Category Archives: Second Amendment

by

Daily Broadside | Justifying Opposition to the Ungodly Authorities

More than a year ago I wrote that I was making my way through a book called, “Justifying Revolution: The American Clergy’s Argument for Political Resistance, 1750-1776” by Gary L. Steward. I had said at the time that I would take notes and eventually share with you what I learned, and finished reading it sometime in late 2022.

While I can’t write a comprehensive review in a short blog post, I’ll try to sum up some of the key learnings I came away with.

The book is an academic study of how patriot clergy drew on a long history of Protestant tradition of resistance to unjust political power. In his introduction, Steward writes,

The majority of historians today, it seems, interpret the clergy’s support of the American Revolution as an accommodation of Christian teaching to various forms of secular thought. They must have ignored the clear teaching of the Bible and closed their ears to the authority of scripture to justify disobedience and armed warfare against the established political authorities. After all, doesn’t scripture condemn political resistance?

The question I wanted answered was, “how did the clergy who supported the revolution justify their resistance, even when it became violent?” There are three ways that impressed me from the book (although there were others).

First, Steward’s book is a survey of some of the key events, documents and sermons that influenced resistance to British rule and demonstrates that the clergy were entirely consistent with their rich theological traditions of resistance. He covers things like Jonathan Mayhew’s doctrine of political resistance (a 1750 sermon), which John Adams suggested “orators on the fourth of July” should study, and wrote that Mayhew “‘had great influence on the commencement of the Revolution’ and his famed sermon was ‘read by everyone.'”

The overthrow of Governor Edmund Adros in 1689 was a key event in the lead up to the revolution. Andros had been appointed royal governor of the Dominion of New England and when he arrived, he nullified the colonial charters — and thereby the legislatures — of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey and took them under his direct control. He then raised property taxes and excise taxers without the consent of any local assembly. Many more abuses were heaped on the citizens until King James II abdicated the throne, when the Massachusetts colonists deposed Governor Andros on April 18 and threw him in jail, eventually sending him back to England.

Steward quotes many sermons and pamphlets throughout his book. In his chapter on self-defense he quotes Elisha Fish, a Congregationalist clergyman from Upton, Massachusetts, who “laid out a full justification of defensive warfare in his The Art of War Lawful and Necessary for a Christian People” (with my emphasis):

For if it be in the nature and reason of things lawful for Christians to enjoy their lives, liberties and property, it must be lawful, in the same nature and reason of things, to use the means necessary to defend and preserve these enjoyments, for to suppose a right to life, liberty and property, and no right to the means necessary for the defense and preservation of the same, is one of the greatest absurdities in nature.

That is a justification from reason, but the colonists also reasoned from the scriptures. In particular, they argued that Paul’s admonition to submit to the “governing authorities” in Romans 13:1-5 is not absolute. The reason it’s not absolute is because civil and political power is derivative, meaning that the power any authority has is derived from God first, then secondarily through men (e.g. through elections or appointments). Therefore, magistrates have a duty to exercise their authority according to godly principles and if they don’t, they forfeit their prerogatives and the citizens have a right to resist, sometimes violently, if their natural, God-given rights (i.e. the right to life, liberty and happiness) are trampled.

However, nearly all patriot clergy cautioned that such resistance should only come after respectfully petitioning for redress, waiting patiently, and then acting in an orderly, measured and restrained response. This was in direct contradiction to the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance advocated by other clergy, one of whom said that a king is to be submitted to “absolutely, without exceptions to any other commands than those directly from God, who is so far from justifying our resistance that he commands our passive obedience.”

One of the strongest arguments for a right of resistance in light of Romans 13 was from Andrew Eliot, who preached an annual election sermon (an ANNUAL. ELECTION. SERMON!) on May 25, 1765, from which Steward quotes extensively.

Some have argued the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance in all cases whatsoever or that we are not to oppose those who are in authority, although they evidently act contrary to the design of their institution and are bent to ruin the society, which it is their duty to defend and promote. A doctrine so big with absurdity that one would think of no one of common understanding could embrace it, certainly he must have the temper of a slave that can practice upon it. St. Paul very plainly teaches us how far subjection is due to a civil magistrate, when he gives it as a reason for this subjection, “for he is the minister of God to thee for good.” The end for which God has placed men in authority is that they may promote the public happiness. When they improve their power to contrary purposes, when they endeavor to subvert the constitution and to enslave a free people, they are no longer the ministers of God, they do not act by his authority; if we are obliged to be subject, it is only for wrath and not for conscience sake, and they who support such rulers betray their country and deserve the misery they bring on themselves.”

