Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times has written a lengthy piece on the battle of Wanat (or Want), that I covered in so much detail.  Hating on the M4 plays a prominent role in the article.  Part 1 is here, while part 2 is here.  A sampling of quotes follows.

The warrant officer said he and fellow Special Forces soldiers have a trick to maintain the M4A1 — the commando version: They break the rules and buy off-the-shelf triggers and other components and overhaul the weapon themselves.

“The reliability is not there,” Warrant Officer Kramer said of the standard-issue model. “I would prefer to use something else. If I could grab something else, I would” …

In 2002, an internal report from the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey said the M4A1 was prone to overheating and “catastrophic barrel failure,” according to a copy obtained by The Times …

A former Army historian who chronicled the infamous Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers died after their M4 carbines jammed, tells The Washington Times that his official account was altered by higher-ups to absolve the weapons and senior officers …

But the gun’s supporters have pointed to a single sentence in the official Wanat history issued in 2010 by the Army’s Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. It blamed the gun’s sustained rapid fire that day, not its design, for the malfunctions.

“This, not weapons maintenance deficiencies or inherent weaknesses in weapons design, was the reason a number of weapons jammed during the battle,” the sentence read.

Higher-ups inside Army command edited that sentence into the history, the report’s author says.

“That was not my conclusion,” said Douglas R. Cubbison, a former Army artillery officer and principal Wanat history author. “That was the Combat Studies Institute management that was driven from the chief of staff’s office to modify findings of that report to basically CYA [cover your ass] for the Army. You know how that works.

“Other soldiers have informally told me of similar problems they had with the M4 at high rates of fire,” said Mr. Cubbison, who is now curator of the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Museum …

Higher-ups made other changes, such as removing much of the historian’s criticism of senior officers for not better preparing the outpost for an attack.

I have a copy of the (I believe unedited version) Cubbison report.  I agreed not to divulge the contents of the report except to comment on the content (rather than reproduce the content).

There were indeed many problems associated with Wanat, such as ensconcing a unit too small to defend the location, Taliban massing of forces (to approximately a Battalion size force), something I had tracked and discussed at length.  There was also the lack of logistical support, lack of (or untimely) CAS, lack of heavier weaponry, and delay of more than one year in setting up the FOB, allowing the enemy to make careful plans for his attack.

I scoured my e-mail thinking that I had exchanged mail with Mr. Cubbison, but I couldn’t find any.  In any case, I found Cubbison’s writing to be clear, well crafted, and well researched.  He is a good historian.  But on the issue of the M4 I disagree with Mr. Cubbison (although I will stipulated that it is extremely bad form to change the prose of another author just because it is uncomfortable to read it).

I’ve heard it all before, this idea that the gas-operated rotating bolt system allows the AK to cool better than the direct impingement system that Eugene Stoner designed.  This isn’t the whole story.  The AK-47 is also a less accurate design, is prone to malfunctions in the field (according to first hand reports I trust), is heavier and fires heavier ammunition, and as one crusty old Marine general said, plenty of Marines have survived a shot by 7.62 X 39.

Any weapon system has its advantages and disadvantages.  Give Soldiers an M14 and they will complain that it’s too heavy (like they did in the jungles of Vietnam).  They will complain that its ammunition is too heavy and they can’t carry as much (and they will be right, considering that kit is now around 80 pounds without ruck, 120-130 pounds for a couple of nights out in the field).

Does this mean that they shouldn’t carry an M14, Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70 for long range shooting?  No.  Should a DM (designated marksman) with the unit be prepared to shoot DM rifles?  Yes.

But shooting uphill should also be taught at the ranges (the report correctly notes the difficulties associated with being in a valley), and fire control should be taught and emphasized for a multitude of reasons.  As my son put it to me, “shooting 500 rounds in 30 minutes means that you’re shooting at everything, and at nothing.  And it also means that you’re making yourself a target.”

Compare the high rate of fire with one lesson learned from this Marine Corps engagement in Afghanistan when faced with massing of troops.

