Category: RKBA

Top Gun-Control Group Ducks Guns in Election Ad
Brady PAC focuses on health care, not gun control, to boost Dems

A top gun-control group has blanketed Virginia airwaves with a new ad, but its missive is missing one key word: guns.

Brady PAC, which advocates for increased gun control, released an ad attacking Virginia Republican congressional candidate Nick Freitas on health care policy. The ad, for which Brady and the House Majority PAC paid, does not mention gun issues at all.

Brady’s turn away from gun-control messaging comes after Everytown, the largest gun-control group in the country, also abandoned the issue in election ads.

The change provides further evidence that Democrats and liberal interest groups do not view gun control as a winning issue in 2020—a year that has seen record gun sales and an influx of new gun owners.

George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm told the Washington Free Beacon that gun-control groups have lost faith in their core message and believe focusing on other issues is the best way to get their allies elected.

“The gun-control issue is a loser at this point,” she said. “So, the gun-control groups are pushing the health care issue in hopes of helping the election of Joe Biden.”

Biden’s pledge to take away “assault weapons” and support for a variety of strict new gun-control proposals are key reasons the groups support him, Malcolm said.

“If Biden wins, the gun-control folks expect to be in the driver’s seat,” Malcolm said. Continue reading “”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

The Double Standard About Gun Ownership

While looking at gun-related stories earlier, I came across one that asked people of different faiths if the American interest in firearms was idolatry. Now, as a Christian myself, I was curious to find what people thought.

I had my ideas of what I’d find, of course, but one of the responses just outright infuriated me.

See, while most of those they talked to about it recognized that there’s no actual worship of firearms, one person both failed to answer the actual question and managed to show just how idiotic they were on the topic itself. It was kind of impressive, really.

David Gardiner – Buddhist

David Gardiner is an associate professor in the Colorado College Religion Department, specializing in Buddhism and religions of China and Japan, and is co-founder and director of BodhiMind Center.

I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological. Not all gun owners idolize their possession, but those who do suffer from insecurity, paranoia, susceptibility to conspiracy theories, likely racism and other disorders. Similarly, some idolize the power of the military and police to keep our world and communities safe. Missing is a consensus to care for one another just as we care for ourselves. We have a violence fetish in America that profoundly damages our individual and collective well-being. As some bible scholars say, perhaps one source is the image of the angry, retributive God of the Hebrew bible that remains strong in our Christianity, despite Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, to practice forgiveness. Regardless, we need to grow.

Now, first, I’m always amused when a non-Christian seems to try to lecture Christians in how to Christian correctly. Usually it’s atheists that try to do it, at least in my experience, but a Buddhist doing it doesn’t surprise me.

However, what really pisses me off is the first sentence in his response. “I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological,” Gardiner said.

Just how is it pathological? Our relationship with firearms, even if you’re susceptible to conspiracy theories or what have you, is not a pathology. Maybe the susceptibility is, but the relationship with guns? Hardly. Continue reading “”

Study Reports Record Number of Carry Permits in U.S.

A study issued by Crime Prevention Research Center on Sept. 21 reported that the number of concealed carry permits nationwide is now up to 19.48 million, a 34-percent increase compared to 2016’s figure. The continued upswing is particularly noteworthy when the number of states that no longer require law-abiding citizens to secure the license is now up to 17.

Roughly 7.6 percent of Americans have a carry permit, according to its findings. Slightly more than 26 percent of them are female and the number of new women outpaced men by 101.2 percent. There are now five states with more than 1 million people with carry permits. They are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Texas. Per capita, by qualified adult resident, 28.5 percent of the Alabamans have a license—the top figure in the nation. Indiana claims second-place honors with 18.7 percent and Iowa trails in third.

The cost is even going down. John R Lott and Rujun Wang, the report’s authors wrote, “A lot of changes in fees are occurring this year. Arkansas just reduced its fee from $142.11 to $91.9 and Washington from $48 to $36. Indiana’s 5-year license to carry has become fee exempt since July 1, 2020, while Tennessee’s 8-year license fee has dropped from $100 to $65, effective from January 1, 2020. West Virginia also reduced $75 fee for a LCDW to $25, starting on June 1, 2020.”

The number of people with carry permits in 1999 totaled 2.7 million. The figure rose to 11.1 million by 2014, but pales by comparison to this year’s record-setting 19.48 million.

“At the same time that there has been an exponential growth in permits, there has been a general linear decline in murder and violent crime rates,” the co-authors wrote. “Murder rates fell from 5.7 to 5.0 per 100,000, a 12-percent drop. Overall violent crime fell by 29 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits soared by five-fold.”

