Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

I’ve dealt with this issue in significant detail before, but occasionally it pays to rehearse the case again for those who missed it, or become weak of heart, or become confused amid all of the sophomoric commentary.

In The Christian Answer To Gun Violence? Eliminate Guns, Dan Webster makes a case that Jesus was a pacifist.  The point here isn’t what Dan thinks, because his commentary is silly and trite.  Much better commentary is delivered in the comments where I discussed this issue with a reader.  I cannot possibly rehearse the entire conversation (you can read it for yourself), but it pays to have this conversation with people.

In large measure, American Christianity has become a free-for-all hermeneutic, with classical doctrine being replaced by bohemian hippie love-fest manifestations of the social gospel.  This causes people to believe that Jesus was a pacifist, that they must be doormats, and that they must reject all forms of self defense.

But put in visceral, real-to-life applications for them, they must admit that defense of themselves with whatever means necessary reflects the importance of God’s image in them.  A fortiori, from the lesser to the greater, protection of their families is even more important.  As I previously observed:

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.

Failing to confess the truthfulness of this, Christians would have to admit that what they believe is both logically incoherent and existentially unappealing.  Cowards allow the little ones to be harmed.  The morally righteous and strong of heart protect and defend them.

There are always the pretensions of scholarship that distract us from the main points.

I personally would feel better if I, uniquely, had a gun in hand to use against the perpetrator. But I would not prefer a situation in which everyone was carrying guns, all the time, and ready to open fire on anyone who looked threatening. Or even if a lot more people were doing so. Thus for me, a “more guns” policy fails the categorical imperative test. It’s better for me if I do it, worse for us all if everyone does it.

Not a single second amendment defender is advocating that “everyone” carry guns, or that we “fire on anyone who looked threatening.”  The author (James Fallows) has erected a straw man to cloud his moral failure, and I’m not impressed by the invocation of Kant.  This man would allow his children to be killed by assailants rather than defend them, or if he did defend them out of reflex, he would choose in the detached, unemotional comfort of his home to give himself a low probability of dealing with the assailant.  Thus, he is voluntarily choosing (by high probability) to perish, along with his children.

This is both cowardly and immoral.  And even if it’s the bohemian hippie position, it’s most certainly not the Christian position.

Special and protected, it is.

That the AR-15 is the single most protected firearm under the clear intention of the Founding Fathers for citizens to be armed with weapons of military utility is not up for debate or discussion. By function and role, it is the firearm of the American Patriot and militiaman.

Any attempt to strip the American citizen of the AR-15 or similar firearms is an attack on the very fabric of our Republic, an affront to the clear intent of the Founders, an assault on the plain meaning of the Constitution, and an attempted rape of Liberty.

Yes it is.  Read the entire case by Bob Owens.  He does a splendid job of developing the context and crafting the logic.  While you’re at it, read the predecessor article too.

Of course, I concur.

There will be resistance.

In his boldest terms yet, he vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence and said he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines.

“It is not enough for us to say, ‘This is too hard so we’re not going to try,'” Obama said. “So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody.

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids. And, yes, it’s going to be hard.”

Obama’s comments come as the schoolroom shooting has elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention.

[ … ]

Obama said he intended to press the issue with the public.

“Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance,” he said.

Resistance.  Uh huh.  Perhaps Mr. Obama doesn’t fully understand the nature of that resistance?  Or perhaps other forms of it?

A bill filed by state Sen. Lee Bright a day before the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., would allow S.C. residents to buy firearms, ammunition and gun accessories made in the state, even if they violate federal gun-control laws.

Bright, R-Roebuck, introduced The Firearms Freedom Act last year, but the bill died in committee. Bright re-introduced his bill on Dec. 13 — the day before 20 children and seven adults were killed in Newtown — and hopes for a better outcome this time. Despite the renewed and heated national debate over gun control in the wake of the Newtown shootings, Bright told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal he believes there is actually more enthusiasm now for his bill.

