Archive for the 'Guns' Category

David Codrea:

The point I was trying to make is the Bill of Rights gives and grants no rights. It merely defines some, but not all rights, which the Founders correctly viewed as preexisting to the government they were establishing. That understanding was further solidified in the 1875 Cruikshank decision (and repeated in the 2008 Heller decision), when the Supreme Court noted, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

For having the cheek to point that out, along with citing the debate between the Federalists and anti-Federalists on the need for a Bill of Rights in the first place, I was called “a Trojan horse” a “clown” and an “idiot.” I “sound[ed] like an anti-gunner.” Even if I was right, I shouldn’t have written what I did, because it might somehow tip off the anti-gunners to use the information against us, and “if this kind of article or information appears again, refund my money and cancel my subscription.”

Sorry, but I’ve got to do it once more, and this time risk being labeled a Begala puppet, to boot.

The Second Amendment does not “give” us the right to rebel against civil and military authorities. Focus on the word “give”.

Well, if people are too stupid to read with their brains in gear, then ignore their dumb ass comments.  David’s point is important.  Yes, I believe that the second amendment stipulates certain things, and that it speaks to the states as well.  But in focusing on the second amendment I believe that we ignore the important things to our peril.

I have always said my rights are granted by God.  I believe in God, not the second amendment.  My beliefs are not subject to the vicissitudes of judicial interpretation or the latest trends in literary deconstruction.  Read all of David’s piece – with your brain in gear.  I’ll mention one semi-related thing about Ms. Joni Ernst.  I have heard twice now that she endured and commanded a “combat deployment” in Iraq.  Her political opponent may have been a putz, but according to the record, she commanded a logistics group who moved supplies from Kuwait to Baghdad.  I’m sorry, but there’s a huge difference between what my son did in Fallujah and what Ms. Earnst did in wherever she was at the time.  For me to believe that she had a “combat” deployment I need to see the Army equivalent of the Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon.

Kurt Hofmann:

These developments have prompted AWR Hawkins, writing for Ammo Land, to ask, “Are Millionaire-Funded State-Level Initiatives the Next Phase of Gun Control?”  If so, it’s a very dangerous new phase for gun rights advocates, because it would take the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and hold it hostage to the popularity contest of the vote. We live not in a “democracy,” as we’re so often told, but in a republic, in large part because the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to take certain policy options off the table–off limits no matter how popular they are. As John Adams reminds us …

And you have to go visit Kurt to see what the great John Adams said.  Good on Kurt.  No innate right – and I claim my rights are granted by God whether they are recognized by the state or not – should be left for a vote.  See my take on holding rights hostage to favorable statistical outcomes, and also see Kurt on that same subject.

David Codrea: “Just a chest full of ammo makes the medicine go down … medicine go doowwwnnn …, but David doesn’t sing it for us.  I don’t know about you, but I have a problem with that.

David asks, is Facebook deleting gun pages?  Could be, but I wouldn’t know for sure.  I deleted my Facebook account.  When they asked me why, I told them Mark Zuckerberg is a horrible person.  I haven’t heard back from them.

Mike Vanderboegh posts concerning Fast and Furious.  We all knew it – that the program wasn’t a “botched operation” as the talking heads and pampered class likes to say – that it was designed all along to justify a demand letter on long gun sales, or better yet, what I really think, more laws from a Congress too damn stupid to know what was really going on.

Charles C. W. Cooke passes on the fact that recently elected Greg Abbot in Texas said he will approve a Texas open carry bill when it crosses his desk.  So what are you waiting for, Texans?

By the way, in the same Cooke article linked above, Charles says concerning I-594, “This will presumably be touted as a great victory. But it’s really not. For a start, universal background checks represent the most modest of all the Left’s aims in this area. This was not a ban on “assault” weapons, which remain legal in Washington. It was not a reduction in magazine sizes. It was not a ban on open carry. Instead, it was a law that requires residents of the state to involve a gun dealer when they transfer a weapon to another resident within the state. (Transfers between immediate family members and between spouses or domestic partners are exempt.) I’m against these rules because I think that they are pointless and because they seem invariably to ensnare innocent and unaware people. Nevertheless, the significance of Washington’s having adopted the measure should not be overstated.”