BLUF:
In short, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not only not anachronistic — it’s crucial. If the police are defunded or forced to stand down, the only way to protect oneself and one’s property will be to exercise one’s right to armed self-defense.

The Second Amendment is as necessary today as it has ever been

In the summer of 2020, riots and looting broke out across the United States. In cities from Seattle to New York, police were ordered to stand down and let the riots and looting take their course. The lesson from these events is that you cannot rely on the police to protect your life and property from criminal aggression. And that makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms more important than ever.

The right to defend oneself with firearms against criminal aggression dates back to the days before the U.S. became independent of Great Britain. While that right was often successfully defended in the political process, it took until 2008, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, for the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees against the federal government an individual right to possess firearms and to use them for self-defense within the home. Still, that right has been hanging by a thread because four justices dissented.

The Heller dissenters argued that whatever the original intent of the Second Amendment, the right is obsolete in modern society. They claimed that, while armed self-defense may have been needed when the U.S. lacked the infrastructure needed to provide security for the citizenry, the existence of modern professionalized law enforcement eliminates the need for armed self-protection.

Two years later, multiple large American cities unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to allow local and state governments to disarm citizens in McDonald v. City of Chicago. They argued that “in more urban areas that have the benefit of a concentrated and highly trained police force … the need for individuals to arm themselves for self-defense is less compelling.”

Seeking justice outside the courtroom

The riots of this summer undermine this claim. The country hadn’t seen such destructive violence in decades. For example, in Minneapolis, the killing of George Floyd sparked mayhem and lawlessness that resulted in two more deaths and at least $500 million in damage, the most destructive riots since 1992 in Los Angeles.

The chaos that followed Floyd’s killing touched off an unprecedented surge in Minneapolis crime the following month, including more than 1,500 shots-fired 911 calls — twice as many as the same period the year before. Homicides in Minneapolis went up 114%.

Second Amendment critics tell people to rely on the police for self-protection. Where were the police during this crisis? The mayor ordered them to stand down, leaving Minneapolis residents and business owners to their own devices. The same thing occurred during riots and looting in Chicago, Columbus, Louisville, and Portland. Continue reading “”

How The Left Tries To Trick Gun Owners Into Supporting Gun Control
Fake pro-gun groups like ‘Gun Owners for Safety’ are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, Brady, and others like them.

The Giffords Gun Control Group launched a new entity titled “Gun Owners for Safety” to spearhead the organization’s latest efforts to attack the Second Amendment. This group markets itself to American gun owners, who they claim are looking for “an alternative to the NRA … but [who] also want to reduce gun violence.” The past two decades, however, show that fake gun-rights groups like “Gun Owners for Safety” are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, the Brady Campaign, and others like them.

That agenda, which includes banning modern sporting rifles, is unpopular with gun owners and was conceived with zero input from the firearms industry. That industry has in fact proposed and implemented truly effective firearm safety proposals for decades.

Giffords Is No Friend of Gun Owners

Giffords’s latest iteration of a gun control group made up of gun owners is an obfuscation of facts. The group’s website landing page is a front. It hosts an image of a hunter plus a word salad that includes talk of gun ownership, common-sense gun laws, and reducing violence. It lists its principles as respect, devotion, and compassion, as if these traits are exclusive to those who favor the group’s gun control ideals.

Past this mirage is the truth. The so-called common-sense gun control ideas are really the radical proposals embraced by ideologues such as failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Giffords’ gun control measures would criminalize private firearm transfers, enact a national licensing scheme for Americans to exercise Second Amendment rights, enact mandatory home storage requirements the Supreme Court already struck down as unconstitutional, and ban, ban, ban.

Giffords seeks to outlaw the sale of precursor firearm parts for home-built hobbyists, which has always been legal, and to ban the most popular-selling centerfire rifle on the market, the modern sporting rifle. More than 18 million are in circulation. The group also wants to ban the standard-capacity magazines used in those rifles, which account for more than half of all the magazines in existence. If Giffords had its way, open and licensed concealed carry would also be gone, and the group would repeal laws that protect homeowners who are forced to defend their lives in their own homes.

Gun Control Groups Have Tried This Before Continue reading “”

Hey Hobie! One here for you.

Staunton council to hold public hearing regarding 2nd amendment

STAUNTON, Va. (WVIR) – In Staunton, a special meeting over the second amendment is now planned for next week.

Council will hold a public hearing using both virtual and in-person participation. The meeting will be held at City Hall on Thursday, October 29 at 6 p.m.

At Council’s last meeting, the majority of council members voted to revisit talks of becoming a “second amendment sanctuary”. Several cities and counties deemed themselves as such to make it clear they will not use public funds to restrict second amendment rights.

