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 “”

Dr. Dobson’s Open Letter To Christians Regarding The Election

Dear Friends,

This will be my final letter before Americans cast our ballots on November 3rd. It is a breathtaking moment in the history of the United States. Perhaps I will be permitted to repeat a brief comment I made in my August letter because of its relevance to today. Many political commentators have stated that this election is the most significant since 1864, when Abraham Lincoln vied for a second term against Democratic nominee, George McClellan. The future of our beloved nation hung in the balance that year. If Lincoln had lost, the Civil War would have ended precipitously and the wretched evils of slavery would have remained legal in the Confederate States, and perhaps even in the North. Had Lincoln been defeated, the Union would have been torn asunder. Thank God Mr. Lincoln won, even though it cost him his life!

Now we are approaching another presidential election that carries enormous implications for the stability of our democratic system of government. Indeed, Newt Gingrich said that what we are facing now might bring an end to civilization as we have known it. He may have been referring to a possible revolution. Regardless, I believe his grave concern for our nation is valid. For centuries, America has stood as a shining light for liberty and freedom in our nation and around the globe. If we abandon our founding core values, the world will suffer for it. The binary choice before us is that stark.

How will Americans, and how will you, decide who to vote for as our Chief Executive Officer? I have heard from dozens of friends and acquaintances in recent weeks who tell me they will base their decision solely on a candidate’s rhetoric, tone, style, or likeability. Does that describe your thinking process?

Just now, as I was about to react to that idea, my wife, Shirley, brought in an email that she had received a few minutes before from a friend. It quoted an anonymous statement that gets to the heart of the issue, as follows:

“This is not a junior high or high school popularity/personality contest. I’m not voting for the person—I’m voting for the platform!

I’m voting for the Second Amendment. I’m voting for the next Supreme Court justice. I’m voting for the electoral college. I’m voting for the Republic in which we live. I’m voting for the police and law and order. I’m voting for the military and the veterans who fought and died for this country. I’m voting for the flag that is often missing from public events. I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored for it. I’m voting for secure borders. I’m voting for the right to praise God without fear. I’m voting for every unborn soul that is at risk of being aborted. I’m voting for freedom and the American dream. I’m voting for good and against evil. I’m not just voting for one person.

I’m voting for the future of my country!”

I couldn’t have said it better, although I want to add to the writer’s list. I’m also voting for candidates who will exercise sound leadership internationally. I’m voting for those who will support Israel. I’m voting for those who will protect children from leftist curricula. I’m voting for the nation’s fiscal integrity. I’m voting for parental rights. I’m voting for school choice and home education. I’m voting for freedom in the suburbs. I’m voting for Little Sisters of the Poor and other Christian organizations. I’m voting for racial unity. I am voting to support “In God we trust” and school prayer. I’m voting for freedom of conscience for physicians and other professionals. I am voting for marriage. I am voting for life in all its dimensions. I am voting against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. I’m voting for wisdom in handling the pandemic. I am voting for protection for the Church from oppressive politicians.

One final thought: With all respect, this election isn’t about you. It certainly isn’t about me. It is about our kids and grandkids. It is about those who are yet to come, if they are allowed to live. This vote has awesome implications for future generations and the nation we love. It is about our Constitution and the immutable, God-given rights it protects. It is about values, and truth, and greatness, and hope. That is why the notion of choosing a president based on frivolous personality characteristics is so unfortunate.

In summary, this election is for all the marbles . . . the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Together, they set the agenda for this country.

If you love America and don’t want it to be “fundamentally transformed,” it is time to do three things:

  1. Pray like never before that God will spare this great nation from tyranny and oppression of religious liberty.
  2. Volunteer to help your candidates.
  3. Vote for the candidates who will best uphold your values and convictions.

Also, consider forwarding this letter to your friends, family, and others whom you might influence.

May God bless America!

Signature

Is Our Freedom For Sale?

The old idea, “If you want to understand what’s really going on, follow the money,” certainly holds true when it comes to gun-control groups. The NRA gets its funding from millions of members and supporters who cherish American freedom. In contrast, as you’ll see here, the vast majority of money fueling gun-control groups comes from a few mega-wealthy individuals who live very protected lives, but don’t think you should have the same security as they do.