Steward gives many other examples throughout the book of the colonists resisting tyranny and advocating for, and protecting, their civil and religious rights and liberties.

Historical theological tradition, a rejection of passive obedience, and a measured response were all reasons supporting resistance to ruling authorities.

So where do I land after reading it? It helped solidify my thinking that Christians and other citizens have the right to resist rulers who clearly begin operating outside of their derived powers. It challenged my understanding of Romans 13, which often confused me because I took it as absolute; but Paul’s explanation is more nuanced than that and supports a limited view of being subject to the authorities. And I particularly agree with being organized and measured in response to magisterial abuses once the decision to actively resist is taken.

Having read Steward’s book, I’ve challenged myself to read a book written from an opposing viewpoint — one that Steward himself mentions in his book. It’s written by Gregg L. Frazer and is called, “God Against the Revolution: The Loyalist Clergy’s Case Against the American Revolution.” I’ll read that one this year then (if I’m still blogging when I’m done with it) I’ll write a short review of it like this one.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

by

Daily Broadside | 80 Illinois Sheriffs Won’t Enforce New Gun Ban

About a week ago or so I wrote about the new Illinois law that bans the sale of military-style firearms, despite it being clearly unconstitutional. At the end of the column, I said that Democrats use lawfare to make citizens sue for their rights.

Legal challenges have already been filed against the law, which we thought might be our only recourse, but lo and behold, sheriffs in 80 Illinois counties have vowed to not enforce the law. They have all issued similar statements in explaining their decisions. For example, here is the statement that Monroe County, Ill., Sheriff Neal Rohlfing issued.

Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those enumerated rights is the right of the people to keep and bear arms provided under the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.

I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official for Monroe County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will be arresting or housing law abiding individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this Act.

These sheriffs have obviously banded together to defy Pritzker and are turning it into a conflict between enforcing state law and protecting the Constitution of the United States. The state may not infringe on the rights of the people through the law, and the police may not infringe on them through enforcement.

Here’s a map of the counties declining to enforce the gun ban law, effectively making themselves sanctuary counties.

Map of counties of Illinois which will and will not be enforcing Illinois’s new Assault Weapon Ban from MapPorn

This of course did not sit well with the hard-left, anti-Constitutional Pritzker, one of the many governors who shut down their states during COVID and kept renewing their emergency powers.

Gov. JB Pritzker warned that law enforcement “will in fact do their job” on enforcing Illinois’ new gun ban or else they “won’t be in their job” as some sheriffs have announced they will not enforce it.

The Illinois sheriffs are showing us one way through the constant barrage of anti-constitutional overreach by government at all levels, whether local, state or federal. Just like certain cities and states declared they were “sanctuary cities” where they would not enforce federal law concerning illegal aliens and turning them over to ICE, so the same tactic can be used by those who respect the Constitution of the United States.

How this plays out over the next year will be a good test of this strategy.

by

Daily Broadside | The First Power Move of the 118th Congress

Sorry to have missed posting on Tuesday. I’m balancing a number of after-hours involvements and sometimes I’ve had to deprioritize my blog — something I’m loathe to do, but when you’ve got competing priorities, sometimes you don’t have a choice.

Back to the rat’s nest that is our ruling class in Washington, D.C. The kerfluffle over Kevin McCarthy’s bid to become House speaker ended in him getting the gavel and seems to be paying dividends that most conservatives should welcome as signs of life.

The first order of business was revoking the $72 billion in funding for 87,000 new IRS agents.

House Republicans fulfilled a key campaign promise on Monday, passing legislation to rescind the bulk of an IRS funding boost signed into law last year, marking the first bill passed by the GOP-controlled House this Congress.

The bill, which is unlikely to see action in the Democratic-controlled Senate, passed in a party-line 221-210 vote on Monday evening.

