Category: Vid O’ The Day

Hawkins: Self-Defense Is the ‘Central Component’ of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment references a militia, “the security of a free State,” and two specific rights–the right to possess arms and the right to carry them–and all of this is bound together by a general, overarching right to self-defense.

To put it simply, the Second Amendment is multi-faceted.

It is multi-faceted in the following ways: It makes clear the importance of the people being able to come together in militia, noting that such a militia must be “well regulated.” In other words, that militia must be well ordered. It warns that “the security of a free state” rests on the reality and performance of such a militia and then points specifically to the people’s right to “keep” arms and to “bear” arms, that is, the right to possess arms and to carry them.

Despite the numerous and different aspects of the Second Amendment, it remains simple to understand because all the aspects of it are held together by a central component, and that component is self-defense.

In the majority opinion for McDonald v. Chicago (2010), United States Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”

I like to present it this way when speaking to groups and organizations around the country: “Self-defense is the hinge on which the door of the Second Amendment swings.”

What does this mean for the American people? It means that while the Second Amendment protects guns, it protects other tools that can be used for self-defense as well. The “central component” of the Second Amendment is not a 9mm pistol or a .357 Magnum revolver, but the right to defend one’s own life and liberty with whatever tools are in common use for such defense in each period of America’s existence.

For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently struck down that state’s ban on switchblades and issued an opinion which said, in part, “While both Heller and Bruen involved handguns, Second Amendment protections subsume more than just firearms.”

Your life is your most valuable possession, and the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in place to protect your right to defend that life. The vast majority of Americans believe a firearm is the best way to protect their lives, and the Second Amendment has them covered. A number of other Americans believe a knife or other tool is the best means for protecting their lives, and the Second Amendment has them covered as well.

Expert Panel Analysis of Supreme Court Arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok.

As promised, SNW commentator and legal wiz LKB convened an all-star expert panel last night. The topic was yesterday’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court in the matter of Garland v. VanDerStock. That’s the case challenging the ATF’s unilateral redefinition of what constitutes a firearm under the narrowly-worded language of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Joining LKB were Independent Institute fellow Steven Halbrook, California Rifle & Pistol Association President Chuck Michel and NRA-ILA Director of Constitutional Studies Joseph Greenlee. These are three legal minds who have been working in the pro-2A space for decades and whose views on the matter at hand before the Court actually mean something.

This video will not only give you 33 well worthwhile minutes of analysis of the VanDerStok arguments, but the participants also look into their crystal balls to anticipate what other significant Second Amendment cases are headed the Supreme Court’s way in the near future. Enjoy.

Credit Where Due: VP Harris Finally Pressed By Media on Illegally Obtained Firearms

It was quite surprising to hear it when it happened but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, was fact checked in real time about the real drivers of criminal gun violence. She was tripped up on her answer because the journalist pressing her wasn’t buying the vice president’s tired talking points.

It happened during an interview of the vice president at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) after one of the questioners asked Vice President Harris about her gun control platform.

For those needing any reminding, the Biden-Harris administration has been the most fervently anti-gun administration in history. Vice President Harris, as the administration’s “gun czar,” has infamously instituted a “whole-of-government” attack on the firearm and ammunition industry and the Second Amendment. She is colluding with gun control groups – who literally operate out of her office. As President Joe Biden’s “gun czar,” Harris has continually failed to bring criminals to account for their crimes.

Vice President Kamala Harris tries to claim to voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and other close-polling states that she “isn’t taking anyone’s guns away from them” while in the same breath calling for a ban and confiscation of an entire class of lawfully made and legally purchased firearms – the most popular rifle in America. That’s just about the extent of her “plan” to reduce criminal gun violence. But finally, she received pushback for specifics that voters deserve to hear.

Please Answer the Question

Whenever Vice President Kamala Harris has been asked about criminals committing gun crimes, her response is predictably always the same. She calls for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, lists a kitchen sink full of anti-Second Amendment talking points and blames Congress for inaction. This is despite the fact that for the first two years of the Biden-Harris administration, Democrats controlled both chambers in Congress and The White House. She never mentions that not even all Democrats in the U.S. Senate supported a bill to reinstate, and expanded, a so-called “assault weapons” ban. That doesn’t stop the vice president from repeating those calls. But the interviewers at the NABJ wanted more specifics from her.

“In cities like Philadelphia, handguns are responsible for most homicides and violent crime,” NPR’s Tonya Mosely began. “How will you address the issue of the use of handguns because a push for an assault weapons ban only addresses, um, a significant but small part of the problem?”

The vice president began her answer by repeating the talking point that she and her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz were both gun owners. She claimed “we’re not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them. But we do need an assault weapons ban.” As she continued to filibuster her answer about how Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) need to be banned and universal background checks must be implemented, Mosely interrupted and pressed her further.

“Respectfully, we do understand that. But I’m asking specifically about handguns because many of those handguns aren’t purchased at places that run background checks. In many of those instances those handguns aren’t bought lawfully.”

The vice president was stumped. She had no response to the logical reasoning that the firearm industry continues to highlight when calls for gun control are made – that criminals do not follow the law. NSSF has reported on Department of Justice data that shows 90 percent of firearms used by criminals in the commission of their crime were obtained through illicit means and not at a firearm retailer. It’s also one of the main reasons why universal background checks won’t work. That and the fact that a national firearm registry is prohibited by law under the Gun Control Act of 1986 and the Brady Act of 1993.

Continue reading “”

beep beep beep….BOOM!
From my experience, these explosions are lithium battery going off due to some signal causing an overload. The explosions without the fire – usually seen when a lithium battery goes – reminds me of about a 1/2 ounce of C4.