Ahem … um.  Charles.  Dude.  What the hell is wrong with you?  As recently as October 2, you thought differently.

I think there are two big threats at the moment. One is the continuing attempt to criminalize firearms that look a certain way, these so-called assault weapons. I have an AR-15. It looks like a machine gun, but it’s not. It’s no different than my hunting rifle. It’s just lighter. It’s more customizable, and it’s easier for my wife to shoot because of that. That gun has, in some states, been banned for those reasons. There’s no material difference whatsoever. The second threat is, I think, from these universal background checks.

I disagree with the November 5 Charles C. W. Cooke, but I agree with the October 2 Charles C. W. Cooke.  I too think that universal background checks pose an extreme threat to our liberty.

So now.  Would the real Charles C. W. Cooke please stand up?

News and views from the North:

The Second Amendment had been obsolete and inconsequential for more than a century. But in the last half a century, the Second Amendment is viewed as a sacrosanct document by the National Rifle Association leaders and gun advocates. Many regard it as their 11th Commandment.

[ … ]

The NRA leadership say it does not tolerate “infringing.” However, the federal government in the 1930s, passed the National Firearms acts with the assistance of ( hard to believe) the NRA. These laws “infringed” upon the Second Amendment and the right of the people to have submachine and military type arms. Who is to decide what are military guns — the NRA or the U.S. government? The NRA claims the AR-15 is not a military weapon. Nonsense!

We must step back, and realize that we are quite fortunate that our rights are being “infringed” upon. What kind of world would it be if we did not have laws to control our right to travel, to drive a car, to drink liquor, or smoke tobacco, or the right of freedom of speech in a crowded theater?

Gun rights also need to be “infringed.” It’s hard to find one right that isn’t. We want and need our rights to be infringed for the security and safety of ourselves and our children.

The writer is a resident of Sandy Hook who apparently wants his freedoms to be curtailed, and since he must endure this for the sake of his sense of security, he wants you to endure it too.

I agree with him.  It’s ridiculous to define the AR-15 in such a way as to conclude it’s not a military weapon, if only they would give us selective fire capabilities, huh?  But as for what defines a military weapon, he wants to know who gets to decide?  Well, I can answer that question so that we won’t sit around and squabble over trivialities.  I get to decide.  Anything that has ever been or could ever be used in the course of fighting is a military weapon.  That means bolt action guns (the Army and Marine Corps still use bolties for sniping), shotguns (the Marine Corps used shotguns for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan), cross bows, long bows, clubs, knives, handguns of all sorts (and I hate that I can’t find any examples of revolvers used recently in OIF and OEF, but I do like me some good revolvers), slingshots, and fists.

As for the fact that some kids were shot at Sandy Hook, that’s really too bad.  I didn’t perpetrate the crime, and I am in no way responsible.  If you want to move to a place that’s even more controlling than the U.S., I would suggest China.  I don’t know how long that will last.

Rifles and their advocates are in the news and blogs these days.  It doesn’t take a handgun to perform home defense.  A man using a rifle recently detained three burglars until police arrived.  It could have been any type of rifle.

Rifle Shooter Magazine recently did a piece on the best bolt action rifles of all time.  Brad Fitzpatrick covers a number of the ones you would expect to see, including the Remington 700, Winchester model 70, Weatherby and so on.  But he includes one interesting and noteworthy rifle.

