The Militia = The People

A Substack post over at Stark Realities, should be required reading for anyone pushing gun control legislation; but they’ve pretty consistently shown that they’re not interested in primary sources or factual information regarding firearms. So this piece will largely only be read by those who already know it’s truth. Such a shame.

It’s a long piece, and I’ll excerpt it here, but I recommend reading it in it’s entirety.

America’s latest episode of mass homicide has sparked renewed advocacy for restrictions on gun ownership. Once again, the accompanying debate has many gun control advocates claiming the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well regulated militia” narrows the amendment’s scope if not rendering it altogether moot.

Before we examine those claims, it’s important to ensure readers have a proper general understanding of the Bill of Rights. Contrary to common misperception, these amendments do not bestow privileges upon American citizens. Rather, they are primarily a set of prohibitions against the government infringing on pre-existing human rights all people have.

That’s evident in the language. For example, the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” This amendment isn’t awarding citizens the rights of religion, speech and assembly — it’s outlawing the government’s thwarting of those innate and universal human rights.

Similarly, the Fourth Amendment asserts that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Again, the authors are not granting those rights, they are protecting them.

When the Bill of Rights was proposed, some feared the enumeration of a handful of rights could be misinterpreted as providing a comprehensive catalogue — and thus empowering the government to infringe on human rights not specified. That’s why they included the Ninth Amendment, asserting that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“Amendment II. 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.”

With that understanding of the Bill of Rights in mind, we see that, via the Second Amendment, the founders explicitly asserted that there is a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

What about that reference to “a well regulated militia”? As we set out to scrutinize the phrase, let’s first observe that the Second Amendment contains two distinct components serving two different purposes:

• An operative clause that sets out a specific prohibition against the government’s infringement on a right: …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
• A prefatory clause that announces a purpose: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…

Positioned in the prefatory clause, the “well regulated Militia” reference merely serves to provide a rationale — and not necessarily the only rationale — for the operative clause that follows.

While the Second Amendment stands apart from the others in the Bill of Rights by having a prefatory clause, such clauses were common in state constitutions of the era.

Prefatory clauses were used to help “sell” amendments to those being asked to approve them. In this case, the authors were pointing to the necessity of an armed populace as the well from which militias are drawn — militias seen as a vital safeguard against the federal government they were creating.

In particular, America’s founders were wary of the federal government’s potential to create a standing army that could be used to destroy state sovereignty and individual liberties. Seeking to “sell” the amendment to drafting committees and state ratifying conventions, it made sense for the authors to highlight the link between militias and the people’s right to bear arms.

The Bloody Shirt Continues to wave

Another shooting, this one a bit different in terms of the firearm used as well as shooter themself. But what doesn’t change?” The legion of witting liars and unwitting minions, continuing the industry of false narratives and absurd fantasies.

I feel like reposting an earlier offering, because the same idiocy deserves the same response. But before I do, allow me to present a foundation that everyone should be able to agree on, and go from there.

Doesn’t any legislation, regarding such a weighty matter – need to be meticulously defined and ‘suit-proofed’? Legislation that proposes to turn law-abiding Citizens into felons if they don’t abrogate their Constitutional and Natural Right via diktat of the State?

Who dares disagree with that?

No, onto the the required response to those who would fuel said diktat:

I invite any gun control proponents [as I long have] to define the following:

“Weapons of war” – Please identify a class of firearms that have NOT been used in armed conflict. And explain why the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t explicitly include ‘weapons of war’?

“Military Grade” – Define please.

“Military style” – Define please.

“High Capacity” – Define please. And while you’re at it, please justify an arbitrary number of a lawful item, where having that number is lawful, but having one more than that number is criminal.

“High powered” – Define please.

“Assault / offensive / defensive weapon” – Define please.

Hunting – Please define what firearms are suitable for hunting and which, in your opinion, are not….and why.

*For extra credit, define “arsenal” and why.

Sure, I know that nobody is likely to try and define the above, from the gun control perspective. They uniformly never do. Because either they are confused when asked to define simple terms that they employ……or they know that they’re lying to you. And they don’t care.

But my point is this, legislation that seeks to curtail, regulate or restrict a Citizens actions with regard to a Constitutional Right……it should be deliberate, thoughtful and based on definable metrics and endstates…..not emotion.

Now….if you employ the above terms, I hope you at conduct a bit of introspection about why you do, and are honest with yourself that you don’t understand what you’re saying….and that we’re laughing at you.

Typical discourse with a gun control fan

Arguing logic, law and Constitutionality with a card-carrying member of the gun control camp, is usually about as productive as trying to piss up a rope, but I had some free time the other day.

Gun control fanboy:

So what can be done?

First, universal background checks must be strictly enforced, and connected to a nationwide database. Gun purchasers should be screened for prior convictions of violent crimes, especially domestic violence. Gun purchasers should be screened for mental health issues. Mental health providers should be required to flag patients with mental health issues that make them a danger to themselves or others. The U.S. military and the VA should be required to flag all soldiers who are being treated for PTSD or other mental disorders that make them a danger to themselves or others.

Second, all guns should be licensed. All new purchases should have a seven- to fourteen-day waiting period, allowing sufficient time for background checks to be performed. A database of those who purchased and those who own guns should be available to law enforcement.