[…]

The Republican bill, formally titled the “Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act,” is barely longer than one page. It directs any “unobligated balances of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available” to the IRS from the Inflation Reduction Act to be rescinded.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Monday that the legislation would eliminate about $71 billion of the total $80 billion that was allocated for the IRS but would reduce tax revenue by about $186 billion, translating to a $114 billion increase in deficits over the next decade.

It rescinds the funding for the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act passed last year but it won’t pass the Senate, and Brandon wouldn’t sign it if it did.

So is this just virtue-signaling message votes meant to impress voters? “Hey, we tried …” That’s what we got when we handed the presidency, the House and the Senate to Republicans during Trump’s first term and they promised to repeal Obamacare.

On the other hand, they at least exercised their majority and passed the bill along party lines, so at least they know that it’s a priority for the average American. Maybe they should introduce legislation that would dissolve the IRS altogether. That would be super impressive.

Meanwhile, the Illinois House passed one of the most restrictive laws regarding so-called “assault weapons.”

Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he will sign into law Tuesday evening a comprehensive measure that would immediately ban the sale of military-style firearms, despite warnings from gun rights advocates who contend it is unconstitutional and vow a legal challenge.

“For a long time now, I and many other leaders in the Illinois General Assembly have prioritized getting the most dangerous weapons off our state’s streets. Today, honoring the commitment we made, we passed one of the strongest assault weapons bans in the nation, one I will be proud to sign,” the governor said after Democrats in the Illinois House led its final approval earlier Tuesday.

The 68-41 House vote came on the final scheduled day of action for the lame-duck 102nd General Assembly, a day after Senate Democrats passed the measure 34-20 with no Republican support.

Passing this bill became a priority after a shooting in Highland Park last July fourth that killed seven people and wounded about 30 others. It was sponsored by Rep. Bob Morgan, who was at the fourth of July parade.

The shooting was of course tragic, but this bill, besides being unconstitutional, will do exactly nothing to stop mass shootings. Instead, it will be used to document who has the so-called “military-style” guns so that they can easily confiscate them in their next round of Second Amendment abuses.

Upon becoming law, the measure would immediately ban the delivery, sale, import and purchase of so-called assault weapons. Current owners of such firearms would have until Jan. 1 to register gun serial numbers with the Illinois State Police. After that date, people who possess an unregistered firearm covered by the ban face a misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses.

Does anyone really believe that creating a registry of guns and who owns them is totally okay because the big, friendly government never abuses their power? And I can’t wait to see how many criminals declare their “assault weapons.”

Besides being unconstitutional, this law will be immediately challenged in court. That’s what the Democrats do—pass a clearly unconstitutional law, collect the information and any fines imposed under the law, and make the people sue for their rights.

It’s called lawfare.

by

Daily Broadside | Think Locally To Prepare For What Is Coming

Daily Verse | Proverbs 29:11
A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.

Monday’s Reading: Proverbs 30-31

Welcome to Monday and the last half of July. If you’ve been reading through the Bible in a year with us, we’re now more than half-way through. Congratulations and keep going!

I occasionally read Sarah Hoyt (accordingtohoyt.com) who writes sci-fi-ish or fantasy-ish books and is a political observer who contributes at Instapundit. I thought a recent column of hers was interesting in that she wrote about her personal season of burnout as a writer as a lead-in to a list of calamities that we’ve experienced over the last couple of years that may induce burnout among the citizens of this great country.

We do not expect to find ourselves under a two year house arrest at the decision of tyrants, for no reason that makes any sense. We don’t expect our kids’ education arbitrarily destroyed (not to mention what most found out about their kids education during the lockdown.) We don’t expect small businesses destroyed. We don’t expect unapologetic election fraud. We don’t expect the people who come to power that way to then do things like refuse to let our country drill for oil, or try to drive the country in the direction of technologies that don’t exist, thereby making it impossible to transport the essentials. We don’t expect to have to find ways to navigate daily life: it worked before.

I think that’s true — the majority of Americans “don’t expect” these many painful and nerve-wracking developments because they’re either ignorant of what’s happening or they’re trusting that “things” will eventually go back to what they were before (which, as I wrote on Friday, will not).

She writes, “We all know we’re heading for food and fuel shortages. We’re all watching things become more difficult. We can all predict the results,” then says:

But there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, particularly by our lonesome selves. And nothing can be done until the discontent reaches a critical mass, which, as we see from other countries, requires a whole other level of suffering, and a level of damage it will be hell to recover from.

