an almost mind boggling list of recent arrests of other government employees for pedophilia.  Read the list and look at their government stations.  Warning.  The article is very long because the list is very long.

Well looky, looky looky here what the boys and girls at Voat have dug up.  James Alfantis – he goes by other names – of Comet Ping Pong is connected as business partners with Dr. Pong, a shady Berlin dive strongly suspected of the same sort of thing.

One painter,  Scot G. Brooks, is a collaborator with a photographer, Todd Franson, who took pictures for James Alfantis.  Here is a discussion of some of his work, with a one linked painting involving infants that will make you sick to your stomach if you care to look at it.

Here is a sordid discussion of these sorts of things at work in British history.  Disgusting, isn’t it?

Finally, to close this installment out, I mentioned to you that I had been getting some interesting visits to my web site, including Pizzagate posts.  These visits keep compounding: CIA, FBI Department of Criminal Justice, U.S. Senate, State Department, and on and on the list goes.

So I’ve been asking myself the question lately, why would these folks be interested in a small to medium size blog posting about “fake news?”  You know, it’s all “fake.”  So if it’s all “fake,” why would so many people in such positions be so interested to stop by my place on what is becoming a regular basis?

Prior:

Pizzagate VIII

Pizzagate VII

Pizzagate VI

Pizzagate V: Pizzagate In Theological Perspective

Pizzagate IV

Pizzagate III

Pizzagate II

Pizzagate

Fox6:

IRBIL, Iraq — At least half a million people caught in the crossfire inside the Iraqi city of Mosul now have no access to running water, the United Nations told CNN on Wednesday.

One of three major water pipelines was struck as Iraqi troops fought back ISIS militants in parts of eastern Mosul.

The damaged conduit remains inside the group’s territory, making it inaccessible for repairs, according to a UNICEF statement released Wednesday.

An Iraqi-led offensive began in October to liberate Mosul after more than two years under ISIS control. Mosul is the terror group’s last major power base in Iraq.

Officials and witnesses admit a pipeline break has occurred but said ISIS’ more sinister agenda has escalated the problem. The group has intentionally cut off water supplies to neighborhoods near the front line, according to Zuhair Hazem al-Jabouri, a Mosul City Council official responsible for supervising the city’s water and energy services.

“They (ISIS) cut the electricity to the water stations that feed several neighborhoods where Iraqi troops are advancing,” Jabouri said. “They are depriving people of drinking water in eastern Mosul. They want to force people to retreat with them in order to use them as human shields.”

Water has been used as a weapon of war in Syria by both the Syrian forces and ISIS, so they are well practiced at this sort of thing, as were the insurgents during OIF who routinely cut power to residents of entire cities.

The Romans controlled the water supply as a weapon of war two millennia ago, so this isn’t anything new.  The point is that in any scenario such as war, TEOTWAWKI, or even pseudo-dystopia in America, be aware of your needs and prepare ahead of time.  Do you have access to potable water?  If not, do you have access to water along with the necessary filtration and treatment systems?

News10:

AMARILLO, TX (KFDA) – Owning a handgun in Texas may soon become more affordable.

Currently, the application fee for a standard condition handgun license is $140 and renewing it cost $70; however, under the new legislation these fees would be eliminated.

People would still need to go through a background check and training before becoming fully certified.

“SB 16 [proposed bill] will make lawful carry more affordable for law abiding citizens across the state,” Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said. “No Texan should be deprived of their right to self protection because of onerous licensing fees imposed by the state.”

Ayvrie Dixon, owner of Dixon Firearms Training, was skeptical about whether or not the bill will pass.

While this makes the process more affordable, the state loses a consistent source of revenue.

Uh huh.  And thus we’re to the crux of the matter, aren’t we, just like when this came up in Oklahoma.

… opponents said it would have serious financial consequences for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which administers firearms licenses issued under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

A fiscal analysis performed for the House indicates the measure would reduce OSBI’s revenue by at least $6 million and would lead to the loss of jobs and reduced operating expenses at the agency.

The reduction in revenue would be because firearms owners would no longer seek concealed carry licenses – which cost $100 for initial 5-year license and $200 for 10 years – if they could carry a gun openly without a license. There are now more than 238,300 Oklahomans with active licenses to carry handguns, according to state figures.

That’s seldom brought up in this context, yes?  But it’s the major issue associated with Jim Crow laws such as this one.  The State behemoth would have to become leaner, and no monster wants to go on a diet.