Searching publicly available records, we were able to get a good idea of how the gun-control groups are financed. This involved doing forensic accounting work on the three biggest gun-control groups’ political-action committees (PACS): the Michael Bloomberg-funded group Everytown for Gun Safety, the Giffords PAC and the Brady PAC

[I’ve moved part of the article about the Giffords PAC forward to emphasize it. To me, it simply looks like a method that the Kelly’s have to fund the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to. Miles]

Giffords PAC
The Giffords PAC (FEC ID C00540443), headquartered in Washington, D.C., is an entirely different political machine. It, too, is not a charity and thus cannot be rated by Charity Navigator or similar organizations. However, other sources show that as of June 30, 2020, Giffords had taken in $8 million in receipts and spent $6 million, with  around $2.8 million in reserve.

Two things immediately stand out about this PAC. First is how narrowly and sparingly it spends its money. As this was being written, it had made a mere $198,000 in campaign contributions and spent $1.4 million of its independent-expenditure PAC money against one campaign: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) who, at press time, was in a tight race with Democrat John Hickenlooper, a man who wants to deeply restrict our Second Amendment rights. This is considered to be a key race for control of the U.S. Senate.

The other thing about the Giffords PAC is the nature of its expenses. They are, compared to the frugality of Everytown, astronomical. The administrative, fundraising, media, salary and miscellaneous expenses of this group take up the largest use of its donations.

Everytown for Gun Safety
The Everytown PAC is the brainchild of one man, Michael Bloomberg. When he was the mayor of New York City, Bloomberg originally founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This name was basically scrapped after a lot of mayors turned on the group for simply promoting an anti-gun agenda, and it morphed into Everytown for Gun Safety. Continue reading “”

Rural California is divided, armed for revolt. What’s the matter in the State of Jefferson?

Carlos Zapata has a message for any government official who shows up at his Tehama County restaurant and tries to enforce California’s pandemic shutdown orders.

“I’ve made it very clear that if they come to shut us down, I’m going to call 100,000 people that’ll be there with guns, and what happens happens, you know?” Zapata said Tuesday. “I’m hoping that they’re not stupid enough to want that kind of a fight over a restaurant being open, but if they want it, we’ll definitely give it to them.”

It’s not the first time the Red Bluff restaurant owner and U.S. Marine combat veteran has made those kinds of threats. A few weeks ago, he told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to expect trouble if they enforce Gov. Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 restrictions on local businesses.

“Right now, we’re being peaceful,” he said in a short speech that has since made Zapata a celebrity among far-right groups. “But it’s not going to be peaceful much longer.”

Just about anywhere else in California, that sort of talk would have been widely condemned. But here, in what’s arguably the capital of the State of Jefferson — a decades-old movement to break off conservative northern counties from Democrat-controlled California — many have shrugged Zapata off as commonplace. Continue reading “”

Washington State Firearm Confiscation Law Found Unconstitutional

The case is State v. Zachary James Marshall, available here.

Earlier this year, in a ruling of first impression in Washington State, the Kitsap County District Court decided that the state’s compulsory “firearm surrender” laws violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the analogous provisions in the state constitution. “In our constitutional system of government, individuals have rights that the government and its agents (including courts) must respect. Among those rights are the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and their counterparts under Washington’s constitution.”

To appreciate the ruling, it is necessary to understand the underlying statutory framework. Washington State courts issuing certain protection orders in a civil or criminal case have the authority, or are required, to also order that the restrained person retrieve and “immediately surrender” to law enforcement all firearms and dangerous weapons that the person possesses or has control over, as well as any concealed pistol license (CPL). As soon as the order is issued, the restrained person becomes prohibited from possessing, acquiring or accessing firearms and weapons, and is ineligible for a CPL.

Within five days of the order, a restrained person must file with the court a written proof of surrender in a prescribed form, under oath (or alternatively, a declaration that he or she has no guns, weapons or CPL to surrender). The state law directs, further, that the court must “verify timely and complete compliance with orders to surrender weapons” by holding a compliance hearing as soon as possible. At this hearing (or any other hearing where compliance with the order to surrender weapons is addressed), the law demands that the restrained person attend and provide testimony under oath verifying their compliance.

If there is cause to believe that a restrained person is not in compliance, a court may issue a surrender search warrant to search any “locations where the firearms and dangerous weapons are reasonably believed to be” and confiscate this property.

It is a crime to fail to comply with a surrender order, and the offender may also face sanctions for contempt of court. A separate state law makes it a felony for the person to possess a firearm during any period of time that the person was subject to that court order. Noncompliance by an out-of-custody pretrial defendant would also be a violation of release conditions, resulting in revocation of those conditions and confinement until trial.