Fire Discipline: Engagements have lasted from two to forty hours of sustained combat.  Marines must be careful to conserve rounds because there may not be any way to replenish their ammunition and it is not practical or recommended to carry an excessive number of magazines.  Marines took a few moments to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship and this greatly improved the ratio of shots fired to enemy fighters killed.  Crew Served Weapons do not always need to be fired at the rapid rate.  Good application of shoulder pressure will tighten beaten zones and lead to effective suppression. Talking guns will help conserve ammunition.

Finally, Travis Haley has shown what can be accomplished with precision fire using a scoped AR-15 with a 20″ barrel.

The Eugene Stoner design is well-suited for CQB and up to 400 meters, firing with low recoil (thus allowing quick target reacquisition), and carrying large quantities of ammunition.  It is also known for the projectile’s yaw in flight and significant tissue damage.

Ridiculous counterinsurgency strategy and stupid flag and staff officers are responsible for the failures at Wanat.  Cubbison’s study is correct about that.  But the M4 (and AR-15) still stands out as a superior weapon system for all but extreme distance shooting.

As one last comment (and this one is perhaps the most interesting to me), take note of the post date of my article on Cubbison (it was four and a half years ago).  The Washington Times is just now getting around to writing about this, or perhaps just learning about the Cubbison study.

Main stream media really should pay more attention to blogs.  It makes them look very out of touch and slow to respond when they are so unaware of things going on with their competitors.

So retired Lt. General William Boykin has stirred up some controversy alleging that Jesus will return to earth carrying an AR-15.

Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general who now works at the lobbying group, was paraphrasing the biblical prophecy in Revelation 19 that describes Jesus returning to Earth as a “warrior” with a “sharp sword.”

But he believes the scripture is due for an upgrade.

“I’ve checked this out — I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15,” Boykin told the crowd at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference in Dallas.

“The sword today is an AR-15. If you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical,” he said.

More fascinating is the reaction from one Lt. Col. Robert Bateman.  We’ve had our run-ins with gun control fanatic Bateman before (here and here).  In order to understand what Bateman says, you have to listen to Boykin.  Bateman says of Boykin:

Wow, seriously? You believe that the fellow who preached “turn the other cheek” and “the meek shall inherit” and all that other stuff from the Sermon on the Mount, is coming back with blood on his robe?

The Second Amendment is from God. Hmmm. But yet surely, all this Jesus shooting a 5.56 NATO standard bullet from an AR-15 sticking out of his mouth must surely be metaphor, right? I mean that is how it has been interpreted for centuries. And then Lieutenant General, Three Star General Boykin (Ret.) continues:

“I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! …And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that’s where the whole thing came from. … I know that’s where it came from. And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical.”

Bateman in his previous encounters with us pretends to be a historical scholar.  Here he is pretending to be a Biblical scholar.  And he is intentionally conflating what Boykin said.  He (Boykin) wasn’t referring to Revelation 19 and whether it was metaphorical.  He was referring to whether the notion of bearing weapons for self protection (as Jesus discussed in Luke 22:36) is metaphorical.

Of course, just a little research could have shown Bateman that the idea of God as warrior is thoroughgoing in the Old Testament and a motif that is carried into the New Testament as well.  Jesus was no doormat or pacifist (see Matthew 10:34-36), and he certainly used violence when it was called for (Matthew 21:12).

Finally, we’ve covered how the American revolution has its roots in continental Calvinism.  I cannot speak for Boykin and what he sees as metaphorical or literal.  To me, Jesus upholds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3), and so doesn’t need an AR-15.

But He certainly didn’t intend to dissuade people from self defense (with Boykin I assert that it is a Biblical duty), and imagining Jesus as a long haired peacenik commits the error discussed by John Frame of applying an exclusive reduction (rather than an emphasizing reduction) to God.  Or perhaps Bateman has never read John Frame.

Eugene Volokh is discussing the very recent Ninth Circuit decision on the right to bear arms outside the home.  See also here and here.  Eugene’s comments are well worth reading.  Here is one interesting excerpt from the decision.