And…. we’re powerless. It’s our lives, the lives of our kids. It’s our businesses, our communities, the careers we spent years building. It’s our ability to come and go at will, to visit friends, family. It’s our savings, our old age survival. It’s our medical care. It’s our ability to speak, to attend a demonstration, if we agree with it. It’s our ability to defend ourselves (ask the Bodega owner in NYC.) It’s plans we’d made, things we’d worked toward.

None of it is safe, all of it is in the hands of people we can’t trust, people who have other agendas than our best interests. (And far more sinister than any traditional publisher ever managed.)

And there is absolutely nothing we can do. Not yet. Not while we’re bound and delivered to our foes.

The central point she makes is that we’re powerless to change what’s happening in Washington, D.C., and in many State and city governments. I think for the most part that is true, too.

It’s very difficult to effect any kind of change even when we vote hard and then vote harder the next time. Part of it is that lasting change often takes a very long time to occur (think of the nearly 50 years it took to overturn Roe v. Wade). Conservatives are swimming upstream, like spawning salmon, against the cultural rot that exists in almost all of our national and state institutions, in our businesses, in our schools, in entertainment, in media, in many of our churches and in our local communities.

Part of it also is that we don’t have a leader who can rally the masses like Donald J. Trump did. He did in four years what hundreds of politicians didn’t do for the last forty. He did it because he’s a tough bastard who likes to give as good as he gets and didn’t let the entire system wear him down. But even if he wins four more years … it’s still only four more years.

It’s going to take more than that.

Sarah suggests five things we can do, which she details on her site:

  1. Don’t lie to yourself (admit you are powerless);
  2. There will be a time when you’re not powerless (be ready for post-survival);
  3. Prepare by planning to survive what’s coming;
  4. Keep doing life as you are now until you absolutely can’t; and
  5. You won’t always be powerless (not quite a redundancy).

What I like is that she’s looking for things we can do in the face of overwhelming circumstances as an encouragement. Many of you reading this blog clearly see the state of affairs in the U.S. and wonder what can be done. I, myself, have wondered about it many times and have come up short. But Sarah’s list made me consider what else can be done as we prepare for what might be coming.

She’s right; there isn’t much we can do to stop what’s happening at the macro level. (She writes, “You want to scream at the sky. You want to stand in front of a tank. You want a grand gesture that stops the insanity.”)

But what I’m beginning to see is that there is a lot that can be done at the local level. The famous adage, “all politics is local,” means that every politician is concerned about his constituents at home. I also take it to mean that what gets offered up at the national level comes from the local level via the State. If you want to see change at the national level, then get busy at the local level.

Here’s a list of four things we can all be doing locally when it feels like we can’t do anything nationally:

  1. Cultivate a life of prayer. I won’t go into any detail, but I’ve seen some remarkable answers to prayer over the last year. Not everyone who reads this blog is a believer, I’m sure, but one of the things Christ-followers have is not just the promise of prayer, but the command to pray.

    “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your request to God” (Philippians 4:6-7).

    And we are to persist in our prayers: Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

    “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’”     (Luke 18:1-8).

    Prayer is simply speaking to God, by faith, and enjoining Him to intervene on our behalf. Having just read through the Psalms, it amazes me how often King David, a shepherd-turned-warrior, turned to the Lord to plead his case against his enemies. Think of prayer as a tool which God gives us and commands us to use.
  2. Develop community in your neighborhood. We and some of our neighbors put on a second annual block party for our street this past week. As I walked around introducing myself and meeting several new people, I explained to some of them why we were doing this.

    Our society is going crazy and people are at each other’s throats, I said. It feels like we’re more divided than ever. Neighborhoods aren’t like they were when I was a kid, where my parents would push me out the door and say, “See you at dinner!” They’re more like communities of hermits who wave at each other as their garage doors go down or as they pass each other while cutting their lawns. By and large there aren’t the meaningful relationships that there once were, and people don’t intrinsically trust each other as they once did.

    We’re trying to develop those relationships again by providing a mixer and getting people introduced to each other because nobody should feel isolated, especially with the chaos that seems to be growing across our society. We need others.