Military.com:

Mattis, now a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution in California, has questioned whether women are suited for what he called the “intimate killing” of close combat, and whether male commanders would balk at sending women into such situations.

Mattis also said he was concerned about “Eros” in the trenches when young men and women live in close quarters in the “atavistic” atmosphere of combat. “I don’t care if you go anywhere in history where you would find that this has worked,” he said of putting “healthy young men and women together and we expect them to act like little saints.”

In periodic speeches to the Marines’ Memorial Club in San Francisco, Mattis said that the U.S. military is a “national treasure,” and it is inevitable that women would want to serve in every MOS.

“The problem is that in the atavistic primate world” of close-quarters combat, “the idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success,” Mattis said. He stressed that he was not talking about whether women could perform the required amounts of pushups, pullups and other physical requirements — “that’s not the point.”

Commanders must consider “what makes us most combat effective when you jump into that room and you’re doing what we call intimate killing,” he said. “It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close encounters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea” as putting women into close combat.

If nominated, Mattis would almost certainly be challenged on women in combat in confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has six women on the panel.

One of them is Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who retired as a lieutenant colonel after 23 years in the Army Reserves and Iowa National Guard. Ernst, who served a deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and is the first female veteran in the Senate, has applauded the opportunity for women who meet the standards to serve in the combat arms.

Joni Ernst isn’t qualified to shine shoes for Mattis.  And Ernst never engaged in combat, so I don’t give a shit what she has to say about anything on this issue.

But there are progressives in the GOP just like the Democratic party.  Women, if I have any reading this column – and I hope I do have female readers for all of my columns – always remember this.  Never forget.  Progressives want to see women perish in combat and have a deleterious effect on combat effectiveness of the unit because of physical differences between men and women.  They want to see you die, and they want more men to die because of you.

Progressives don’t care about the military, and they don’t care about women either.  But everyone already knows that.

Remember I just recently said this?

… in the case of Indiana, we’ll have to fight (in many cases) the police, and in other cases progressive clerics.

On queue, a blue costumed special person weighs in.

“I believe people have the right to carry a gun, but the basic licensing requirement helps ensure that the people allowed to carry are the ones who are carrying,” Fort Wayne Police Chief Steve Reed said. “I think there would be even more guns in the wrong hands without it.”

Because LEOs are just like you and me, only better.

So if he believes in a right to carry a gun, but believes that he gets the right to override that right, then it isn’t really a right like he claims, and he was lying all along.

The chief gives you no means to contact him via writing to tell him what you think.  You recall what I said about men who don’t give contact information, right?

David Codrea:

OXFAM? They’re the international citizen disarmament zealots who are conjoined with IANSA to stump for a global gun grab. If they get what they want, they won’t “respectfully request.” And it will be mandatory.

What’s David talking about?  Check here to find out.  Their full statement is as follows.

The debate in the U.S. over gun safety and gun rights is as complex as it is divisive. As a former army officer, a father and business leader, I’ve heard the arguments from all sides. And, as CEO of a 163-year-old company whose products and presence rest at the intersection of culture and community in more than 110 countries around the world, I feel a tremendous responsibility to share our position on the issue, now, at a time when clarity is paramount.

Providing a safe environment to work and shop is a top priority for us at Levi Strauss & Co. That imperative is quickly challenged, however, when a weapon is carried into one of our stores. Recently, we had an incident in one of our stores where a gun inadvertently went off, injuring the customer who was carrying it.

So, while we understand the heartfelt and strongly-held opinions on both sides of the gun debate, it is with the safety and security of our employees and customers in mind that we respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores, offices or facilities, even in states where it’s permitted by law. Of course, authorized members of law enforcement are an exception.

With stores in Paris, Nice and Orlando, and the company’s European headquarters in Brussels, I’ve thought more about safety in the past year than in the previous three decades of my career because of how ‘close to home’ so many incidents with guns have come to impacting people working for this company.

We operate in hundreds of stores across every state in the U.S., and laws are different in each one. We know that the presence of firearms in our stores creates an unsettling environment for many of our employees and customers. We also know that trying to enforce a ban could potentially undermine the purpose of the ban itself: safety. With that in mind we’ve made this decision as a business – a request not a mandate – and we sincerely hope responsible gun owners will respect our position.

It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.