… with Heller on the books, the Second Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects.  First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been, an individual right.  See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always been, oriented to the end of self-defense.

See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error. What that means for our review is that historical interpretations of the right’s scope are of varying probative worth, falling generally into one of three categories ranked here in descending order: (1) authorities that understand bearing arm s for self-defense to be an individual right, (2) authorities that understand bearing arms for a purpose other than self-defense to be an individual right, and (3) authorities that understand bearing arms not to be an individual right at all.

To illustrate, a precedent in the first category that declared a general right to carry guns in public would be a great case for Peruta, while a decision in the same group that confined exercise of the right to the home would do his position much damage.  By contrast, those cases in the third category — which, like the dissenting opinions in Heller, espouse the view that one has a right to bear arms only collectively in connection with militia service and not for self-defense within or outside the home — are of no help.

It’s very important to understand what they’re arguing and what they’re not.  But first, let me rehearse my view of the Second Amendment.

Recall that I view the Second Amendment as primarily and first of all a restriction on the power of the federal government.  It was meant to frame in, or circumscribe the centralized powers.  Therefore, it needed only one reason to restrict that power, that reason being stated as concerning the militia.  The Second Amendment is not restrictive, it is inclusive.  I’ll return to that in a moment.

Later, the Second Amendment was applied to the States through incorporation, and thus it applies to all U.S. citizens regardless of State.  However, this should have been superfluous at the time, since most States (Illinois being one exception, having been corrected only recently) recognized the right to bear arms in State Constitutions.  It should have been … but it wasn’t because of collectivist designs on control.

God gives me my right to bear arms.  Man can and should only recognize and respect that right.  I do not have to be a member of the militia to justify my right to own weapons (the Second Amendment gives only one reason that the centralized powers cannot infringe on my rights to bear arms – there are many others).  Again I say – and always remember this – God gives me the right to weapons and to use them for self defense.

Such notables as my friend Bob Owens have asked the question, loosely paraphrased, if militia membership is required, then what kind of training should we be engaged in?

No, and a thousand times no.  Paraplegics, the elderly, shut-ins, and all manner of people who cannot be a member of the militia have just as much of a God-given right to weapons as does a healthy, 19-year old strapping young man ready for service.  It does no good to say that we’re all member of the unorganized militia, because my 90 year old grandmother in-law cannot get herself out of bed.  It’s a lie and a subterfuge to say otherwise, and it avoids the hard question about the ultimate root of my rights.

Now back to what the Ninth Circuit said.  While I am in both categories (i.e., right to bear arms for self defense and also for resistance to tyranny), again, it’s important not to misconstrue their words.

The case before them had nothing to do with the militia or resistance to tyranny.  It had to do with the right to bear arms at all times for personal self defense.  Thus, decisions, case law, and legal texts that have to do with anything but this are irrelevant to their decision.  They lack probative worth in this context.

I think that this is right, and I think that this is generally a good decision.  Let me make a careful note that I am not finished reading the decision, and I may stumble upon something outlandish.  I’ll point it out if I do.

David Codrea says that he doesn’t cede the decision whether we have a right to bear arms to the Ninth Circuit.  Properly so.  God gives it to me, and what God gives me, no court can take away.  But for the trashy decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit, this one is surprising and delightful to read (so far).  And I do like their focus on the historical context of the constitution rather than on what judges have to say about it from their ivory tower perches today.

For more reading on this subject, see my Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense.

David Codrea:

Regardless, the outcome of one case hardly justifies unfounded allegations of a Jim Crow-based trend, and what’s quickly obvious is a clumsily transparent agenda to equate defensive gun use with white racism against blacks.

Well, we’ve seen how the progressives like to hurl insults rather than debate rationally.  I see “stand your ground” laws as fairly simple, actually.  Anyone who understands self defense, whether by hand, knife, gun or any other weapon, would tell you that you cannot assume that you have time to escape.  My philosophy has always been evasion, escape and egress.  But there are times when that will not work to ameliorate the threat.  During those times, immediate reaction should be your plan.  Turning and running is sure to get you killed.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with race.  You will also get killed if you try to run from very bad white guys.