    That can’t be done from the top down; it has to be done from the bottom up. And we’ve found that people want what we are offering. They loved getting the chance to meet their neighbors and some suggested we do it more than once a year.
  3. Become more self-sufficient. Hoyt touches on this in her third point. We will be surprised by how dependent we are on the supply chain if it ever truly breaks. We’ve seen some signs of the strain on it when supermarket shelves were empty, when baby formula was suddenly missing.

    In my life I’ve never — and I mean, never — had to worry about whether food would be available. The store always had everything I needed. But now … can we rely on that?

    Maybe not.

    Becoming more self-sufficient is growing a vegetable garden or, if permitted where you live, raising some chickens for eggs. Chicks are $2 or $3 each and, once mature, each of them will lay an egg a day for about three years.

    Buy a generator and learn how to hook up your refrigerator to it. Build a fire pit and begin storing up wood to burn. Learn how to capture rain water and have it available for flushing toilets. Purchase food goods that have a long-term shelf date. Stock up on paper goods, like toilet paper (remember the panic buying at the start of COVID).
  4. Arm yourself. I know guns are anathema for some, scary to others, and extreme for still others, but I’m a Second Amendment advocate and I don’t see a contradiction between being a Christian and owning a firearm.

    You have witnessed the increase in violence over the last several years, especially after the death of St. George Floyd. You may have to defend yourself and your family as the culture becomes more feral and our law “enforcement” declines to prosecute offenders in the name of racial justice. There’s nothing wrong with standing your ground against evil.

    A joke: A burglar entered the house of a Quaker and proceeded to rob it. The Quaker heard noises, took his shotgun downstairs, and found the burglar. He aimed his gun and said gently: “Friend, I mean thee no harm, but thou standest where I am about to shoot!”

    Seriously — buy a gun and stock up on ammo, a little at a time. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And that’s coming from a guy who ten years ago would’ve never thought it was necessary to have a firearm.

Uncle Sam is not going to save you. In fact, “Uncle Sam” is the one causing the harm. I’m as angry about it as the next guy, but I’m embracing the fact that unless there’s a massive uprising, there isn’t much we can do about it nationally. In the meantime, there are some things we can be doing on a personal, local level. Pray, develop community, become more self-sufficient, and arm yourself.

Let me know in the comments what you think.

by

Daily Broadside | What About ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ Do You Not Understand?

Daily Verse | Job 36:16
“He is wooing you from the jaws of distress to a spacious place free from restriction, to the comfort of your table laden with choice food.”

Tuesday’s Reading: Job 38-39

There have been a handful of dreadful shootings over the last few weeks, including the NYC subway shooting, the racially-motivated bloodbath in a Buffalo, NY grocery store, and the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. There have also been several smaller, “one-off” shootings.

None of them should have happened. They aren’t what our Founders envisioned when they enshrined the right to be armed in our U.S. Constitution. What they envisioned was the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

America has a problem. We are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. But we are no longer the society in which that right was declared.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

I’ve quoted this from Adams before, but I’ll keep doing so because the more I sit with it, the more profound it is. The Founding Fathers knew that freedom without virtue is license. If there’s anything that describes our society today, it’s “license.” And license is only a step removed from anarchy. All restraints, all standards, all guidelines are being thrown off in order to indulge our most naked desires or to give ourselves over to the darkest corners of our inner life.

When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild. But whoever obeys the law is joyful.
— Proverbs 29:18 (New Living Translation)

Yet the Founders took the risk and bestowed on us our inalienable rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. — Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Brandon is going on these days about the Second Amendment not being “absolute.” (Actually, he has said that “There’s no amendment that’s absolute.”) What he means by that with 2A is that there were always some kind of limits on what “Arms” a person could keep and bear. His now (several times) debunked example is that private citizens couldn’t own a cannon.

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but a straight-forward reading of the text seems to be absolute. The modal verb “shall not” is absolute. My right to keep and carry (bear) an arm may not, will not, cannot, shall not be infringed.

“Infringed” here means to limit, to undermine, to encroach upon.

Yet that doesn’t keep the illiterati (constitutionally speaking) from their efforts.

Rep. Donald Beyer (D-Va.), who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, is looking to put a 1,000% excise tax on AR-15-type rifles as a means of making them less affordable to the public.

“What it’s intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen,” Beyer told Business Insider. “We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation.”