There may be some who shake their heads at the addition of the Tikka to this list, but it’s impossible to ignore the rifle’s impact of recent bolt action trends. The Tikka has a two-piece bolt with a Sako-style extractor and plunger-type ejector, and it utilizes a one-piece machined action with a reduced ejection port for added stiffness and, in theory, better accuracy. The Tikka also has a lot of plastic parts, most notably the magazine, which causes some grumbling from purists, and it has a light, crisp, adjustable trigger.  When Beretta began importing Tikka rifles it became apparent that the design was capable of producing excellent accuracy in a budget rifle. Since that time, there have been many budget rifles that adopted the Tikka’s use of reduced-weight (and cost) plastics, a good trigger and the reduced ejection port. The Tikka started changing what shooters expected from budget-priced rifles, and in doing so it has become one of the most important bolt action designs in recent memory.

I agree.  I bought a Tikka T3 .270 and couldn’t be happier with it.  I bought it after becoming furious with the Remington 700 trigger problems (to which they all but refused to admit), and then Winchester for fabricating their parts in Columbia, S.C., at the FN plant who bought them out, and then shipping them to Portugal for assembly, creating a situation where no one knew when my rifle was going to come in.  Literally, there was no estimate of time because the distributor knew nothing whatsoever about availability versus every other rifle (which he knew something about).  My Tikka is a worthy competitor to any of the mid-range priced bolt action rifles.

Next is Lucky Gunner discussing Scout Rifles (via Uncle).  The most informative comment on this comes from Uncle’s post.

Cooper was very, very clear as to what a Scout rifle is and what it isn’t, and he wrote about this right up to 2004. Since he made up the term, the term is his and should be respected as such. Most of what’s talked about as a “Scout rifle”, he would call a “pseudo scout”.

For African hunting, he had what he called a “Dragoon” or a “Dragoon Scout” which was a Styer Scout in a heavier caliber. He described the Dragoon as the rifle that the Professional Hunters would see for the first time and say “What the hell is that?!” and after seeing it use throughout one safari, would ask, “Where do I get one?”

It is true that the “Scout scope” probably should have provisions for a sun shade at both ends, but then all of my deer have been taken either just after sunset, or in mid morning when the sun is high.

Also; Cooper was very clear on the point that a Scout rifle need not have a telescope on it at all, necessarily, to qualify as a Scout rifle.

So, although we sell several optic mounts as “scout scope mounts” we mean a mount that facilitates the attachment of a scout scope, as opposed to a scope mount for a Scout rifle. There is a distinction.

Now that Springfield sells an M1A “Scout” model (and Cooper commented on this rifle favorably, though he did not consider it a true Scout rifle) things have become somewhat confused.

Almost without exception, people I’ve talked with who consider themselves shooters, have balked at the idea of shooting well past 100 yards without magnification. This is proof positive that they’ve never tried it, at least not with a serious attitude. I usually use the example of High Power competitions, which start at 200 yards, standing, unsupported, with no magnification. The prone position is reserved for the 1,000 yard line, still with no magnification.

There is a world of difference between carrying everything you need on your person, on foot, ready to shoot within three or four seconds of identifying a target, and shooting at fixed targets at measured distances from a bench at your local 100 or 200 yard range with a buffet table of tools, ammo and accessories. The latter is for the purpose of load development and fisking out the performance of your equipment. The other is the real world which said fisking, along with much field practice using improvised positions on targets of opportunity at non-standard, unmeasured distances, was done to facilitate.

Sorry to steal your thunder Uncle.  The comment was too informative to pass up.  But perhaps the most interesting post comes from Bob Owens who is discussing the do-anything rifle.

Earlier today on Twitter I laid out my thoughts on what my “ideal” rifle would be (those of you who aren’t yet following me on Twitter can do so here), since I’ve been unable to find the “one gun” that would do everything that I would like a rifle to be able to accomplish (nor have I been able to find a unicorn).

In general theory, this rifle would be adequate as a hunting rifle for North American big game animals (deer, elk, bear, moose). It would also be useful as a self-defense/militia firearm, capable of running well in battle-rifle courses of fire.

These are the qualities I desire in this “do anything” rifle:

• A semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle.