Kurt Hofmann:

The Department of Justice will inevitably claim that the nullification section of the law is unconstitutional, pushing the issue to the courts. Who can say what will happen there, but few would argue that it will be easy to get the courts to back the states in breaking the federal government’s grip on the power it has usurped over a period of well over a century.

This is more necessary reading by Kurt.  As I’ve argued as well, “although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all.  Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.”  We must be willing to throw federal agents into State Penitentiaries with the general prison population and throw away the key.

Mike Vanderboegh is discussing his work against Communist Mike Lawlor and how remarks by Robert Farago don’t quite measure up.  Look, I have nothing against Robert, but I find him to be a rather strange bird.  The  e-mails I have exchanged with him eventually found Robert offering to let me write for TTAG as long as they got exclusive rights to the content for the first 48 hours (or some time), while he also seemed very reluctant to link and comment on anything I write on my own web site.  I cannot possibly answer why he took this position.  As I said, it seems rather odd to me.

Robert says of the Connecticut situation, “No matter how you look at it, this will not end well.”  Oh, I’m not so sure about that.  Perhaps I will begin praying imprecatory prayers against Mike Lawlor.  Perhaps the collectivists in Connecticut will back down.  Perhaps this will become a toothless law.  Perhaps the first shooting or imprisonment of a gun owner will bring the house down on law enforcement in Connecticut.  I can think of a number of good outcomes.

In Idaho, “Republicans resurrected a measure to punish Idaho law enforcement officers who help confiscate federally banned firearms, fearing President Barack Obama’s administration could try to take their guns … Hagedorn says this year’s measure is “much friendlier” to law enforcement, though it calls for a civil penalty of $1,000 for those found guilty.”  A fine is “weak tea” for a true nullification law.

Attention in Kansas is focused down the food chain rather than the other direction.  “A Kansas House committee is taking up legislation stripping cities and counties of any power to regulate guns or block the open carrying of firearms.”

Finally, a bill has made its way through the Senate in Missouri (again) on nullification.  “Missouri senators endorsed legislation on Tuesday that seeks to nullify U.S. gun restrictions and send federal agents to jail for enforcing such laws, though the measure would likely face a court challenge if it gets approved in the state.”

This is just as I’ve recommended (State prison time for federal agents), although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all.  Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.

But now from the factual to the comical.  If you live in one of these states or if you endorse such an idea, Adam Weinstein thinks you’re a redneck.

Since the time of John Calhoun in South Carolina, nullification doctrine—the fancy-bred, college-educated stepbrother of those mental deficients, the militia and sovereign citizen movements—has held that America’s several states have the right to nullify federal laws that infringe on their constitutional liberties. Unless we’re talking about the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment rights of minorities in these nullificationist states, in which case their freedom is totally treading on our freedom, dude.

But no matter. Liberty-loving bears of small brain have found a five-syllable word, and it must necessarily lead to their promised land. Kansas and Alaska have already passed gun nullification laws, while Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Missouri have been pushing. Nine states, led by Montana, have passed laws asserting that gunmakers in their states are exempt from federal regulations, and so they can make all the full-auto machine guns and assault weapons they want.

The real fun comes when local politicians and law enforcement officers get in the nullification game: Nearly 250 sheriffs from Oregon to California to Arizona to Minnesota have written open letters defying federal gun laws and threatening to arrest U.S. government officials working in their jurisdictions. One rural Florida sheriff even beat prosecution last fall for releasing (and destroying evidence related to) a suspect who’d illegally held a concealed weapon.

It’s fun times in America when libertarians and John Birchers are openly praising law enforcement officers for picking and choosing which laws they’ll enforce, you know, to protect the good, law-abiding folk from federal interference. What could go wrong?

Right after that are pictures of blacks being brutalized over civil rights protests.  What else would you expect out of Gawker, right?  A false analogy between civil rights and a supposed right to take weapons away from the citizens, eh, so what?

