David Codrea:

LTC Robert Bateman presumes to lecture us on the militia and the Constitution, choosing Esquire Magazine as his forum so that, near as I can figure, we can also educate ourselves on the latest fashion tips for men, join in “progressive” attacks on conservatives, and catch up on all-important information about pop star Prince and his surprise concert tour. Bateman’s bottom line: The militia is what the government says it is, and if you join with others to defend against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles, you’re committing treason.

[ … ]

The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. “As of 1903,” he maintains, “the ‘militia’ has been known as the National Guard.”

Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the “unorganized militia” to include “members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” but Bateman dismissed that, claiming, “Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”

There are two problems with Bateman’s assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress documented, “Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

There’s more.  Make sure you read David’s analysis.  We’ve run into Bateman before on issues of concealed (or open) carry, the offense he takes at seeing someone who carries, and his idiotic proposals for national gun control.  Finally, we’ve caught him lying about gun control during Operation Iraqi Freedom when my son explained what really happened there (I suppose Bateman didn’t believe anyone who was there would jump into the conversation to call him out).

Bateman has a long history of telling you he is good at everything and that he is a scholar and historian and that he’s special.  But Bateman fails miserably on what constitutes the militia, and David provides him a bit of teaching.  To see just how badly David spanks him, read David’s piece, which is both educated and educational.

I haven’t watched much of the republican debates, but I have occasionally passed through while my wife was watching.  Tonight was one such time.  I heard Trump say something like, “You aren’t endorsed by a single Senator …  You should be ashamed of yourself!”

I heard that and thought, “You have got to be kidding?  Did you just say that?  Seriously?  Seriously?”  The one who has claimed that he will bring everyone into the Oval office and cut deals, but who has previously sworn to burn it all down according to his bot followers, has hurled the insult at Cruz that he isn’t loved in Washington.  Reality is more bizarre than fiction.  I couldn’t have made this up if I tried.

A couple of days before the primary in South Carolina, I heard the following men speak: Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Mike Lee, and Dave Brat (Congressman Jeff Duncan of South Carolina was there and praised by Ted Cruz, although he didn’t speak), and others (Mark Levin, etc.).  I listened intently to Louie Gohmert describe the events leading up to the death of the “gang of eight bill.”  I am a political wonk, and I keep up with these things.  Even I didn’t know some of what he told us.  I cannot give you all of the details, but I can provide a summary.

Gohmert described the intense strategic meetings to plot the death of the bill.  The meetings were held between Cruz, Lee, Brat, Gohmert, Duncan and others.  When the bill hit the House, it was all but a done deal because the gang had a pretty new face to put with it, i.e., Rubio.  It was very hard to turn it back.  America doesn’t know how close we were to having the gang of eight bill as law.

One of the tactics was a poison pill by Ted Cruz placed into the bill during deliberations between the House and Senate, but it also required much work in the House proper.  And all of this was led by whom, you asked?  Why, it was led by Ted Cruz, with all the meetings in Ted’s office.  If Louie Gohmert was lying, Mike Lee, or Congressman Brat or Duncan could have stopped Gohmert.  None did, because Gohmert was telling the truth.  You don’t have a gang of eight law because Ted Cruz led the effort to kill it.  Why doesn’t America know this?  Well, Ted is trying ever so hard to tell them, but they can’t hear it for the confusion of the mob of monkeys as they screech and bark and howl and sling their feces everywhere.

That’s why Ted Cruz is hated in Washington.  And I’ve thought about my own life this evening in terms of being hated.  In a way, a man’s measure is found in his enemies.  I drifted off this evening to what my grave marker might read.  If it reads something like this: “Herschel was an objectionable and loathsome man but for the sovereign grace of God.  He led a nondescript life.  In fact, he wasn’t worth much even after God saved him … except that he was hated in Washington,”  I would die a happy man.

How do I do that?  How do I make it to 33rd degree blogger-hated-in-Washington?  I so want to be hated in Washington.  Good heavens.  If someone hurled that insult at me, I would wear it as a badge of honor.

Marco Rubio is a robot.  Well, actually I think of him more like a windup doll who in this case got stuck on the same line, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Trump: “What the hell is a caucus … no one even knows what a caucus is?”  Well, I think I know what a caucus is.  And I think I’m someone.

Trump: “What the hell is he talking about?”  Well, this, Donald, where you said:

AL: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?

DT: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

You likened federal ownership of land to protection of the second amendment, remember Donald?

Who said it, Trump or Kanye?  I confess that I didn’t even get close to 100%.

Who tweeted it, Trump or Kanye?  I confess that I didn’t even get close to 100%.

Perhaps Trump could pick Kanye as his running mate.  They go together just fine.