• The “standard” magazine would be ruggedized and nearly “bombproof,” made of steel, and would have a 20-round capacity. 20-round magazines tend to work better in the prone position. Magazines of 5 and 10 rounds could be used for hunting and target shooting.

• The cartridge I want doesn’t yet exist. I desire a caseless 6.5-7mm cartridge firing bullets of 110-140 grains. I’d want sub-MOA performance, a practical barrel life of 10,000 rounds, and 1,200 meter range. Theoretically, the lack of a case would mean you could carry more rounds with less weight as opposed to brass-encased ammunition.Why caseless? No brass to litter the ground (or give away your firing position), no ejection port to allow in outside muck and mud, and no ejection cycle means no ejection-related malfunctions (a more reliable firearm).

• The rifle would feature an integral brake to reduce recoil to .223 Remington/5.56 NATO levels, and would port gases in such a way as to prevent creating a dust cloud that would give away the shooter’s position.

• Suppressor capable.

• The rifle would feature an integral 1x-6x variable power scope with an illuminated bullet-drop compensating reticle with range-finder.

• The rifle would be in a bullpup configuration to minimize overall length, while providing an optimal barrel length to maximize bullet velocity and reduce flash.

Bob later mentions the “short-comings of the 5.56 NATO.”  This is a recurring theme with Bob, who is no fan of the 5.56 mm NATO round.  The 5.56 has a number of detractors, but it’s important to remember that between the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, this round has killed hundreds of thousands of enemy fighters.

The 5.56 was deployed for a number of reasons, but the primary conceptual reasons for the assault rifle are as follows: (a) capable of selective fire, (b) fires and intermediate cartridge, and (c) has mild recoil.  The mild recoil allows rapid reacquisition of sight picture compared to heavy recoil cartridges.  In addition to the mild recoil, the corollary of this for the intermediate cartridge is that more ammunition can be carried by the infantryman.

This specific NATO round tends to yaw in flight, creating the tendency to fragment upon impact causing multiple wound tracks.  It is especially effective in close quarter battle, but it’s misleading to say that it is ineffective at longer ranges.  At Al Najaf Travis Haley was killing insurgents out to 600 meters.

Oh there are detractors, indeed.  TTAG has a lot of 5.56 mm hate going on in this post from someone alleging to have been in Fallujah using the M4 against insurgents.  Despite this evidence, my own son Daniel had a high degree of success with the same round, and in Fallujah fighting insurgents who were hopped up on epinephrine and morphine.

Furthermore, I’ll give you two more scholarly studies on the 5.56 mm lethality, one from The Bang Switch and the other from NATO Army Armaments Group, the later focusing on the ability of the 5.56 to penetrate plates and armor compared to the .308.  The truth of the matter is that the 5.56 mm is a fine round for CQB and medium range warfare, while longer range warfare is conducted better with a larger caliber like the .308 and a Designated Marksman (Daniel was also a DM and trained with the Scout Snipers, and still finds the 5.56 to be fine for its intended purpose).  It’s okay to prefer something else and favor a larger caliber if that’s what you want.  It’s not okay to be ignorant and call the 5.56 mm a poodle killer intended for women and children to shoot (as alleged at TTAG in the comments).

With all of that said, there are reasons to have a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .308 / 7.72 mm, even if I cannot find an AR chambered in my favorite large caliber, the .270 Win.  There are reasons for each of the rifles and calibers, and the main point is that I reject the premise that a single rifle can accomplish it all.  The better option is to select the best rifle type and caliber to accomplish the desired mission, whether it is performance and competition shooting, hunting game or hunting men.

Finally, you are aware of standard rifle break-in procedures, aren’t you?  I have followed a procedure closely approximating this one.  I can’t honestly say that I’ve noticed a huge difference after the procedure, probably meaning that I need to get better and more consistent with my shot groups.

There is no such thing as the perfect rifle.  There are rifles very nearly perfect for specific applications, which means that you need to have multiple rifles.  The best rifle is the one you have in your hands and with which you have trained.  But there are things that you don’t do even with the best rifles, like try to stick it in your pants.