A notice from the city says people can take part both in-person or virtually. The meeting will held on zoom, and will be accessible online here: www.staunton.va.us/cogord2020-04 and https://www.ci.staunton.va.us/home/showdocument?id=9758.

First I’d change ‘rather than ‘ to ‘as well as those suitable for‘ individual self-defense’.

Second, a point that can be made from that last sentence is that Tench Coxe’s  “...every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American” means exactly that.
The NFA’34 & GCA ’68 restrictions, regulations and bans on automatic and destructive device firearms, among others, are unconstitutional

The State’s Monopoly of Force and the Right to Bear Arms

In debates over the Second Amendment, the conventional view is that the government ought to possess a monopoly of legitimate force, subject to the right of individuals to act in emergency self-defense. Many treat the non-defensive circumstances in which our system decentralizes force as holdovers from days of nonprofessional police and soldiers. When it comes to the Second Amendment, many believe that the only legitimate reason individuals may bear arms today is for individual self-defense against isolated criminal violence (e.g., an occupied home invasion).

This symposium article attacks the monopoly of force account, justifying the continued relevance of American law’s decentralization of legitimate force. This article argues that decentralization of force remains important for three reasons. First, despite the rise of professional police, American law enforcement still enforces law below desirable levels. Underenforcement of core crimes is particularly a problem in disadvantaged and rural communities and during times of civil unrest. Decentralization of force helps mitigate the underenforcement problem. And decentralization may be a better solution than simply providing more police because many areas where law is underenforced also (paradoxically) suffer from the effects of overcriminalization. Increased police presence could make the overcriminalization problem worse without solving the underenforcement problem. Second, American law has a mismatch between public duties and private rights. While providing effective law enforcement is a public duty, it is not a private right. Individuals, thus, have no effective claim that the government adequately enforce the law or protect them against unlawful violence. And any attempt to create such a private right would create profound separation of powers concerns. Consequently, self-help and private law enforcement are the best remedies when governments undersupply needed levels of police protection. Third, even if the “government” has a monopoly of force, it does not follow that government officers are the only ones in whom the government’s monopoly may be vested. The “government” is an incorporeal entity whose power must be exercised by human agents. Agents do not perfectly carry out the tasks of their principals; some government officers commit malfeasance and nonfeasance. The decentralization of force provides a remedy for such abuses of office.

Ultimately, the article concludes that the individual right to bear arms still has relevance for public defense and security. This fact should warrant consideration when determining the scope of the right, including that the arms protected by the Second Amendment should continue to include those arms whose primary value is public security rather than individual self-defense.

The Second Amendment as a Guard Against Government-Sanctioned Tyrannous Factions

The rioting and looting that occurred in American cities during the summer of 2020 highlights an heretofore ignored aspect of the Second Amendment—the Framers’ concerns about the danger of factions.
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, through which the Second Amendment applies to the states, witnessed first-hand freedmen and white Republicans being subjected to terrorist campaigns supported or accommodated by local law enforcement which the “Redeemers” controlled politically. Similarly, the riots and looting of 2020 illustrate that even today, local government officials can be complicit in law-enforcement using political, unequal criteria in determining whether and to what extent to preserve and enforce law and order.
Reviewing the events of Summer 2020 suggest that the individual right to self-defense is not only still important, but remains a necessary check on violent factions allied with corrupt local government.

This paper argues that the Second Amendment carries a particular force and has special application when individuals must defend themselves and their property against tyrannous factions that operate with the direct or indirect support of government.
The Second Amendment counters faction in two ways: it protects the individual right of self-defense against violent factions; and it checks the power of government to oppress its citizens through violent factions. Although the Constitution as a whole embodies a concern about faction, the Second Amendment provides unique protections against the abuses of faction by giving citizens the right to defend themselves from criminal aggression when the government will not.

BLUF:
To find out more about the Ghost Gunner and reserve their machine for a $500 deposit, readers can visit www.ghostgunner.net .

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine – Defeating Gun Control One Cut at a Time

A couple of years ago, I tested out the Ghost Gunner 2 by Defense Distributed. The Ghost Gunner 2 was great for taking an 80% lower and turning it into a fully working firearm. In November of 2019 AmmoLand News reported the next GG3 would be a ground-up redesign.  So when Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed gave me the chance to review their new Ghost Gunner 3 CNC machine, I couldn’t say no. Before we get into my review of the latest Ghost Gunner, we have to talk about what it does and why it is groundbreaking.