The challenge to this law arose out of misdemeanor charges for fourth degree assault, the lowest level of assault, brought against Zachary James Marshall. Marshall has no previous criminal history and there is no indication in the ruling that Marshall had used or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the alleged assault. Continue reading “”

Homeowner fatally shoots burglar in Marquette Park

A homeowner shot and killed a suspected burglar Sunday in Marquette Park on the Southwest Side, according to Chicago police.

About 11:15 a.m., the man, believed to be in his 40s, was shot by the homeowner during a burglary in the 7100 block of South Mozart Street, police said.

The Cook County medical examiner’s office has not yet commented on the death.

Area One detectives are investigating.

Senior al-Qaeda leader Abu Muhsin al-Masri killed in Afghanistan
Abu Muhsin al-Masri, believed to be al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, was on FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.

Afghan security forces have killed Abu Muhsin al-Masri, a senior al-Qaeda leader who was on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted Terrorists list, according to Afghanistan’s intelligence service.

Al-Masri, an Egyptian national believed to be al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, was killed during a special operation in the central Ghazni province, Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) said in a tweet late on Saturday.

Al-Masri, who also goes by the name Husam Abd-al-Ra’uf, has been charged in the United States with having provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation, and conspiracy to kill US nationals. The US issued a warrant for his arrest in December 2018.

BLUF:
Clearly, Democrats are desperate to kick this scandal down the road until after Biden is elected. One could imagine a scenario where, if Biden were elected president, he steps down prior to his inauguration and Kamala Harris, the real presidential candidate steps up as the president…….

Given Biden’s cognitive decline, he could easily claim he’s resigning for medical reasons. That would save Democrats the embarrassment of an impeachment attempt less than one-year after they pulled the same stunt on President Trump.

More so, what Schumer and Wyden’s letter shows is an utter contempt for the American people. …..

The FBI as an organization, not the overwhelming number of superb agents who work for the agency, has had its reputation tarnished by people such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page for their complicity in trying to take out President Trump.

If the FBI kicks this investigation down the road under Christopher Wray, confidence in that organization may never return.

To the demoncraps, “rule of law,” like “democracy” means “our power.”
What they think will be undermined is their seat on the .gov gravy train.

Schumer sends letter to FBI director to ignore Biden scandal, says investigation could ‘undermine the rule of law.’

WASHINGTON, DC- “Lyin’ Chuck” as President Trump calls him must be getting a little bit nervous.

With all the information coming out about Hunter Biden and his father who is apparently running for an office of some importance, despite the fact the scandal is getting throttled by most of the media, it has gotten some unwanted attention. And Democrats are starting to panic.

Chuck Schumer took it upon himself to write the FBI Director to put the brakes on.

The laptop that was turned in by a Delaware computer repair shop has spawned a lot of information, and none of it is good for the Biden campaign.

Information contained on the computer seems to show that Hunter and his daddy Joe were possibly involved in some international hijinks with countries such as Ukraine and China, mostly as a result of Joe Biden’s position as vice president.

It is unusual for a president to have an impeachment hanging over their head before they are even elected or inaugurated (although truth be told that was the case for President Trump, although with zero credible evidence). With all the information coming about fast and furious, Republicans are working overtime to try to confirm the information. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
One of the great legacies of the Trump Administration is the extent to which it has revealed that huge swathes of our national establishment, in government, the media, and elsewhere, are both hopelessly partisan and frighteningly incompetent. Buckle up, because all the evidence is that the establishment hasn’t learned its lesson yet.

Mueller report: Donald Trump collusion conspiracy theories are now exposed. Will they end?
After two years of mass hysteria afflicting a huge portion of our political class, the cognitive dissonance after the Mueller report is painful.

“Donald Trump broke the brains of a lot of people.” That’s leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, talking about the way conspiracy theories have occupied the media despite the absence of any actual evidence.

For over two years, the line among mainstream media, from The New York Times to Rachel Maddow, has been that President Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s stooge. It was suggested that the Russians “hacked” the election by penetrating voting machines. When that was exploded, we were told that they “hacked” the election by arranging for Wikileaks to release (truthful) emails about how the Democratic Party rigged its primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton to ensure that Bernie Sanders wouldn’t get the nomination. At some point, the narrative shifted to vaguer references to “collusion.”

It was all bogus. As Greenwald notes, Mueller’s report didn’t just reject the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, it obliterated them. Not only was no one in Trump’s campaign charged with conspiring with the Russians, no American anywhere was so charged, nor did Mueller find evidence along those lines to support criminal charges.