As I’ve discussed before, I have never believed in holding rights hostage to favorable statistics outcomes.  See also Kurt Hofmann on this issue.  However, for the weaker among us who don’t believe in much (i.e., politicians), and for those who reflexively stick their finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, public opinion seems to matter.  And thus there is utility in information like this.

Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

The percentage favoring stricter gun sale laws in the two years since Newtown occurred has declined despite steady and tragic high-profile shootings in the U.S at schools, malls and businesses. This past week, shootings occurred at a Seattle-area school and of police officers in Sacramento and Placer County, California. Amidst events like these in 2014, and the resulting calls for stricter gun sale laws, the 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011.

Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict — although still low — has edged up.

These findings come from a new Gallup Poll Social Series survey, conducted Oct. 12-15.

Universal background checks and waiting periods have never been associated with “reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates,” and readers know that I’ve never bought the idea that 90+ percent of the American public wants universal background checks.  It’s was a myth before and it’s a myth now.

So I don’t want to hear another damn word about how 90% of the public wants increased gun control at the point of sale, or trying to plug the mythical “gun show loophole” or “internet loophole” which are fabricated phrases for person-to-person sales.  Not another … damn … word.

Guns.com:

With the stroke of a pen Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) turned a controversial bill into law that will allow third parties to sue municipalities over local gun codes stronger than the state’s.

The measure, added as an amendment to a metal theft bill, had passed the state legislature earlier this month by wide margins. It allows groups such as the National Rifle Association to stand in for local citizens in challenging gun city and county control ordinances stronger than the state’s own laws in court.

With Corbett’s signature, the new law will take effect in 60 days, potentially dozens of strict city and county firearms laws under the gaze of gun rights groups such as the NRA, who called the bill Tuesday, “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country.”

Now for federal threats:

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.”

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn’t required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.

* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

What do you notice to be common between these articles concerning advocacy for state’s rights?  Answer: turning to the courts for moral and legal justification.

The new law in Pennsylvania would be impressive if only it had prepared the infrastructure to send state law enforcement after local authorities if they didn’t observe our rights.  Nullification of local regulations combined with spending some quality time in the hoosegow for the local politicians would send a strong signal to those who would ignore the law.  Frankly, I cannot imagine a weaker state government than one which passes a law only to have cities and townships ignore it, and then have to turn to the courts to tell the local authorities to obey the state laws.  It’s embarrassing and scandalous.

And turning to the federal courts to tell ourselves that it’s okay to ignore the federal authorities when their edicts violate the covenant upon which they are supposed to labor and lead is equally embarrassing.  More than simply not aiding federal authorities in their totalitarian measures, state law enforcement ought to be sent to arrest said federal authorities, throw them in the state penitentiary, and throw away the key.

Kurt Hofmann:

An interesting new concept in “smart guns” is now reaching technological maturity, according to All Outdoor. This device, made by Yardarm Technology, has a purpose significantly different from previous “smart guns,” and the idea (for now, at least) is to apply it only to cops’ duty weapons … Still, though, if cops can be forced to adopt this technology, laws mandating it for the rest of us are possible, too …

Yea.  Don’t think for a second that the control freaks will stop at law enforcement.  If it actually gives us proof of principle (and I’ll believe it when I see it), they will want to mandate it for all of us.  This I cannot abide.  Besides, the better option for cops that abuse their rights to self defense with people and animals (and even more animal abuse) should have their weapons confiscated, not re-engineered.

David Codrea:

The guy has proven time and again, oath to the Constitution be damned, his true allegiance is to unrestrained government. As presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, BuzzFeed noted, Walton “dramatically expanded the ability of the federal government to use controversial techniques to gather intelligence on Americans both at home and abroad that have outraged civil libertarians.”  Walton was appointed to that position by Chief Justice John Roberts (the guy who betrayed his backers on Obamacare).

