Monday, January 4, 2016

Four from Herschel Smith.

Justice Scalia On Religion And The Constitution
Texas Gun Law: Is The State A Model For Modern Open Carry?
Man Killed While Playing With Handgun
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Standoff


WarriorClass III said...

RE Texas Gun Law, I agree with Herschel, "And no, it’s not a model for open carry law. It’s a half way measure that still recognizes the state’s right to permit the carry of weapons, an illegitimate and bastard right that has no place in a free society."

We pushed hard for Constitutional carry, but this was all we could get this time around. And the Democrats from along the Mexican border and inner cities (aka getto areas), and some statist Republicrats like Joan Huffman, fought us every step of the way.

Good news is that the Houston Police Chief promised to go after any "antis" that tried to have someone "SWATted" for open carrying, which is more than we can say for the Temple Texas police. I expect some resistance in the fascist cities like San Antonio and Austin as well.

But the fight will continue until we achieve Constitutional carry. And our state reps have been put on notice of that fact.

Chiu ChunLing said...

To be precise, it is functionally impossible for 'government' to actually be neutral on the preference for religion over irreligion, except in the sense that 'government' never takes any sides at all because it is merely a conceptual framework which groups of individuals use to their own ends (common or not).

That is to say, no person can really be neutral about the ultimate purpose and meaning of their own life, and thus for individuals neutrality on religion is frankly impossible, it is never anything more than a pose for any human being who cares about anything.

What we can practically demand is that nobody be allowed to use the government to coerce others on the matter of religious preference...and this is exactly what we have forfeited by allowing specific groups to do just that simply because they are not Christians. As for the rather grim prognosis, it is right and it is wrong. There are still sincere Christians in America, and I confidently predict they will save as much of our heritage as is worthy of preservation. But there are far fewer sincere Christians than superficial polls indicate, and saving the heritage of America doesn't imply saving anything like a majority of the current inhabitants.

I don't have anything to say about Darwin awards, except that by long-standing tradition putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger doesn't count because there is simply no way of proving it wasn't just an ordinary suicide pulled of with a bit of flamboyance. But I do have something to say about people acting as if suicide for any reason (including a terminal preference for amusement over safety) has anything to do with whether people should have free use of objects designed to preserve and protect their lives.

The invention, development, and wide distribution of guns is foundational to the rise of modernity which allowed the human population to increase from less than one billion to over seven. Ban them, and you necessarily erase modernity along with most of those gains. Whether or not some goal is worth depriving six billion people of the means to preserve their lives can be reasonably discussed, as long as that goal isn't "saving lives".

My position on the situation which has apparently been entirely engineered by Federal agents and agent-provocateurs is that it is basically one-thousand percent the Federal government's fault. Ammon Bundy may have been taken in by a trained con-man, that doesn't make him guilty of anything anymore than a woman physically overpowered by an armed rapist deserves to be stoned for 'adultery'. There are places in the world where people do such things, there are people who do them regardless of where in the world you go...but I should hope the majority of people commenting here would be willing to forgo such things.

We don't have to rely on Ammon Bundy's judgment of the best way to proceed if we think he's been duped (and I kinda think he has been). But I do think it is worth noting that the Feds are using this as a bit of a trial balloon to test how the wind blows among the "III%". They have set up a situation where they basically could just let this unimportant 'Federal building' be occupied by a group of responsible private militiamen for an indefinite period of time...if Ammon says he's prepared to stay there for years if necessary, I'm betting the government can leave them their till everyone just dies of old age if resorting to mass murder doesn't gain enough public traction.

Me, if they resort to mass murder yet again, I'm up for even more massive murder to counter that, unless the III% are ready to make such unnecessary by resorting to conventional armed resistance.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a super duper biblical scholar but I can't find the support for the notion that having and carrying a handgun (concealed or otherwise) is a right 'given' by god much the same way that high speed internet, PlayStation and equal pay don't appear to be a right given by god. Can you all tell me the specific biblical support for this notion or the general origin of this notion. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Warrior Class III - you are pretty much spot on but you left out one major player, joestrauss, he has been a major stumbling block for a good long while as well as the others you cited.
As to San Antonio being one of the socialist cities, it was tending that direction until the previous mayor departed. At least we are NOT 'officially' a sanctuary city.
And surprisingly enough, HPD followed Dallas on the SWATting issue. SAPD hasn't taken a stand on it - yet. Austin might be a lost cause what with all of the lieberals at UT and the modern carpetbagger chief they have..................;-)

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at January 4, 2016 at 6:35 PM: the basis for believing God gave us the right and duty of self defense is in the 10 Commadments, specifically the commandment "Thou shalt not murder." This one is incorrectly translated as Thou Shalt Not Kill. But a quick read of Leviticus and Deuteronomy shows that death was the penalty prescribed by God for many offenses in ancient Israel and death requires killing. God does not contradict himself, so only murder is wrong.