That should put the whole collusion narrative to bed, but of course it hasn’t. After two years of what can fairly be described as mass hysteria afflicting a huge portion of our political class, the cognitive dissonance is painful. It would be amusing to watch, if the “broken brains” weren’t so widespread among the people who are supposed to be the sober managers and reporters of our society. It’s like a doomsday cult whose predicted apocalypse fails to appear on schedule: They just announce that they made a mathematical mistake, and doomsday will actually come next year. Then they ask for more donations. The trouble is, this time it’s a cult that’s running a significant part of our nation.

Continue reading “”

The owner is Nancy Wyden, wife of Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon (how’s that work?). I’d say it never dawned on them that even though they’re good little lib/proggies, they’d still get slammed by their own brand of politics.

Strand Book Store says it ‘cannot survive’ without more business

One of New York City’s legendary booksellers is on the cusp of closure as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Manhattan’s beloved Strand Book Store published a call for help this week, admitting that the business has seen a massive financial decline as a result of COVID-19 and is on the brink of shuttering.

“The Strand’s revenue has dropped nearly 70% compared to last year,” Strand owner Nancy Bass Wyden admitted in a letter posted to Twitter on Friday afternoon. “Because of the impact of COVID-19, we cannot survive the huge decline in foot-traffic, a near-complete loss of tourism, and zero in-store events (compared to 400 events pre-pandemic).”

The store was able to secure a loan that buoyed it through the past eight months, Wyden wrote, but “we are now at a turning point where our business is unsustainable.”

To help, Wyden hasn’t launched a fundraiser but is simply encouraging people to buy the Strand’s wares from its three brick-and-mortar locations and website and to encourage friends to do the same. She also asks that people use the hashtag #SaveTheStrand to help spread the word.

“We’ve survived just about everything for 93 years — the Great Depression, two World Wars, big ox bookstores, e-books and online behemoths. We are the last of the original 48 bookstores still standing from 4th Avenue’s famous Book Row,” wrote Wyden, who is the Strand’s third-generation owner and grew up among its iconic “18 Miles of Books.”

The famed bookstore, founded in 1927 by Wyden’s grandfather, temporarily laid off the majority of its staff shortly after the onset of the coronavirus in March.

“In order to preserve The Strand as a business, with no revenue coming in and no clear idea as to when we can reopen our doors, we have had to temporarily lay off the majority of our staff,” Wyden said on Twitter at the time.

Coyotes Comment Confuses Trump Haters

During Thursday night’s Presidential debate, President Trump claimed — correctly — that coyotes have taken unaccompanied children across the border. “Coyotes,” of course, is a common term for people who illegally smuggle humans into the U.S. Everyone knows that, right? Apparently not. In fact, progressive social media blew up after he made that comment, because everything Trump says is stupid or something.

Moderator Kristen Welker had asked him about 545 illegal children whose parents can’t be found. Here is Trump’s full response:

“These children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they used to use them to get into our country.” 

Granted, Trump isn’t the most fluent of speakers, so Joe Biden took it as his cue to show Trump’s supposed ignorance:

“Coyotes didn’t bring them over, their parents were with them. They got separated from their parents, and it makes us a laughingstock, and violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”

It’s true that the vast majority of illegal children come with family members. However, some smugglers, aka “coyotes,” do smuggle children, often with heartbreaking results.

Like the three-year-old boy whom Border Patrol agents found alone and crying in a cornfield near the border. Or the two-year-old girl — two years old! — whom smugglers left at the riverbank with just her name and a phone number on her T-shirt.

But some liberal Twitter users thought that the President was being racist or just ignorant, since Trump Derangement Syndrome controls their every thought.

Like David Hogg, the cream of Hah-vahd, who accused Trump of “xenophobia.” Why? Because “immigrant parents” are the “coyotes.”

He has no clue, does he?

 

So the “level of xenophobia is sickening?” The level of Hogg’s ignorance is staggering.

One Twitter user attempted to educate him. I’m not sure it would’ve made a difference with Hogg, however. The Trump Derangement is strong with that one.

“You don’t know what you’re talking about. “Coyotes” are human smugglers; in Central America they call them “Polleros.” Human trafficking is controlled by violent cartels; many immigrants are raped, beaten, or even left behind to die.”