“A lot of people are showing a lot of interest in it. We’ve got a better chance now than we had previously,” Bright told the newspaper. In addition to South Carolina being a gun-friendly state, Bright’s positive outlook is also bolstered by a recent Gallup poll that showed the strident pro-gun National Rifle Association held a 54 percent favorability rating among Americans.

The concept behind the bill? The federal government may regulate interstate commerce, but South Carolina gun manufacturers should be able to skirt federal laws and make and sell whatever they like within the state since their guns, gun parts, and accessories would not cross state lines.

The concept isn’t exactly new or novel. Montana was the first state to pass such legislation, though it is currently tied up in litigation in federal court. Regardless, eight other states have passed identical legislation, and similar bills have been introduced in a score of other states, including South Carolina.

Perhaps such a law would be protected for state manufacturers by the power of the state police or National Guard?

Mike Vanderboegh has also commented on the nature of the resistance from his neck of the woods.

UPDATE: David Codrea correctly notes that concerning the resistance, there will be “many forms of it.”

UPDATE #2: The Other McCain comments as well on the resistance.

UPDATE #3: John Bernard writes in with this.

I can’t ever remember a politician throwing down a gauntlet like that. This guy is telling the entire population that he is prepared for whatever death and destruction (he apparently sees as inevitable). He is also telling at least one third of the population that we can expect to be taken out if we don’t comply.

And I haven’t heard a single argument from anyone in the media or congress or anywhere else for that matter.

I think we have just witnessed the death of the 2nd amendment because the dopes in Congress are not going to put their precious careers in harm’s way simply to protect something the majority wants abolished.

I want to see how they characterize those first few skirmishes when the goons come out “to play”.

SF

jb

UPDATE #4: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention.

Here is Senator Feinstein’s proposed law.  Of course, the remarkable thing is that not a single aspect of the law would have stopped the Connecticut shooting, or the Colorado shooting for that matter.

Magazine size is irrelevant, since the shooter was unimpeded (which is the core problem anyway).  Registration of firearms is also irrelevant, since the firearm owner was fully legal (the firearm was stolen and then used to perpetrate another crime).  Finally, grandfathering firearms is also irrelevant, since this firearm would clearly have fallen under such a stipulation (which Feinstein sees as necessary to pass the law).

Also note that the old issue of “sporting purposes” is back in the framework.  Recall what I said about such a test.

The ATF must decide what is the “sporting purposes” category by populating the list with examples, and then make the claim that such-and-such an example is deemed to be or not to be a “sporting purpose” because it is or isn’t on the list.  It reasons in a circle.

And moreover:

While ATF lawyers might disagree, for something to have a “sporting purpose” means nothing more than it can be taken to the range and operated by the owner to his or her entertainment or training.  The shooting skills – whether for official competitions such as IDPA or 3-Gun, or for unofficial activities such as regular range visits for the purpose of betterment at the science of firearms operation – are sports.  All of them.  Period.  This is non-negotiable.  If it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.

But then again, this isn’t really about sporting purposes, or safety, or public concerns, is it?  It’s about government control, as such progressive laws always are.  Gun control has always been about gun control.  Progressives aren’t liberal.  They’re statists and control freaks and micro-managers and social engineers.  This proposed law is another testimony to that.

According to one of the “experts.”  Here is his brief resume.

Thomas Nolan, a lecturer at Tufts, spent 27 years as a Boston police officer before earning an Ed.D. from Boston University. When he was with the Boston Police Department, Nolan was a member of the elite mobile operations patrol unit and worked in the Youth Violence Strike Force. He ended his law enforcement career as a lieutenant and shift commander in the patrol division. He taught criminal justice at Boston University from 2004 to 2011, and then was a senior policy and program analyst at the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Washington, D.C. This fall he taught a course in the Experimental College called Forensic Behavioral Analysis.

Ooooo .  He’s an expert, so let’s hear him in his own words, inteview format.

Tufts Now: What was your experience with guns as a police officer?

Thomas Nolan: If you are hired as a police officer in Massachusetts, you cannot carry a gun until you have at least 80 hours of training and have fired 1,000 rounds, so you have become intimately acquainted with that weapon. But for the general public in most of the country, no training is required. I can sell you a gun at a gun shop, and I have no idea if you can shoot it or what you want to do with it. It’s like selling someone an iPod.