To let oneself be murdered is to scorn the life that God gave you. We are expected to put up the best defense we are able to and today this usually involves using a gun. Most of us are not trained, and some of us are physically unable, to use our hands and feet to kill an attacker. The firearm is the best all around weapon for self defense.

This topic deserves an essay, but such essays have been written by better writers than I so I won't attempt it here. I hope this gave you something to think about.

Chiu ChunLing said...

The right to self-defense only implies the right to own a gun if you live in a situation where it is possible you'll need to defend yourself against people who have guns.

Yes, I'm oversimplifying that a bit, but you don't seem likely to comprehend a full explication.

Guns have been invented. They cannot be uninvented as they are too simple in fundamental operation to realistically prevent unregulated manufacture. Thus criminals of various kinds are certain to be able to obtain them. It is thus a significant likelihood that anyone living anywhere in the world today (possibly excepting Antarctica) may encounter a criminal armed with a gun.

Being forbidden to be similarly armed against this possibility is thus a deprivation of the inherent right of least until full-coverage low-profile powered armor is easily available at a non-onerous cost. Non-full-coverage armor is only effective if you have a way of shooting back at an armed assailant so they cannot target your vulnerable areas at their leisure. Armor that is not low-profile, or that is not powered, would be far too restrictive of ordinary activity to constitute a reasonable defense against armed criminals.

Alas, by the time full-coverage low-profile powered armor is commonly available at prices which are not onerous, weapons capable of penetrating them are likely to be a commonplace available to criminals. So there you have it.

Fred said...

--Reply to Anon as to right of defense and weapons carry from God.
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13 - the sixth of the Ten Commandments) Therefore, by allowing someone to kill, where if armed you could have stopped them; you are in fact, in violation of the Revealed Law of the Almighty. That applies as much to individuals as it does to nations. Every living thing on this planet has a defense mechanism. That humans make tools for defense is natural. By denying access to a weapon, you are in fact, also then, violating God’s Natural Law.
Luke 22:35-38
“And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.”
By "It is enough" we are to uderstand that God is saying - It is enough that I have told you to arm up so get to it. This directive has NOT been recinded by Jesus. It will later, but differnt subject.
See The Captains Journal:
See Chuck Baldwins Sermons and Teaching:!/Liberty-And-Law-DVD/p/57816370/category=15986016

I hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

There is no such biblical injunction to carry a gun.
No doubt those here will tell ya, though, that when Christ 'returns', he'll be packin'.

Anonymous said...

I believe it's time for God to call Scalia home.

Anonymous said...

Chiu- Wow, you really dump the words..
Including the III%-requisite belligerent threats "Me.. I'm up for even more massive murder to counter that..".
I wonder how you jive such murder this with your avowed Christianity on other social media.

TheFordguy85 said...

Anonymous, the general notion for carrying/concealing a handgun comes from the fact that we have been endowed by our Creator with life. That life, being precious, is worthy of defending. Of course there is no scriptural basis for handguns, PS's, etc., because these things did not yet exist. But even Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they did not have one. Luke 22 I believe.

Bad Cyborg said...

+1000 on what Warrior Class wrote. I don't like having to jump through hoops and pay a fee (bribe, really) to get permission to exercise what I consider to be a right. However, when you're hungry, a couple of slices of bread beats the HELL out ot a kick in the balls.

I live in San Antonio and am carrying every time I go farther than to te mailbox. I have not seen any SAPD so I do not know what they will do. I HAVE been thanked for carrying a couple of times and been told that I make them feel SAFER. I have also been on the receiving end of a massive case of "stinkk eye" from the greeter at Walmart. I did not let it phase me.

Chiu ChunLing said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm fine with Christianity until someone goes and defines it as a duty to have my life sacrificed to satanists.

At that point, I'm out, and you can call that unchristian all you least for as long as you can.

Anonymous said...

Fordguy85: You miss much of the jist of the gospels, which is distinctly nonviolent, and NOT 'carry a big stick/sword/gun & threaten your neighbors, but walk softly' - nonviolent.

It is, though, quite easy to twist his words to one's predilections. Just look at those who did so to undermine the freedom of, indeed, enslave men here.
I'd re-read the gospels if I were you. Hell, I should too, and will do the same.