To Adam, it’s all about invoking emotion rather than making any kind of rational argument.  It’s okay if the argument is self defeating because Adam happened to ignore the fact that gun owners are fighting for their rights too.  As long as Adam can hurl an insult, it was a good day.

One commenter makes the following remark:

Yes, they’ve been trying this on every law they don’t like

They should all be informed that the FBI will be paying them a visit, with swat (sic) teams if necessary should they pull this.

It’s reall (sic) time we joined the civilized world and eliminated state government. They’re always howling that were one nation under god. Well, one nation has one set of laws. At the same time we remove gerrymandering. Put in place huge restrictions with huge penalties to, (sic) prevent it happening again. And add additional senators to strip the power of the rednecks to obstruct and abuse.

The south (sic) was never punished for the civil war. Hardly a man even was out on probation for their treason, and that’s why we have the problems we have today. It’s a good tine to start. And it’s a better time to stop,folimf (sic) lawsuits, and arrest, arrest, arrest.

Another commenter remarks:

I guarantee you that these are the same knuckleheads that also vote for laws that allow teachers to lead prayers in schools under the guise of “freedom from religious persecution.”

Concerning the second commenter, not necessarily.  For instance, I strongly advocate home schooling (partially) in order to avoid indoctrination into statist, collectivist thinking like yours.  You never got the chance to decide on prayer in my school and I didn’t have to convince your ilk of anything.  I had my own school.

Concerning the first commenter, this is a bit more serious.  He is unabashedly advocating open, unmitigated war.  I never did and still do not believe that firearms owners or patriots will fire the first shot.  But if the second is fired in self defense, it won’t be just one shot by one person.

And it won’t come from just one gun.  The commenter may want to reconsider armchair generalship, and think hard about issuing orders he wouldn’t obey himself because he is a coward, while he sends tens of thousands of men to their deaths.  To be sure, it would be a bloody war.  The collectivists are advised to consider the costs.

Guns ‘n’ Freedom:

David Codrea:

A response from ATF implied that ATF had no intention of posting comments it felt did not meet all of its criteria, including those not accompanied by a complete mailing address. Even so, comment suppression appears to extend beyond that.

I wish I could say that this surprises me, but it doesn’t.  My experience is that the federal regulators can be treated as a monolith.  From the ATF to the EPA, DOE, DoJ and so on, not a single agency really cares about your comments.  They find you to be a nuisance.

Kurt Hofmann:

Illegal drug activity or not, though, Magee has a fundamental human right to protect himself and his pregnant girlfriend from violent, armed home invaders, and Magee’s claim that that is precisely what he thought was happening apparently convinced the grand jury.

Oddly, in another recent story, we are told that the purpose of “no-knock” raids is “officer safety,” after a SWAT team raided an Ankeny, Iowa house (on suspicion of credit card fraud, of all things …

The police aren’t interested in the safety of citizens.  If they were they would achieve their ends by doing good detective work and arresting perpetrators when there is no danger to themselves or the citizens.  They want to be Soldier-boys who dress up and go shooting and wear cool gear and stuff.  And the only thing I have to prove to a jury is that in an age of home invaders dressing in LEO uniforms and yelling “Police,” I have no way to ascertain who the invaders are.  The only way I have to keep my family safe is to assume that they are criminals.  And LEOs who do this are in fact criminals, even if Judges approve of their actions.

Take a look at Mike Vanderboegh’s recent entry on Mike Lawless (um, excuse me, Mike Lawlor).  Do you think the KGB will show an interest?  With Mike’s relentless attention to this ne’er do well, perhaps it will begin to make a dent in the armor of the collectivists.  After all, light scatters the darkness.

From Uncle, this piece on whether there is a 9mm that matches the ballistics of a .45.  Um, sorry, but I’m a registered professional engineer.  Give me the data, and I’ll apply Newton to the information.  And it will fail the test.  I am not invoking a 9mm versus .45 debate here, but don’t tell me that they’re the same thing (not that Uncle is trying to do that).  They’re not.