Vicente Fox: “We’re not paying for that f***ing wall!”  Hey, you sound like a carnival barker.  Our carnival barker is louder and more obnoxious than you are.

See how much fun this can be?  As the republican field winnows to a single candidate very soon, this should become easier with a veritable smorgasbord of things to discuss.

NYT:

Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., describes itself as “one of the most highly regarded private clubs in the world,” and it is not just the very-well-to-do who want to get in.

Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired.

In all but a handful of cases, Mar-a-Lago sought to fill the jobs with hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries.

In his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Trump has stoked his crowds by promising to bring back jobs that have been snatched by illegal immigrants or outsourced by corporations, and voters worried about immigration have been his strongest backers.

But he has also pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago since 2010, according to the United States Department of Labor, while hundreds of domestic applicants failed to get the same jobs.

Charles C.W. Cooke comments:

Or, put another way, Trump has deliberately chosen to hire foreign workers to fill those jobs that “Americans just won’t do.” 17 out of 300? That’s 5.6 percent. 17 out of 500? That’s 3.4 percent. Bad! So what’s Trump’s excuse? That’s he’s a businessman and that these are the realities on the ground? That, I’m afraid, won’t wash. When Disney behaved like this, there was a loud and sustained outcry from . . . well, no less than Donald Trump himself. In an interview with Breitbart, Trump argued that Disney should be forced to rehire any Americans it had overlooked or replaced. Trump also said this: If I am President, I will not issue any H-1B visas to companies that replace American workers and my Department of Justice will pursue action against them. And he offered this critique of expanding the “H” program: It would allow any company in America to replace any worker with cheaper foreign labor. It legalizes job theft. It gives companies the legal right to pass over Americans, displace Americans, or directly replace Americans for good-paying middle class jobs.

Oh dear.  You mean to tell me that Donald Trump is a charlatan, hypocrite and liar?  Remember boys and girls.  Noise, light and magic.  Noise, lights and magic.

Pray for Mike.  I am

David Codrea:

“College students in Brooklyn are about do to something the National Rifle Association has refused to — build a smart gun,” a purported “news report” by the New York Daily News proclaims in what it’s labeled an “Exclusive.” Right off the bat, and unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with how the rag compulsively lies about guns, they start off with a misdirecting falsehood.

Good.  Here’s what I want you to do, students.  Spend a lot of time on it.  Put your best and brightest on this project.  They can use “smart guns” to build their CV for when they apply for jobs.  I want you to pour money into this, enough to bankrupt the school if the gun isn’t sold.  Then I want you to market it at local guns stores.  If you’re in New York, you might have to drive a long way, or market it to your local police.  Write me a note and tell me how it goes.

Fred sums in football:

When people have no cause for conflict, they invent it. For this we have football teams in which armored felons having no connection to us attack somebody else’s felons—and we become deeply involved emotionally.

Courthouse News Service:

A Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday refused to set aside a California law banning depictions of handguns on gun store advertisements.

I guess the first amendment doesn’t matter any more.

At Zero Hedge, from user barkingcat:

“General populace is dumber than a box of rocks.

They are mesmerized by whores and pimps and charlatans with shinny trinkets.

They do not care about anything but numbing their brains and stuffing their bellies with factory manufactured GMO crap.”

Perspectives from down under:

On a recent trip to the US while filming Unplanned America, we visited three groups of what some may call extreme gun nuts. And for a group of anti-gun Australians, we found them surprisingly hard to argue with.

[ … ]

When I popped my cherry and shot the vintage “Sten” sub-machinegun, the rapid pop pop pop of the bullets down the indoor range was deeply satisfying and the action movie-loving eight-year-old boy inside me was in heaven.

But when the next weapon came out, s**t got real and kick-arse elation turned to sickening shock. Legend has it that the Geneva Convention bans the Barrett M82A1 from being shot at human targets, due to it being a war crime. And while this may not technically be true, the US Army does train soldiers not to shoot it at personnel.

We were speechless. So why does the weapon exist, we asked? Tony replied that it’s to shoot at “material”. Like a building or vehicle or army equipment — even military issued zippers or military issued glasses. And if a human happened to be attached to that equipment, well it might be the case that the massive 50 caliber bullets accidentally ensure that human becomes nothing more than “red mist”.

One by one we leant over the huge weapon and pulled the trigger, and each time everyone within a two meter radius felt a shock wave from the barrel like a punch in the chest. Boom! And the chilling thought of a cloud of red mist left behind was felt in the pit of my stomach.

So why do Americans love guns? Why the hell do they need them? Why do they take such joy in owning and shooting these things, when so many Australians would be terrified to even touch them?