With the affected guns ranging in price from $500 to $2000, the tax could add as much as $20,000 to the final sale price of the weapons. While bullets would not be taxed at the high rate, high-capacity magazines would be.

Hey Don, what is it about “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? He says, right there in his quote, that it “is just the kind of restrictive measure” they want. To restrict means to limit and 2A says, absolutely, that the government SHALL NOT do that.

Every time another “gun control” law is passed or another “gun free zone” is created, our absolute right to be armed is infringed upon. In other words, a case could be made that such laws or regulations are illegal.

Now, I’m not an absolutist in the extreme. Given that we are now an immoral and irreligious people who no longer view self-control and an orderly society as virtuous, we may have to admit that some regulations are in our best interest.

But let’s be honest: regulations don’t control the heart or behavior. At best they only tell us what is “legal” and what the penalties are for breaking the law. And that’s a poor substitute for personal virtue and responsibility. Take California for example:

An FBI report on ‘Active Shooter Incidents’ in 2021 shows that California was the number one state for such incidents, with six incidents total.

California is also number one for gun law strength, the Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety noted …

… California has universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, a red flag law, gun registration requirements, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on carrying a gun on a college campus for self-defense, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed on campus for classroom defense, a background check requirement for ammunition purchases, and a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can purchase in a given month, among other controls.

All potentially illegal controls, I might add, because they violate the people’s right to “keep and bear Arms.” But the people in positions of power don’t care about our rights. They only care about getting and keeping power.

None of the gun control laws on the books stopped any of the killers I mentioned at the outset. And adding more laws—apart from confiscating all of our guns, which is the goal—would have done nothing more to prevent the tragedies.

Frankly, the driving force behind all the “gun control” laws is to make it as difficult to own a firearm as possible, if not make it outright impossible. Jack the price of a firearm up by 1000% and you can plausibly deny that you’re infringing on anyone’s right to keep and bear Arms. “I’m not saying you can’t keep and bear a weapon; of course you can. I’m just going to make it so expensive that most people won’t be able to.”

That’s infringement.

Worse still is a growing attitude of contempt for the U.S. Constitution. Here’s Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) expressing his feelings about constitutional rights:

“… so spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights.” Really? Why is this guy in Congress? Didn’t he take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States when he took office?

Then there’s Brandon.

This is what the erosion of liberty looks like. When you have “representatives” in the legislature and executive branch who have contempt for the very ideas they swore to protect, it’s a house of cards.

And that’s an infringement on the security of our rights as citizens.

by

Daily Broadside | Keep Your Hands Off My Guns

Daily Verse | Job 19:4
“If it is true that I have gone astray, my error remains my concern alone.”

Tuesday’s Reading: Job 20-21

Happy Tuesday, my friends, and welcome to the last day of May. Just like that, we’re through five months of 2022.

I hope that in addition to taking a moment to reflect with a grateful heart on those who fought, bled and died to secure our freedoms and strengthen our country, you enjoyed time with family and friends. I slept in, spent the day working in the yard, and enjoyed some juicy, grilled steaks for dinner followed by a homemade strawberry-rhubarb pie with vanilla ice cream.

Very American!

And we gave thanks for the freedoms we enjoy and for those who gave their lives to make it possible. The older I get and the more aware I am of how fragile (and rare) true freedom is, the more grateful and humbled I am to live in this great nation.

If we could only get our leaders to think the same instead of going through the motions and mouthing empty platitudes that sound right but ring hollow. Brandon laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington National Cemetery where he said, “Today, we renew our sacred vow. It’s a simple vow. To remember. To remember. Memorial Day is always a day where pain and pride are mixed together.”

I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that he was sincere in his comments. I have my doubts but maybe in that moment, he meant it. Where it gets sticky for me is that the Resident visited the site of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas over the weekend. On Monday, he said some things about the right to bear arms that these multitudes of men and women he so honored died to protect.

President Biden on Monday took aim at 9mm handguns, appearing to suggest that the “high-caliber weapons” ought to be banned.

Let’s just stop there a second, shall we? “High caliber weapons”? Caliber is the nominal bore diameter of a firearm. Think of the gun barrel as a pipe. The inner diameter of the pipe is the nominal bore diameter.

Nominal bore diameter also applies to the diameter of a bullet. So when we talk about 9mm handguns, we’re talking about barrels that accommodate a 9mm bullet.