In Smith & Wesson Rejects Microstamping, we covered and commented on the fact that Smith & Wesson will be removing many of its semi-automatic model firearms from the market in California due to the recent gun law, specifically citing microstamping as one of the barriers to compliance.

I applauded their move, as Californians must live with the government they have helped to create.  Elections have consequences, and if Californians cannot change California, or at least persuade the state to leave their firearms alone, then it is time to move from California to a free state.

But it isn’t that simple, I said.  It never is.  Smith & Wesson stated that they were pulling many of their models from the market.  What they did not say is that they will not be distributing those specific firearms to law enforcement in California.  After all, for Smith & Wesson to sell firearms to law enforcement that the citizenry cannot have is obscene.

I have contacted the individual on the press release, Matt Rice (matt@blueheroncomm.com), multiple times concerning this question, and he has forwarded me to Ms. Elizabeth Sharp, VP of Investor Relations (Lsharp@smith-wesson.com).  Smith & Wesson has had adequate time to assess and provide a response to my question, or at least inform me that they need additional time (I did pose that question too).  Thus far, Smith & Wesson has summarily ignored my overtures.

David Codrea:

“Has the NSA Wiretapping Violated Attorney-Client Privilege? … has anyone considered that DOJ may be actively getting attorney client and defense strategy from these spying programs?

David is investigating whether the NSA spying programs are using surreptitious and underhanded interpretations of the Sixth Amendment to do an end run around the constitution.  It wouldn’t surprise me one bit, and as I’ve said before, the NSA is full of traitors.  I do not believe for even a single second that an al Qaeda attack or Tehrik-i-Taliban attack in the states has been prevented with these methods.  If so, prove it.  And even if so, you cannot convince me that it’s necessary to violate the rights of U.S. citizens in order to effect these ends.

Kurt Hofmann:

The Children’s Rights Amendment, or the CRA, would allow a more solid legal foundation to so-called [sic] counterbalance the interpretation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kurt is doing some forensic work to track down the roots of some traitorous behavior.

Speaking of traitorous behavior, Mike Vanderboegh is absolutely wearing out traitor Mike Lawlor, the henchman in Connecticut who is threatening citizens with forcible disarmament and prison over the recent gun laws.  See Mike’s posts here and here.  Reading these articles made me chuckle a bit.  I’m glad I’m not on Mike’s bad side.

Speaking of chuckling a bit, take note of the proposed changes to Massachusetts gun laws to make them look even more like Connecticut gun laws – as if more needs to be done.

Finally, see Uncle’s dumb quote of the day.  And his response?  “You’re right! Tomorrow, you might be on the street corner giving knob jobs for a few bucks. So, we should preemptively ban use of your mouth since you might do something illegal with it. And because you use it to say dumb shit.”

In a rather odd set of events, David Codrea published on actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman concerning guns and drugs – before Hoffman died.  Hoffman had assisted Mayor Bloomberg in his gun control efforts, and Hoffman was called a friend of the gun control movement.  Codrea’s article ends with the following challenge.

If Hoffman and MAIG and its wholly-owned Demand Action subsidiary are serious, let’s see if they’re willing to address that issue head on, or if their whole shtick is merely fraudulent political theater intended to advance citizen, rather than violent criminal disarmament. Surely if MAIG is sincere, they will join me to “Demand Phillip Seymour Hoffman rat out his heroin provider,” and possibly lead authorities further up the supply chain in an effort to save lives from “gun violence”?

David is of course aware that publishing at this point in time will offend some people, and considered pulling the article in its entirety.  I’m glad that he didn’t, and this serves as a springboard for discussion.

More specifically, David weighs in a little more personally on this matter at War On Guns.

Let me make it clear, as I have in the past, that I do not support the so-called “War on Drugs,” which I parody with the very name of this blog. I see no Constitutional authority for the Feds to involve themselves, and I believe the negative impacts of prohibition at all levels, including the evils of asset forfeiture, domestic financial and other spying, police militarization, official corruption and imprisonment of non-violent “offenders” are poor tradeoffs for whatever it is all those intrusions on liberty are supposed to accomplish.  I don’t think treating moral, spiritual, psychological and medical problems as criminal problems has any chance of being effective, and only guarantees more badness all the way around.