The way Tony explains it is that due to the prevalence of violent crime in the US, and given the remote location of his own home, he’d be crazy not to have a gun. He says if an armed intruder broke into his house to kill his loved ones, by the time the county sheriff eventually got there, he would be trying to solve a slaying, not prevent one.

Secondly, Tony says there are so many guns in the US it would take a government generations to entirely rid the nation of them. And most gun owners would never agree to it, indeed many would respond in violence.

This point is key. Once you consider that the guns might be here to stay, the issue gets infinitely more complicated.

Let’s stop and assess what we’ve read so far.  First of all, self defense is a legitimate reason for weapons ownership, and it’s partly why I own them.  But it isn’t the basis for the second amendment.  Amelioration of tyranny is the reason, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Second, these authors need to get their information reviewed and checked before publishing it.  The Marine Corps Scout Snipers shoot the .50 rifle if needed, and some carry it as their primary weapon.  The Marines have two larger caliber rifles for this purpose, the .308 and the .50.  The Army uses a more filled out version of calibers, including the .300 Win Mag and the .338 (they also employ the .50 as needed, all calibers against personnel).  All of these calibers are used and have been employed for anti-personnel work, and the only reason the .50 is brought up as an anti-material round is because it is most effective for that type of work versus the .308.  Again, the authors need to get their stuff reviewed before publishing it.  Do they have editors in Australia?

The next group of presumed gun nuts we spent time with was the Virginia Open Carry group. Remarkably, in most states in the US it is totally legal to openly carry a firearm on your hip. Without a license of any kind. We could’ve even done it.

This immediately conjures up images of a lawless Wild West that has no place in a modern civilised society. But as we sat down for a lunch of BBQ ribs (what else) with the open carriers we found them to be intelligent and thoughtful in their views.

There was not a nut among them, but each was staunchly attached to their view and their gun and would never ever let them go. It’s the opinion of these guys that the tragic daily mass shootings in the US are the result of a mental health problem in America, not a gun problem and that the government misdirects the issue so they don’t have to tackle the more complex and expensive issue.

Where it gets tricky for our open carry friends however is that while they agree that psychologically disturbed people are the ones that carry out mass murders, they still believe they have a constitutional right to own a gun, and a God given right to privacy that means the government shouldn’t be allowed to dig into their backgrounds when they want to purchase a firearm. Tricky.

Stop it!  Just stop it.  Stop connecting violence to mental health.  We’ve discussed again and again and again and again how this just isn’t the case, so says mental health professionals.  It is counterfactual to say that when a shooter kills people, it was because of mental health issues.  And pimping this falsehood only leads to the conundrums that writers think they find in the gun rights community.  So just stop it.  Don’t do it any more.

The final group we shot the s**t out of a bunch of cans with were the ones we were most scared of before we met them. They were the Texas State Militia — a self-styled army consisting of ex-military men who have armed themselves to the hilt to protect the American way of life.

We were expecting racist rednecks, paranoid about Muslims and Mexicans taking over their country. This was far from the case. When we spoke to Matt, the young leader of the 1100 strong group we found an ex-soldier who feels deep guilt for the things he did in Iraq and thinks that the US wars in the Middle East are based on government lies.

His group for now however is still keen to work with the government like a terrifying Neighborhood Watch, until such a time where the government stops respecting the rule of law.

And herein lies the crux of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the part that most Australians don’t understand.

All of those we spoke to believe that it is a citizen’s duty, as explicitly stated in the founding document of the United States, to be armed in order to keep the government in check. They say that the country was founded after their British rulers became corrupt and an armed uprising saved a whole nation from tyranny. They say it will happen again, and they’re ready to protect their freedom if and when it does.

And they might stand a decent chance, given there’s more guns that people in the US right now.

So we are at the crux of the issue, yes?  These folks explained why the second amendment exists, and why we will never give up our guns.  That would run contrary to the very justification for having them in the first place.  As to the soldier who feels guilty for his participation in the war, I wish I could talk at length with him and explain why he has no reason for such guilt.

If only they could find a way to stop turning their weapons on each other. Ending gun violence is one of the most serious and complex problems this country faces. And the most unique to the “land of the free”.

As a note to the authors, in case no one talked to you about this, the gun violence America faces is primarily an inner city black-on-black problem due to the breakdown of the family caused by entitlements (see here and here).  Guns aren’t responsible and bear no relation to the problem.

News from Massachusetts:

LOWELL — Police confiscated four replica guns from a 22-year-old Lowell man Saturday afternoon in the first instance of the new city ban on such weapons being enforced, according to police.

Officers were called to the area behind CVS at 1815 Middlesex St., Saturday at 2:53 p.m., after getting calls reporting a man who appeared to have a rifle, according to police.

Officers found Sharif Eltobgi and two females, whose identities were not released, on the train tracks that run under the Rourke Bridge, and Eltobgi had four weapons that are banned by the new ordinance, according to Capt. Timothy Crowley.