I’ve run across this guy in my reading, and he is an enemy of the constitution and thus an enemy of America.  And Chief Justice Roberts is equally a traitor to the country.  But the damage that Walton has done on the FISA court is untold and will have to play out over decades, if not longer.

Also read David’s latest on the political terrain in Connecticut.

Via Uncle, free survival books.

Why are anti-gunners so violent?

Mike Vanderboegh has a sneak picture of a new facility Malloy and Lawlor have built for us.

Midland Daily News:

Since this verse comes up frequently in discussions of gun control, let’s destroy this argument once and for all. First, let us examine the full context of the verse by including the following two verses. “He said to them, ‘But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfillment.’ And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has this to say about the passage. “An example of Jesus’ fondness for striking metaphors, but the disciples take it literally. The sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one’s own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of verse 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, that is, were not to be used at all.”

Anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Jesus was fond of metaphors. Matthew 23:24 – “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Or Mark 10:25 – “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Clearly, Jesus had no intention of inflicting either of these painful actions upon any camels. So, presuming that everything Jesus said was to be taken literally is groundless.

Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep, etc.) to teach universal truths, and the same is true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword,” (another verse often misquoted by gun advocates). In proper context, Jesus did not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide families nonphysically.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman labels a literal interpretation of Luke 22:36 as an absurd contradiction. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus teaches peace.

[ … ]

Therefore, the words of Jesus in Luke 22:36 are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords. His meaning is that, wherever they went and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries. They would be met with violence, followed by rage and persecution. The phrase expresses the danger they will be exposed to.

Obviously the author is a believer in German so-called “higher criticism” (Source, Form and Redaction criticism).  This is so “yesterday” that most churches who believe this are dead or dying and certainly waning in influence.  But apparently they are still around causing trouble for folks.

To be sure there are different types of literature in the Bible, allegory, apocalyptic and so on.  Each in turn must be interpreted within the correct hermeneutical framework in order to get the right meaning.  But this particular assessment violates the most basic principle of all interpretation.  The more complex passages are interpreted in light of the simpler, and any deliverance you might concoct that runs contrary to the warp and woof of the balance of Scripture is obviously wrong and you need to go back to the beginning and try again.

Even if Jesus had intended to convey an additional (or even another) interpretation of what he said there, He didn’t rebuke them for having the items they counted in order to answer the master’s question.  The disciples weren’t holding metaphors – they were holding fixed-blade swords.  Jesus didn’t tell them to throw them away, even if our detractor is correct in his assessment of the passage (and I claim that he’s not).  The disciples had swords before Jesus told them to find themselves a weapon, and they had they afterwards.  The assessment fails at every turn.

Additionally, as I mentioned before, this assessment fails to consider the warp and woof of Scripture.  I have never turned to this passage for demonstration of the right and even duty of self defense.  As I’ve summarized before:

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.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

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.

This same sort of thinking can be applied on a larger scale to states and nations as so expertly done by professor Darrell Cole in Good Wars (First Things), relying on the theology of both Calvin and Aquinas.  But this is a bridge too far for some Christians who are just now dealing with the notion that they might be in danger.

Now a word of advice for the pastor who proffered this laughable interpretation.  It’s things like this that cause congregants to lose respect for the pulpit, and nothing screams the irrelevance of the sermon more than the Biblical impossibility of the pronouncements of the pastor (or in other words, the inconsistency of what he says with the balance of Scripture).  It’s just best to leave your own political aberrations out of the pulpit and teach the Bible.

Prior: Let Him Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe And Buy One

CNN:

This notion — that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to fire upon federal officials, or their local police, or sheriffs or even U.S. military personnel — is common among right wingers. But it’s one thing to hear, say, goofball Ted Nugent honk off that way. (The Nuge, by the way, has boasted about how he avoided taking up arms in defense of his country during Vietnam.) It is another to know that someone with those loopy views is one step away from the United States Senate.

The Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore has asked the right question — the one any Iowa voter should be putting to Ms. Ernst: “Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?”