Don’t let it affect the rest of us, and have at it. The second you do, it becomes our business.

The thing is, Hoffman let it affect the rest of us, because he gave money to some of the most violent criminals plaguing us. I won’t get into a circular logic argument here about what things would be like IF the state hadn’t interfered by making drugs “illegal,” because what we’re dealing with now is how things ARE, not how some might wish them to be. The fact is, if you give money to the gangs and cartels, you are enabling their ability to hurt and kill others, which they do with regularity. And finding the guy had something like 70 bags of junk in his apartment, and had most likely been using it at the same time he was doing “gun control” voice-overs for Bloomberg cartoons, indicates he was giving substantial aid and comfort to some very evil, dangerous and violent people. That makes it our business, particularly with his insistence that the state make the rest of us more vulnerable to his supplier’s gangland associates.

This is a very interesting observation, and it’s not at all dissimilar to one I have made myself.

… before we deal with immigration, let’s deal with broader doctrines like libertarianism and what I do and don’t believe.  Let’s deal with the issue of legalization of drugs and one example.  While as a Christian I should say that I care about my readers concerning their spiritual and physical health, from a legal standpoint I don’t care one whit what you put into your body.  That’s from a theoretical standpoint.

Now for the practical side of things.  If you want to legalize drugs of all kinds, then be my guest, right after you turn around socialized medicine and forswear forever my fiduciary responsibility for support for any drug addict or funding of their medical care.  While my hard earned money is confiscated by the power of a badge and gun to support people who will not support themselves, then those people (the recipients of my money) should expect me to be involved in their lives.  My involvement will be as obnoxious and overbearing as I can possibly make it – right up until you no longer want my involvement, and then at that point I will assume you no longer want my money either.  I’m good on both accounts.  Leave me alone and I will leave you alone to do what you want.

From a personal perspective on Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I have to say that I find addiction of any kind to be heartbreaking and very sad.  I do not wish ill on any addict, and I probably do not have the fortitude to get off of any of that stuff if I ever got on it.  I do not take delight in any addict’s demise.  I have sympathy for the plight of the addict, and I say that from the very bottom of my heart.

What I do not have sympathy for is someone meddling in my life and getting preachy with me when their own life if so problematic.  Furthermore, with David I insist that libertarians be consistent libertarians.  I find that most libertarians want the freedom that libertarian brings, while they still won’t use their considerable influence to stop the bloodletting of taxation from the middle class.

Thus we have the government stealing from the middle class by the power of a badge and gun to finance the drug addict’s medical care in emergency rooms, fund the horrible, terrible and unnecessary “war on drugs,” feed the addicts (and other non-workers) with food stamps, and so on the list goes.

If you are a libertarian, I am completely uninterested in your designs for freedom unless you couple it with my freedoms so tightly that it cannot be unwoven.  I won’t interfere with your life choices, and you leave me alone too – and that includes my money and (in a note to the fat ass Soldierboy-wannbe cops and the traitor judges who approve of their actions) my freedom to stay in my home without fearing violent, dangerous SWAT raids.

I know that the anti-gunners will charge me here with inconsistency since there is an alleged “societal cost to gun ownership.”  But see, there isn’t.  This cost, whether it is misuse of guns or lack of ability to protect oneself because of gun control laws, is entirely personal.  My gun ownership has never harmed anyone, and won’t.  You have my personal approval to punish criminals, but you need to recognize that it was an individual who decided to violate the law.  Thievery of my money happens by the collective.

I find that abortion is a special case where libertarians and Christians disagree because of the very definition of human life, which both find sacred enough to protect.  The libertarian finds his own life and choices sacred, and I find the life of the unborn sacred.  On this I will never relent or compromise.  Never.  Not one iota.

But as long as you observe and respect this stipulation, libertarians need to understand something about conservatives, Christians and Christian libertarians (of which category I consider myself).  We are not the target because we aren’t the enemy, no matter what you’ve been taught by the collectivists.