Police say what the rifle callers saw was actually a pellet gun, and that Eltobgi also had two BB handguns and a starter pistol that are covered by the ban.

“This incident is a prime example of the alarm that can be caused to the public when confronted with a subject armed with a replica firearm,” Crowley wrote in a press release.

The City Council passed the ban on replica guns with a 7-2 vote at its meeting on Feb. 9 to address police concerns about the confusion that can be caused by such weapons.

William Taylor is responsible for this, the very same one who wants to review your essay before approving your handgun permit.

This is the Lowell police at their finest, protecting the public from Islamic terrorism and Hispanic and Latino drug gangs.  Don’t you feel safer?

And how long is Smith & Wesson going to stay in this horrible state before relocating to America?

News from the misplaced Northern state:

Usually when the NRA and other gun groups say jump, the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature says, “How high and how many guns should we carry when we do it?” But a few gun fantasies are just a bridge too far for even some Floridians.

Yesterday, Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, a Miami Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, announced that bills to allow “open carry” and another that would allow guns in Florida airports are dead.

As chair, Diaz de la Portilla basically has the power to kill any bill that comes through the committee by refusing to bring it up for a hearing. Bills in the Florida Legislature must pass three committees before making their way to a vote before the full House and Senate. The open-carry bill had already passed in the full House earlier this month.

Open-carry laws allow gun owners to basically walk around with guns on themselves and totally visible to the public. In some states, that right has led to bizarre sights, such as people toting around large, high-powered machine guns inside Target and Starbucks locations.

Florida’s proposed law would have allowed those who already have a concealed-carry license to openly carry their guns. Since Florida’s concealed-carry license laws apply to only handguns, open carry would still not have applied to larger guns.

“Open carry is not going to happen; it’s done,” Diaz de la Portilla told reporters yesterday, according to the Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau.

Diaz de la Portilla also killed a bill that would have allowed guns in airport terminals. Earlier this session, he dealt the same fate to a bill that would have allowed people to take their concealed weapons onto college campuses.

Gun-rights Republicans have tried several times in previous sessions to pass similar bills, but the efforts have almost always been killed in the Senate by more moderate Republicans.

This is the same thing that happened in South Carolina.  State Senator Larry Martin is head of the judiciary committee and single handedly killed open carry in S.C.

As for those moderate republicans, you mean communists, don’t you?  And as for the man who did this, Diaz de la Portilla, he seems rather proud of himself, doesn’t he?  Hey, that name … that sounds Hispanic.  I thought all of those Hispanics were going to be conservative rather than anti-gun?  That’s what they told us, anyway.

So what are you Floridians going to do about Diaz de la Portilla?

We’ve discussed it in the context of Jackson, Wyoming, where an out-of-control town council banned firearms in the city in spite of state laws.  It’s happening in Asheville, N.C. as we speak, where posting against carrying firearms in Asheville parks violates state law.

Now we see that a proposed bill in Massachusetts would stop this behavior.

BOSTON — Gun-rights advocates are rallying behind a bill in the state Legislature that would prevent municipalities from imposing their own regulations on who can possess a firearm.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, an association working to protect Second Amendment rights, said communities are “essentially creating a patchwork of laws across the state, and soon it will be untenable if (the state doesn’t) get in control of it quickly.”

State Rep. James Miceli filed a bill that would ban municipalities and counties from “passing or enforcing ordinances or regulations concerning the lawful ownership, use, possession, transfer, purchase, receipt or transportation of weapons, antique weapons, ammunition or ammunition components.”

“I filed this bill because a lot of the Legislature strives for a balance between towns and the state government,” the Wilmington Democrat said. “There has to be uniformity. No one twisted my arm to do it. I think the bill makes sense.”

Supporters cite a new gun-licensing policy in Lowell that requires applicants to complete an approved safety course that includes a “live fire” component. Applicants seeking unrestricted licenses to carry their weapons in Lowell must also provide a “submit a written statement providing specific reasons why they want to be granted unrestricted access.”

Recall we discussed this, where collectivist police chief William Taylor of Lowell wants to review an essay you are forced to write before granting you the privilege of a handgun license.

This is why it matters.  When a state recognizes certain freedoms, the only action a city, township or municipality can take if allowed to make rules of their own contradicting state law is to get more restrictive.  State preemption is necessary to prevent more restrictive gun laws.  Another way of saying it is granting permission to cities to make regulations more restrictive than state law can only result in one thing, i.e., regulations more restrictive than state law.  This always means a loss of recognized rights.

Sadly, I predict the bill will fail.  After all, this is Massachusetts.  And when, for heaven’s sake, is Smith & Wesson going to leave that awful state?