Good question, Ed. Is it OK to do so if, say, the Supreme Court stops the counting of votes so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes? I don’t think so.

How about segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement.

Perhaps Ms. Ernst reserves her bloody right to truly egregious government actions, like ensuring affordable health care, even to folks with pre-existing conditions? Lord, I hope not.

[ … ]

Don’t believe me? Ask George Washington. Gen. Washington, as president, forcefully rejected the notion that American citizens had a revolutionary right to take up arms against their government — even against the most hated government officials enforcing the most hated government program. President Washington and his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, sought to enforce a tax on whiskey, which Congress passed in 1791. A group of Pennsylvania whiskey distillers objected, violently. In what was known as the Whiskey Rebellion, they refused to pay the tax and burned the home of the federal tax collector.

Washington personally led 13,000 troops to crush the rebellion (the only time a president has commanded troops in the field). Washington was willing to shed blood to ensure no one took up arms against his or her own country.

To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself.

I say this as a gun owner — and I’m not just talking about some puny 9 mm like the one Ms. Ernst brags about. At last count I have 22 guns. I use them to hunt, shoot targets, and bond with my family. My grandfather was a hunter and gun owner, as is my father, as am I — as are my sons.

But neither we, nor Ms. Ernst nor any American has the right to turn those weapons on American military personnel, peace officers or other government officials.

The last refuge of a gun control scoundrel is to claim that he has guns, and the more of them the better.  But I couldn’t care less if he has 2200 guns.  As the saying goes, beware of the man with one gun.  He probably knows how to use it.

Begala’s invoking of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is rich.  Only someone like him could ignore the fact that the entire continental congress in effect turned their guns on their own government, and commissioned George Washington as general to lead the effort.

But Begala quickly turns his attention away from the founding fathers to examples of things that would cause a man to turn a weapon on his own government.  Socialized medicine?  Nope.  Racism and Jim Crow laws?  Nope.  But how far does this go Paul?  Where would you draw the line?

Would it be okay with you if the government showed up at your doorsteps one day to confiscate your grandchildren to take them off to be put to death because they happened to be born different?  What should the parent of a Down’s syndrome child think when this happens?  What about Jews, Paul?  What about Catholics, Paul?  You’re a Catholic (at least nominally).  A number of religious clerics went along with Hitler’s plans.

But there were good men too, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller who opposed Naziism to their own demise.  In which camp are you, Paul?

I have a feeling that Paul Begala can’t answer the question.  Note that God was never invoked in Begala’s missive, but it is in my own title.  That’s because to a collectivist, there is nothing more supreme than the state.  Not the right to vote, not the right to be free, not the right to bear arms, not the right to use them.  To the collectivist, the state is god.  And if you have no threshold that can be crossed, no trigger than can be pulled, literally no action that the state can take and be opposed by you with force of arms, you’re no different from those pictured above.  And I’m glad I don’t know you.

David Codrea:

The Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are appealing a settlement in the case of Dobyns v United States, a post by retired agent Jay Dobyns on the Clean Up ATF member forum announced Friday. In September, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis M. Allegra awarded Dobyns $173,000 and denied government royalty claims against Dobyns for his book, “No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the Inner Circle of the Hells Angels.”

Apparently this isn’t over yet.  And it could get good.  Via Mike Vanderboegh, Dobyns speaks thusly:

I’m coming with all of it.  With all the information that they thought slipped through the cracks.  All the dirt that they thought the Judge would never see or know about.  I told you to trust me and that the trial opinion was going to be brutal.  It was.  Now trust me again.  The behind-the-scenes story of what took place and that I was choking down is going to get let out and it is very bad.  Disgusting bad …

I’m saying here and in the open. Obama, Holder, DOJ Attorneys, ATF leadership – you are punks and bitches.