But Hogg the Irrelevant at least correctly identified these smugglers as human. However, lots of Trump haters across the Twitterverse thought that the President referred to the animal. Or maybe they thought Trump was talking about this guy? Who knows what goes on in their fevered brains?

coyotes Continue reading “”

Media’s double standard on the Second Amendment

The Colorado Springs Gazette covered the tragic killing of a Patriot Muster supporter by smearing the protest’s organizer, John Tiegen.

(You know Tiegen from “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,” the movie based on the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. Tiegen and others guarding the compound fought off Ansar al-Sharia terrorists while pleading for help that never came.)

Though BLM/Antifa counter-protesters broke down a barrier and launched cans at the Patriots, they remained peaceful. However, as they were leaving, they were accosted in an ugly confrontation that culminated in the shooting death of one of their own. The shooter was immediately arrested and later charged with second-degree murder.

On the following Monday, Oct. 12, in a front-page feature entitled “Protest leader known in Springs,” the Gazette appeared to blame Tiegen for his death.

The article reprimanded Tiegen for being on a rooftop at an earlier BLM protest in Colorado Springs. It ominously described a rifle held by another man as “military-style” and noted a “sighting scope, like those used by military snipers.”

These are misleading terms used to scare us about guns. Some 16 million AR-15s are legally owned by Americans for self-defense and sport. While it has military roots, it is clearly a civilian firearm and not a machine gun. I wonder if the reporter would describe the Jeep Wrangler as a “military-style” vehicle?

Note that no shots were fired from that rooftop, no laws were broken and no arrests were made. Their choice of the roof guaranteed no confrontations ensued. Tiegen himself was holding a dog, not a gun.

Though the Gazette portrayed Tiegen’s presence as threatening behavior, isn’t it just as plausible to reason that Tiegen was there to keep someone from doing something stupid?

In fact, law enforcement counts on Tiegen’s power to persuade to keep the peace. For example, the reporter found this “coded” warning posted by Tiegen before the protest: “P.S. For Mechanical pencil that offers a concealed eraser, top lead advance and removable Clip no more than .15 mm lead allowed in each. City of Denver ordnance (sic).” Continue reading “”

“I once had a friend who grew up in China ask me why so many Americans watch the news. Confused, I asked, “What do you mean?”
She responded, “Well, in China no one watches the news because we all know it’s propaganda. I guess Americans haven’t figured that out yet.”
Among the moments that changed my paradigm on life – this was one of them.” -Jamie McIntyre, senior defense and national security correspondent for the Washington Examiner.

Florida mom defends family in gunfight with home intruders

An Instagram model may have saved her family when she grabbed a firearm and engaged in a gunfight with masked intruders who stormed into her Florida home, reports said.

Ansley Pacheco, 26, was at home in Miami-Dade County earlier this month when armed intruders ambushed her husband, 7-year-old son and their friends while they were watching the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, according to Local 10 News.

“While I was in the bathroom, I started to hear the commotion, I started hearing, ‘Get down, get down, give me everything you got,’” she recalled.

“I went to the nightstand; I grabbed the gun and I opened the door. I saw one of the guys face to face with me. He told me to put my gun down. I just shook my head no, and then I said, ‘Don’t shoot me, my son is in here.’”

After a tussle and gunshots, which were caught on surveillance video, the intruders took off with some watches and jewelry.

“They finally just ran out,” Pacheco said. “My husband ran and got the gun and shot back at the vehicle that was leaving.”

Luckily, Pacheco and her family were not injured in the melee. The woman, who streams videos on the website OnlyFans, remained defiant.

“I just knew that I had to do something, and my first instinct was to grab the gun and defend my husband and my son,” she said.

Woman shoots, kills suspected carjacker in St. Louis

ST. LOUIS — A 29-year-old woman who told police she was robbed and carjacked in St. Louis Monday shot and killed her attacker, 5 On Your Side has learned.

The victim told police she was going into a business at about 3:30 p.m. in the 1000 block of North Vandeventer to get her paycheck and was robbed as she was returning to her car, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

She jumped into her car, got her own gun and shot the suspect once in the stomach before he fled in her car, according to the source.

At about the same time she called police, a neighboring police district got a call for an accident with injuries in the 3700 block of Finney Avenue, about half a mile away. Officers found the victim’s stolen car along with a man inside who had been shot in the stomach. He was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly before 4 p.m.

The man was identified Wednesday as 25-year-old Tyrell Williams.

Meanwhile, paramedics treated the carjacking victim at the scene. She had an injury to her leg, which she told police she got when she fell from her car during the robbery.

Homicide detectives interviewed the victim and released her.

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 “”