[ … ]

What about the rest of the country?

When I worked for the Department of Homeland Security and traveled to many places around the country, when the topic of guns came up, I would ask trainees how many did not have a gun and no hands went up. In many places, people seem to feel there is an obligation that you have to protect yourself against some kind of attack from intruders, whoever they think that might be. And some people who are extremists have the mindset that this is the only way we have to protect ourselves from the federal government coming into our lives and communities and taking over everything, including their guns. Of course, that’s a crazy, irrational thought. But don’t be surprised to see a rush on buying weapons soon, because the topic will come up in Congress and people fear there will be a ban.

Some say if more people had guns, they could prevent such mass murders as occurred in Newtown or in the Aurora movie theater shootings, because an armed person could kill the murderer.

If we armed people, the carnage would increase exponentially. Take the Aurora movie theater shootings, for example. If we had people in the audience who were armed, it’s safe to assume there would be an exchange of gunfire, but it would not necessarily result in the death of the shooter, who in this case had on body armor.

So let’s stop and examine what he has said.  First of all, the shooter in Colorado was not wearing body armor.  Period.  He is communicating myth that he has heard over news networks.  The shooter was wearing a tactical vest, but it didn’t include soft armor or hard plates.  And if he had been, how does it make the police more qualified to deal with it anyway?

Oh yea.  There’s the issue of training.  You know, only the police are qualified enough with their firearm to be competent to carry one.  They have fired 1000 rounds with their issued weapon.  Except that I have fired many more than 1000 rounds with every one of my weapons.  So according to Nolan, it’s better if a moviegoer simply sits in his chair and hopes that he isn’t shot!  Literally, it’s better to allow a shooter to pick off people like ducks in a shooting gallery than it is to attempt to stop him by an armed citizen.  Leave the shooter alone, says he.

But we’ve dealt with this before, although with statistics.

I am not willing to concede at all that a concealed carrier would be so ineffective against someone trying to take his life.  But for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate his case, or worse.  Let’s assume that a law enforcement officer would be 30% effective against a shooter, that a shooter in a crowded place would be no more than 25% effective with his shot placement, and worst of all, that a concealed carrier would be no more than 20% effective.

Terry’s argument is this: I am willing to subject my family to a shooter at 25% effectiveness for the duration of time it takes a LEO (at 30% effectiveness) to arrive on the scene, usually 10 – 15 minutes, rather than have a concealed carrier attempt to deal with the shooter at 20% effectiveness, because of the fact that a concealed carrier might also harm me or my family just like the police might harm me or my family.

It’s worse than nonsense.  It’s irresponsible nonsense.  But hey, whoever said that I am not easy to get along with.  If I’m ever in this situation with Terry’s family and I have gotten my own out of harm’s way, I will oblige Terry’s edict.  I’ll leave the shooter alone for Terry to deal with unarmed.  As they say … as you wish.

Finally, Mr. Nolan is only saying that the threat of home invasions is crazy and irrational because it’s never happened to him or his family.  And because he hasn’t read my articles, where I detailed some six and then nineteen home invasions that were easily found over the course of several minutes of searching.  And … Mr. Nolan is only saying what he is about home invasions because he doesn’t care about the safety of you or your family, caring more about his own ideological and political views.  That’s how the entire article should be studied, if you study it at all.  In fact, that’s the way you should treat all such diatribes.  These guys aren’t experts.  They’re just political hacks masquerading as researchers, and so are the people who print this piffle.

David Codrea has an interesting post on police and their view of assault weapons.

State Police Supt. Col. Steven G. O’Donnell said Monday they’d like to see a reinstatement of the ban on the sale of assault weapons…O’Donnell said assault weapons have one purpose, to kill people in war. He says civilians should not have assault weapons. [More]

So that’s why you guys have them, Steve? To have your standing army make war on and kill “civilians”?

Yet another indication of this elitism is seen up North.

We’ve landed on a revelation concerning Chris Christie.