Sincerely,

Chip Bergh

You know he’s lying because he wasn’t careful to craft what he said to hide his lie.  He focused on “safety,” but then excepted law enforcement.  If you except law enforcement then you acquiesce to the notion that someone needs to be armed for self defense, namely LEOs.  He could just as easily prohibit LEOs from carrying on the premises, but doesn’t.

He knows that LEOs commit gross negligence with firearms all the time, so the issue isn’t really about safety.  It’s about making a political statement and ensuring a monopoly of force on the part of the state.  Here’s a quick note to Chip.  You lost the election, and nothing is more popular in America than guns.  Levi’s jeans is certainly no competition for the firearms industry.  And if I was on the BoD for Levi Strauss, I’d make sure you groveled in front of cameras to get loyal customers back.  And then I’d fire you.  Because you suck.

Ammoland:

RTH Firearms today released its first semiautomatic production rifle chambered in 6.5x47mm Lapua or 6.5mm Creedmoor precision cartridges.

These rifles achieve amazing precision, hitting below sub-MOA at 100 yards with the ability to reach 1,400 yards with very little felt recoil.

Here is a picture of it.

Sweet rifle, yes?  Here is the web site, and here is the URL for the gun.  Now get ready for the sticker shock.  Are you ready?

$6,899.99.

We covered precision shooting and semi-automatic mid-range caliber rifles before, and I noted that the guns were in that price range as well, most of them special order guns.  They’re not shelf guns, they’re not even mid-range priced.  These aren’t even highly priced, as you can get designated marksman rifles that will shoot < 1 MOA for much less than that.

I’m sure this gun is nice, but folks, what good is it, realistically, to have a gun that shoots < 1 MOA as compared to a gun that shoots 1 MOA, unless you’re a professional precision shooter or a professional sniper in the military?  And not only that, what good is it to have a gun that can shoot better than you can?

I admitted to my failures several weekends ago, failures that had to do with not checking my dope before I started shooting, and failing eyesight forcing me to consider a higher power scope.  Perhaps with perfect eyesight (uncorrected), years of experience, and your livelihood depending upon accuracy, it makes sense to worry over this sort of thing.

I suppose that they are targeting the very people I said would be interested in this gun, rather than the typical man who has trouble affording even much less than that, even for a really nice AR.  It would be nice to have a mid-range caliber AR that shoots well and doesn’t tear the gun up (like I hear about AR-10s and the .308), but until manufacturers are able to pull the price down by a wide margin, this isn’t going to happen for the common man.  They won’t be making many of these guns.

In the mean time, it’s easy enough to take my really nice ARs and slap a .300 Blackout upper receiver on it (which takes 10 seconds) and have a really nice mid-caliber AR that shoots 1 MOA or slightly less, which is as good as I can shoot anyway.

Poor, poor James Alefantis of Comet Ping Pong.  He’s so misunderstood.

A popular Northwest, D.C. neighborhood pizza joint is trying to figure out how to fight back after what it suspects is a massive coordinated on-line attack suggesting the restaurant is involved in the worst kind of conspiracy.

The pizza shop owner suspects thousands of online bullies have set out to destroy him, maybe simply because he and a friend supported the Clinton campaign.

It’s a story so clearly absurd, it’s hard to imagine anyone would believe it. And yet two women who declined to give their names who were banging on the patio of Comet Ping Pong on Tuesday, looking for the tunnels where Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager were trafficking in children.

“All of this is an underground tunnel that helps take the kids and transport them back and forth so they can can do these rituals,” said one of them. “They are putting a lot of curses and spells over the city. They are kidnapping the children who are missing. They were never missing because D.C. know where they are.”

It’s all a lie. Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis said the restaurant does not even have a basement.

Well, that settles it.  Case closed.  Um … except for one little thing.

Well, we make everything from scratch. Other restaurants, even good restaurants, will, like, not roast their own peppers. You can just buy the roasted peppers in a can. Or you can buy garlic oil. Some products you can get, and they’re consistent and they’re easy. But I didn’t even know that existed actually until they said that. I was like, “What do you mean? There’s another way? You can just buy these things?” Because a lot of restaurants will open a can and put it on. Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year. Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.

I love it when progressives violate the laws of logic.  It reminds me that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.  And perhaps James was right the first time.  Perhaps there’s a vast underground network of rooms.

By the way. Who is that doing the demolition – the village people?

Prior:

Pizzagate VII

Pizzagate VI

Pizzagate V: Pizzagate In Theological Perspective

Pizzagate IV

Pizzagate III

Pizzagate II

Pizzagate