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine

To put it simply, The Ghost Gunner is a purpose-built CNC machine that lets anyone turn an 80% lower receiver into a fully working firearm. Defense Distributed designed the Ghost Gunner not only to finish 80% AR15, AR10, AR9, and AR45 lowers, but it also complete 1911 and Polymer 80 frames. In 2021 they will be releasing a cutting code for an AKM. The operator doesn’t need to have any machine skills to use the Ghost Gunner. Continue reading “”

Gun owners rally outside Newport News Police headquarters in support of Second Amendment rights

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights, which they say are being taken away from them.

A city ordinance passed over the summer now bans open carry of firearms at city buildings, facilities and parks.

“We ain’t running! We ain’t here to run!”

Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters, protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional.

“We are all here, and we are all heavily armed. We are unified, and if you mess with one of us, you are going to mess with all of us this time,” said organizer Mike Dunn.

Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun. In response, he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew’s “OK.”

“I thought it was good dialogue. They didn’t have to talk to me – I appreciate they did, but I think it shows good faith,” said Chief Drew.

According to Chief Drew, the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters. Continue reading “”

80% Silencers, the Political Ramifications of Mass Ownership

In the first two parts of this on home made silencers series, I wrote of how we arrived at the current situation, historically, and what exists today, in terms of the technology and legal system, for individuals to make their own silencers utilizing the ATF Form 1.

Because of the tremendous bureaucratic and monetary infringements imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA), very few form 1’s (required to legally make your own silencer, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun) were processed as late as 1990.

It took two more years, to 2016, to more than double again, to 49,985 Form 1s per year. That was the peak, so far. Record firearms sales in 2020 lead to the prediction over 50,000 Form 1’s will be processed this year. The figures for 2019 Form 1’s have not been released at this time, but should be out soon.

About 120 times as many Form 1s are being processed each year, as were being processed 30 years ago. Entire forums on the Internet trade information on what works and what doesn’t.

Forums such as silencertalk.com are potent places for political organizing.

Analysis of the ATF figures shows about 75% of the current Form 1s are for silencers. Most of the rest are for short-barrelled rifles (SBR). SBR Form 1s have probably dropped off as pistol arm braces gained popularity.

The vast increase in the number of legal silencers is altering the political and judicial landscapes.

Such visible numbers are a sign of political and judicial strength. Second Amendment supporters have every logical argument to repeal the National Firearms Act. They do not have the political support in Congress to do so…yet.

The inclusion of silencers in the NFA may be the worst public health blunder made by the Federal Government. Tens of millions of gun owners’ hearing has been adversely affected.

Two million legal silencers are merely the start. There are about 100 million firearms owners who could benefit from owning inexpensive and effective silencers in the United States. Market saturation of silencers in the United States might top out in the area of 200 million. Continue reading “”

How To Learn From Tech Reformers And Make Gun Rights A Populist Issue

The state of the Second Amendment is a barometer for the strength that individual Americans have in relation to their government. Civilian disarmament will weaken millions of Americans — culturally, economically and politically — so why do so many wish to gut the Second Amendment against their best interests?

The principles of the Constitution are too easily eroded by a constantly expanding list of restrictions we are assured only apply to criminals, and gun control is often presented as a way to improve our quality of life through simple, unobtrusive laws.

Magazine capacity is limited because only criminals need standard capacity. Silencers must be heavily regulated because those are tools for assassins. AR-variants must be banned because only murderers use them. Many Americans will yield: “I’m not a bad guy, so if this limits the harm that bad guys can do, it isn’t a restriction on me.”

Americans are both principled and practical — hallmarks of our culture often at odds. At this crossroads, the Second Amendment gets pinned and trimmed. Arguing that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” doesn’t stand a chance against appeals for gun control that seem practical.

Every piece of gun control shifts the cultural and political power to the politically connected. An unarmed population is, by definition, defenseless against the state. Reclaiming these powers requires us to seize the opportunity presented by our current populist moment.

The Populist Opportunity To Strengthen The Second Amendment
Populism is the self-conscious resistance to the ruling class by the politically, financially and culturally disenfranchised. Americans may not be ready to pinpoint specifics, but they recognize that power has been concentrated in a few institutions and social classes that are immune from economic, cultural, and political consequences.

A good example of using the populist appeal is the effort to reform Big Tech, which includes many of the online platforms we all use every day, like Google and Facebook.

The debate on Big Tech isn’t on the merits of their platforms, but the control they exercise against individuals and throughout society. These massive companies abuse outdated communications laws to mute voices that don’t fit the starchy views of Silicon Valley. Continue reading “”

The question isn’t whether Durbin is that stupid, rather, it’s why he believes everyone else is ignorant.
The Court, in Heller, and later in Caetano, addressed that idiotic point and buried it.