“What role does the media play in terms of the violence we see on television and the movies? And the violent video games that I think desensitize our children to the real effects of violence. So I think we have to have a national discussion,” said Christie on New Jersey 101.5fm’s “Ask the Governor,” a monthly call in show.

When asked if gun control was an issue as well, Christie said “gun control absolutely has to be part of that discussion too.”

Christie said New Jersey has the second toughest gun laws in the nation, behind New York. “I’ve been a supporter of that as governor and will continue to be,” he said.

Jumping on the bandwagon, is he?  Or not.

In his first campaign for elective office in 1995, Christie based his bid for the state Assembly on supporting New Jersey’s assault-weapons ban.

Christie is a gun-grabber from way back.  He has Presidential aspirations.  But he will never be President because he doesn’t believe in the second amendment.  Well, in addition to the fact that he is a loud mouth blowhard.

We’ve discussed the notion that guns are evil.  Silly idea, that is.  Larry Pratt goes on the record on this very idea with Piers Morgan.

On the heels of the tragic Newtown, Conn. school shooting which left 26 people dead, this evening “Piers Morgan Tonight” invited Larry Pratt to the program to share his strong perspective on the firearm debate.

“Since we have concealed carry laws in all of our country now, people can get a concealed firearm. And yet, we have laws that say not in schools,” the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America said. “And so in the very places that have been sought out by monsters such as the murderer of these adults and children, we’re saying, ‘no, we don’t want you to be able to defend yourself. It’s better that you just sit there and wait to be killed.’ And we find that morally incomprehensible.”

Pratt says he’s deeply disturbed by the anti-gun supporters. It’s “deeply disturbing, that the desire to defend life has been so cast aside. And to whatever political correctness views guns as the ultimate evil. Evil’s in our hearts. Not in the guns.”

The staunch defendant of the Second Amendment tried to explain that the gun problems in America occur solely where guns aren’t allowed. “The problem occurs, sir, in those areas precisely where we have said no guns. The problem doesn’t occur where the guns are allowed freely to be carried to be used by people. There we have very low murder rates.”

Well, of course.  Gun free zones are anything but that to the criminals.  Pratt is to be commended for going on the record with an ignorant, preening, self-righteous douchebag like Morgan.  And as if directly on cue, we learn today that the shooter in Connecticut was a devil-worshipper (from a British newspaper, no less, because American newspapers don’t report the news any more).

The NRA wants to contribute and be helpful in the national conversation, apparently.  Listen carefully.  Negotiation and vacillation have never brought law-abiding believers in the second amendment any good whatsoever.  Like it or not, Pratt is telling the truth.

There is a crescendo in incivility, with gun owners being called everything from stone age vigilantes to tinfoil hat Bircher NRA peckerwood with a long gun.  This is the social media equivalent of the posturing over guns that is occurring on the political scene, but it matters because it emboldens the politicians.

Democratic Senators are threatening a new “assault weapons” ban, something openly pursued by Senator Feinstein immediately after the election.  But in addition to the known anti-firearms politicians, the movement has gained supporters from the ranks of those whom we all knew were anti-firearm, but who persuaded the electorate otherwise.

A growing number of lawmakers – including a leading pro-gun senator – called on Monday for a look at curbing assault weapons like the one used in a massacre at a Connecticut grade school, a sign that attitudes toward gun control could be shifting.

Senator Joe Manchin, a conservative West Virginia Democrat who has earned top marks from the gun industry, said Congress and weapons makers should come together on a “sensible, reasonable approach” to curbing rifles like the one used in the killings Friday of 20 young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

A hunter and member of the National Rifle Association, Manchin said the availability of such high-powered weapons does not make sense and called on the gun lobby group to cooperate with a reform of the nation’s gun laws.

A 10-year U.S. ban on assault weapons expired in 2004.

“We’ve got to sit down. I ask all my friends at NRA – and I’m a proud NRA member and always have been – we need to sit down and move this dialogue to a sensible, reasonable approach to fixing it,” he told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

“Never before have we seen our babies slaughtered. This never happened in America, that I can recall, ever seeing this kind of carnage,” said Manchin, an avid hunter who once ran a campaign ad showing him firing a rifle at an environmental bill. “This has changed where we go from here.”