You’re not going to look good in orange jumpsuits with “DOC” on the backs.  Don’t drop the soap, sleep with your backs to walls and make sure your pod doesn’t allow broom handles to be present after lights out …

I’m gunna see to it that you are braiding cornrows wearing halter tops and lipstick before this is over.

Outstanding.  I look forward to the coming festivities.

Mike Vanderboegh is waxing lovingly about the “grease gun.”

Cheap, easy to make, great for shooting bad guys

It is no secret to my friends that the M-3A1 “Grease Gun” has long been my favorite submachine gun. (It is also no secret to the ATF, apparently, since three times in the 90s snitches tried to offer me one for sale in a “can’t miss” deal. Each time I picked up the phone and called the state police and the snitch went away. The devil, it must be said, knows your temptations better than you do so be prepared to resist them.)

And of course, because of the ungodly abomination that is the Hughes Amendment, we can’t have one.  I’ll add that such a device would have been close to useless to my son in Iraq.  Marines today are trained to use their carbines with such short time between trigger pulls that they can discharge three rounds in about the same amount time that it would take a fully automatic weapons to do the same, even without the gun in select fire mode.  And this conserves ammunition.

Of course, he shot both the carbine and the SAW, and went through DM (designated marksman) school, and not many of us can afford to shoot half a million rounds in a 1.5 year workup for combat.  But assuming that we can always get better than we are with more time and practice, there is one thing I would like to duplicate from the grease gun.  Caliber.

I just can find a good pistol caliber carbine in .45 ACP.  There are plenty of 9 mm (RRA has a 9 mm carbine and I like RRA guns), some .40, but no .45 that I can find (and I don’t want a gun that is based on MAC-10 design unless I can be assured that it functions far better than the MAC-10 which is total crap).

Uncle: “The .gov spent $1B to destroy $16B worth of ammo. They could have sold it. Or given it to me and I’d have destroyed it absolutely free. And there’d have been a party.”  Yea, a lot of us feel that way about the government and ammunition.

Questions from Cleveland:

My son brandished a wooden train track in a plastic bridge.

“It’s a shooter!” he said, pointing it at me. “I’m spraying you in the face with water.”

“We don’t shoot at people,” I said, by rote. It was an oft-repeated directive when my little brother was into guns and cowboys.

But my mind was churning. Where did my almost 4-year-old get this stuff? How did he know what a gun was? We don’t own any guns, aside from a water blaster shaped like an alligator. He’s never seen any violent TV show or movie. Is playing with guns just inborn in boys?

“This connection is likely — like most things — a combination of genetics and environment,” said Joshua Weiner, an Arlington, Virginia-based psychiatrist who specializes in children and adolescents. “Boys probably have some yet-unknown gene which contributes to this behavior.”

Just like girls must have some ingrained penchant for shoes and purses. My 20-month-daughter adores purses, whether it’s my purse or a kids gardening tote she stuffs with trains, puzzle pieces and plastic food. She drags them around the house. And she is constantly playing with my shoes, particularly a pair of shiny tortoiseshell ballet flats.

At first I didn’t want to encourage the purse-and-shoe thing. It’s such a stereotype. “But she’s just emulating you,” said my mom. So I gave in. I gave her an old Lululemon bag to stuff. And I bought her a fluffy bunny purse for Christmas.

I don’t intend to ever buy my son a toy gun.

But I’m not especially worried that he pretends to have one, especially if in his dreamworld his gun shoots water. Should I be?

Probably not.

No study has proved that pretend gunplay leads to violent behavior. And most child experts agree that forbidding gunplay only makes it more powerful and enticing.

Besides, gunplay can even help kids make sense of their world, by letting them “kill” bad guys.

God made men and women to be different, and gave the responsibility of provider and primary protector to the man.  It’s His design.  Since it is His design, he gave men and women the genetics and disposition to effect those ends.  Of course these genetics and dispositions can be turned towards evil, but so can just about anything else.  That’s irrelevant to the primary goals.  It has been this way from the beginning of time.  Understand it, don’t fight against it.

I’m glad I could clear that up.