But where is Brandon getting the notion of a “high-caliber weapon”?

You might have a “large caliber” weapon or a “high-powered weapon” but, technically, there isn’t a “high-caliber” weapon unless you’re referring to wider diameters. But that doesn’t necessarily mean more powerful cartridges.

It’s like calling an AR-15 an “assault rifle.” There is no such thing except in the fevered ignorance of a progressive.

“High-caliber weapon” is a misnomer, perhaps to create the perception of something more dangerous—or maybe it’s evidence of “I don’t know what I’m talking about and neither do the people talking in my earpiece so I’m making $#!+ up.”

It’s hard to know since these people are both ignorant and lie with great enthusiasm, but I’m betting it’s the latter with Brandon.

Either way, it’s inaccurate.

Also, why the 9mm handgun? There are .22 caliber handguns, .45 caliber handguns, .357 caliber handguns, .38 caliber handguns and more. Why is Brandon picking on the 9mm handgun? Is it more dangerous than any of the others? It’s smaller than the .45 caliber. It’s nearly the same diameter as the .357 caliber.

Why the 9mm?

Recounting a visit to a New York trauma hospital, Biden said doctors showed him X-rays of gunshot wounds.

“They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” Biden said.

Ah. He’s comparing the damage done by a .22-caliber bullet and the damage done by a 9mm bullet. One lodges in the lung, the other “blows the lung out of the body.” With one, the person is still alive and might make it home with both lungs intact. With the other, the person has lost a lung and presumably died.

My question is, Why would that person end up in the hospital with a bullet in their lung or missing a lung?

Maybe Brandon is thinking of gangbangers who shoot indiscriminately at each other in Democrat-run cities?

Oops, no, he makes clear that he’s thinking of personal defense.

“So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” Biden added.

Ah, so the guy he’s thinking of is in the hospital with a .22 bullet in his lung because he was shot in self-defense. But according to Brandon, there is “simply” no “rational” basis for these “high-caliber weapons” when it comes to “self-protection” or “hunting.”

Huh.

You don’t say.

Then why does the U.S. Secret Service equip all of their agents—the very same agents that provide around-the-clock security for the Resident—with a 9mm Glock handgun instead of a .22 handgun?

I’ll tell you why. Brandon is singling out the 9mm because it is the most popular caliber among law enforcement, the military, and the general population. It is as powerful, more accurate, and easier to shoot than the larger .45 or slightly larger .357 calibers, which often have more recoil than a 9mm.

In other words, citizens with 9mm handguns have (mostly) equal fire power with what the authorities carry.

Can’t have that.

Most egregious were Brandon’s comments on the Second Amendment.

“Remember, the constitution was never absolute.”

What in the actual blazing bullocks does he mean? “The constitution was never absolute“?! I mean, first of all, is he really referring to the entire document? That would be par for the course with progressives, who see the constitution as a “living document” which is another way of saying, “it can change when it suits our agenda.”

Then the Waffle Cone-in-Chief narrowed his focus with the ridiculous argument he’s used before.

“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” Biden said. “You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.”

Ackshully, Joe, you could.

This is a slightly revised talking point that he used in an interview with Wired magazine in 2020, which Politifact ruled “False.” In another article about Brandon’s statement, the authors write, “Indeed, as pointed out by Politifact, personally-owned ship’s cannons were used on American privateers in the War of 1812, with more than 500 letters of marque issued by President James Madison’s administration authorizing such legal piracy. Should we mention here that Madison was a Framer of the Second Amendment?”

In other words, Brandon is lying. You could own a cannon, the U.S. Constitution is absolute, and the only reason he wants to ban 9mm handguns is that they are the most popular handgun in America.

Do not trust this man.

Period.

by

Morning Links | 25 Apr 20

It’s Saturday and we’ve completed week six of the Beijing Blight lock down. The further along we go, the further along this nonsense recedes into the distance. Today’s links include a knife shop owner who refuses to comply with the Colorado governor’s orders to keep business closed; a threat against ‘400 American targets’ from Iran; a fossilized South American frog a long way from home; a life-and-death lesson on reading the fine print from the Netherlands; and the career of Steve Kerr, one of the supporting players from the Chicago Bulls’ dynasty in the 1990s.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6