Historical scholarship may not be his strong suit.  In 1927, Andrew Kehoe used explosives to attack a local school in Bath, Michigan, apparently being disgruntled over paying higher taxes to fund that school.  Thirty eight children were killed, with one family losing three.  Nearly every family in the town of 300 lost a child.

The only gun Kehoe carried was used to light one of the explosive charges.  The only weapon used by Timothy McVeigh was explosives.  But the point is not to show that it can be worse.  Those poor souls who search for answers in guns, mental illness, and societal problems will search in vain.  The problem is evil, and it is one of the oldest philosophical issues known to man.

The proximate answer for those who would perpetrate violence on you or your loved ones is to respond by stopping them.  Shopping malls, schools, public buildings, parades and other activities and places are often “gun free zones.”  This means that only the criminals have guns, and thus they are unimpeded in their nefarious aims.

The Connecticut shooter, as I pointed out, could have perpetrated his evil acts with single action revolvers and bolt action rifles if he had desired.  No one could stop him, and that’s the problem.  No one could have stopped the criminals who attacked Mr. Bayezes and his wife without the use of a rifle that will be illegal under the Ms. Feinstein’s proposed ban, along with a 30-round magazine.  He emptied one magazine and retreated to find another.

Mr. Bayezes did what what we all should have done, for we all have a moral duty to defend self and family.  Sacrificing the best home defense weapon because someone may use it to perpetrate acts of evil is like being forced to return to horse and buggies because there are 40,000 vehicle accidents every year.

But along with the factual silliness of being worked up over fully automatic weapons (which were not used) and other misdirects, there are nonetheless very clear plans being deployed for sweeping bans.  The Democratic Senators want it, Obama has said that he wants it, and communist China agrees.  The voters in West Virginia who thought they were voting for a conservative or defender of the second amendment got hoodwinked.  Manchin has declared that he is no defender of the second amendment, and the Democrats are getting their support lined up.

The proposed ban may not end with guns.  Token conservative David Brooks has floated the idea of an ammunition ban.  No doubt the Democrats have included this in their plans, but it must make them feel confident to see a “conservative” agree with them.

Don’t be deceived into thinking that you can buy them now while they’re legal and keep them.  Feinstein has made it clear there will be no grandfather clause in her version of gun control.  Besides, grandfather clauses are problematic anyway.  The federal government may not need to enact confiscatory policies immediately.

For example, they may make all or some of our weapons illegal, along with their high capacity magazines, and then empower gun ranges, local law enforcement officers, and gunsmiths to confiscate any illegal component they find, while they also call the ATF.  You may end up in a federal penitentiary if you take your firearms to the range or use them in self defense.

Make no mistake about it.  There is a war on guns and ammunition.  It wasn’t stated by advocates of the second amendment, but it has landed squarely in our laps.  Obama will never have more power than he does now, right after the election, still controlling the Senate, and right after a horrible event such as in Connecticut.

Gird your loins and prepare for the battle if you care about the second amendment and your rights under the constitution and God.  Now is not the time to be weak, weary or squeamish.  In many ways the progressives and statists have been waging this war for years, while many second amendment advocates have sat on the sideline.  It’s time for everyone to play in the game.

UPDATE: Thanks to David Codrea for the attention.

Prior:

The Wrong Way To Argue About Assault Weapons

Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense

No One Needs ARs For Self Defense Or Hunting?

Do We Have A Constitutional Right To Own An AR?

Dreams Of International Gun Control

In Come And Get My Assault Weapons, we talked about threats to “come after” the assault weapons owned by “Stone Age Vigilantes” such as me.  The bigotry and incivility only continues to escalate.  On Friday, Mother Jones’s Adam Weinstein said the following:

As a 3rd-gen. gun collector, I say you can have ’em. Now. And go after every tinfoil hat Bircher NRA peckerwood w/a long-gun, too. Now.

As I said before, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.