The Founders Wanted You to Own an AR-15

In his questioning of Amy Coney Barrett regarding an Indiana case about a non-violent felon and his constitutional right to bear arms, Illinois senator Dick Durbin dropped numerous false claims about Chicago gun crimes. But he topped it all off with one of the most egregiously inane arguments used against the private ownership of guns:

When that Second Amendment was written . . . we were talking about the likelihood that a person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket.

Durbin went on to say that the logical conclusion of the “originalist” position on firearms should be that the Founders were referring to flintlock muskets rather than modern “military weapons.” (A purposefully misleading labelling of semi-automatic rifles that Democrats are trying to ban.)

Originalism, of course, isn’t the same as literalism. Even it were, Durbin would be wrong. Because the right to self-defense isn’t predicated on any one specific weapon but a principle. Which is why the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of individuals to “keep and bear Kentucky rifles” any more than the First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to “write on parchment paper” or to worship “in Anglican and Presbyterian churches.”

Contemporary legislators have the hubris to believe that the Founders hadn’t envisioned any kind of technological advances in firearm technology. It’s an argument tantamount to claiming that free-speech protections are not operable because James Madison couldn’t foresee the incredible speed with which information can be disseminated on the Internet.

Not only did legislators in the late 18th-century witness the advent and adoption of long-range Pennsylvania rifles — ones that could fire at 300 yards with decent precision rather than 50 yards with none — but they were likely acquainted with the existence of weapons such as air-powered repeating rifles that could fire .46-caliber lead balls about 40 times before losing muzzle velocity. No Founder ever said, “hey maybe we made a mistake.” In fact, in the subsequent 150 years — through the rise of the revolver, the repeating rifle, and the gas-powered automatic weapons — no one ever challenged the idea that the Second Amendment protected anything but an individual right. Heller, the decision that so infuriated leftists, simply reaffirmed what had been obvious to everyone since 1789.

The Second Amendment is predicated on the principle that people have the right defend themselves and their liberties. The right to bear arms, in fact, is older than the right to free speech or freedom of religion. The English Bill of Rights, a document cataloging the crimes of James II and codifying the “ancient and indubitable” rights of English citizens in 1689, includes the right “arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Well, for Protestants. By 1765, William Blackstone, whose writings helped define the English common-law legal system, wrote that “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Not one Founder mentioned anything about “hunting” or “skeet shooting” during the debates over the drafting of the Constitution.

The founding generation believed that firearms should be used to guarantee the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution — whether they were in the government or not. Thankfully, there is no need of insurrection now. But the presence of armed citizenry is always a good bulwark against tyranny. Just in case.

And a musket simply won’t do.

There are people who believe that Christians should be anti-gun.
Some who call themselves Christian believe that.
Many more though, don’t.

Christians with guns as American as apple pie

JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS — Imagine if you will a place where kids as young as 3 years old are taught to handle a firearm — where women with increasing frequency are trained to defend self and family with guns — where middle-schoolers and high-schoolers alike are both competent and competitive at ready-aim-and-firing — and where going to church on Sunday is as natural as hitting the shooting range on Monday.

Twilight zone?

Nope. That’s the AGFF/Jacksonville Shooting Sports Complex in Jacksonville, Arkansas. That’s the scene of small-town, beyond-the-D.C.-bubble-Beltway America, where God, guns and flag-waving patriotism is part and parcel of the normal growing experience.

Where Christians who shoot are as American as apple pie.

“In my opinion, it’s our right as a Christian, as a non-Christian,” said Jerry Hill, the manager of the Jacksonville shooting range — which is actually operated and funded under the local Parks & Recreation Department, rather than privately owned and maintained.

Gasp, go the liberals.

What would Jesus say, scold the leftists.

But this just shows how different the thinking and mindsets between Outside City dwellers and Inside City dwellers — between the largely Democrat-dominated cities and the largely Republican-dominated suburban and country settings.

“He is the ultimate peacemaker, but he also lost his temper … and tore everything apart,” Hill said, in reference to the Bible passage about Jesus turning out the money-changers in the temple.

In other words: Jesus approves of righteous anger and self-defense. Being Christian doesn’t mean being a docile victim. Continue reading “”

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, our list contains 2,772 attacks and at least 5,764 shooters outside the United States and 62 attacks and 66 shooters within our country. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.13% of the mass public shooters, 1.77% of their murders, and 2.19% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. Out of the 101 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 66th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 56th in the murder rate.

Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the US, the US’s share of these attacks has declined over time. There has been a much bigger increase over time in the number of mass shootings in the rest of the world compared to the US.