Third, all open-carry and concealed-weapon laws should be repealed, putting an end to the Wild West mentality in many states and communities. Only law enforcement should be permitted to carry firearms in public.

Fourth, the manner in which the government and insurance companies handle mental health treatment must be changed in ways that make it possible for people to get prompt, ongoing, and comprehensive care.

Fifth, school leaders must address the ongoing bullying crisis in public schools. Teachers must be taught to be aware of bullying and to take steps to stop it when they see it happening.  While I suspect it is impossible to put an end to cliques, schools must do a better job of fostering inclusiveness. Perhaps it is time to put an end to the jocks-rule mentality that dominates most schools.

Sixth, semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 should be immediately banned. Any firearm capable of firing large-volume bursts should be banned. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to own military-style firearms.

Seventh, large (high) capacity magazines and clips should be immediately banned. There is no legitimate need for owning guns with large-capacity magazines, nor is there any reason for owning clips holding dozens of rounds of ammunition. It also goes without saying that bump stocks such as the ones used in the Las Vegas massacre should be outlawed.

Eighth, politicians should be banned from taking financial or in-kind donations from the NRA and the gun lobby. The NRA, along with the Ted Nugents of the world, are part of the problem. These promoters of the means of violence should not be given larger-than-life influence over the political process. (As my editor mentioned to me, this would surely not pass constitutional challenge. Fine. Let’s reverse the effects of Citizens United. Let’s make public the names of ALL campaign donors. Let’s ban corporate donations, soft money, and the other endless ways politicians hide who and where donations are coming from. In fact, let’s federally fund elections and limit campaigning as Great Britain does to a short time before time election day. In other words, GET THE FUCKING MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!)

My response:

I can appreciate the emotion after events where people have lost their lives, but we should always strive to be factually correct, no? Unless of course disinformation is the goal, which many in the gun control camp have proven themselves (in their own words) complicit in.

AR pattern rifles (of which their are many, many varieties of) don’t fire any faster than any other semi-automatic firearm, the rate of fire is how fast you pull the trigger…..as with any semi-automatic firearm. Semi-automatic firearms also don’t fire “large volume bursts”. Nor, if you’ve read some other media falsehoods recently, do they render hunted animals ‘destroyed’. As evidenced by the many thousands who hunt with AR pattern rifles. But I mean, hey…..if you want to ban the AR-15 and call it a day, I could almost get behind that. Since it wouldn’t affect my AK or Galil.

And “legitimate reason”? I can come up with a hundred. It’s beyond absurd to me that you would grant the State the power to dictate what a Citizen has a “legitimate reason” in owning something explicitly tied to a Constitutional Right.

Now, I largely agree with your statement on background checks. However, they are already tied to a national system (NICS). It’s the individual states and localities that have been failing to submit information to the DOJ, that would prevent many of these criminal shooters to legally acquire a firearm. The only means to enforce ‘universal’ background checks however, is a firearm registry….which aside from being a pipe dream, wouldn’t net nearly half of the legally owned firearms in this country. I have unkind words for anyone whop would deny a Veteran the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, due to a PTSD rating.

I think open carry is foolish, but open and concealed should be legal. Yes, bullying on school should be punished. Parents should also teach their kids to defend themselves. Bullying isn’t remotely new. People committing suicide pr conducting a mass shooting, is.

Magazines. Here we go again with “legitimate need”. Whatever number you’d offer as the top end would be arbitrary and undefendable other than the emotion behind the offer. Gun owners already have broad definition of standard capacity and high capacity. We’re good with that.

But….I’m perfectly fine with the gun control camp directing all of their ire against the NRA. That organization is corrupt and ineffective. State-based groups and national ones like SAF and GOA are far, far more effective in the legislative and judicial realm.

This nation is trying to put a band-aid on a problem that isn’t the guns (which are more difficult to acquire than at any time in our nations history). The problem is the self entitled, leisure pursing society that cares more about disposable consumer goods and social media distractions, than they do parenting or protecting their families.

And the expected response:

I don’t argue back and forth with gun nuts. Disparage me by calling me irrational or acting emotionally—who wouldn’t after countless mass shootings?— I don’t care. Guns are the problem. We must do whatever is necessary to regulate and control firearms. Until we do, the slaughter will continue.

And:

Yes, we are coming for your guns.

Facts and logic aren’t necessary when all you need is emotion, right?

Linguistic Demonization

The use of labels to shape culture away from fact based narratives…….and toward emotion based falsehoods.

With regard to the shooting and the weapon in Monterey Park……I’d already read multiple accounts of sock puppets stating that the firearm was capable of “rapid-fire” (!!!!!!).

This is what happens when information (“news”) is passed to the public sans facts. This firearm, like every other semi-automatic firearm, fires one round for each pull of the trigger. This, other than minor adjustments of trigger weight, no semi-automatic is capable of what they refer to as “rapid-fire”. Which of course, they’re trying to equate these extremely common firearms with “machine guns” to the gullible public.

This morning however, they’ve amped it up a notch. In a press conference aired this morning on CNN, I was treated to a law enforcement speaker calling the firearm in question an “assault pistol”. He even specified “not an ‘assault rifle’, but an “assault pistol”.

They’ll be coming after our handguns now, without a doubt. Stay frosty.

The Trump GOP

I usually check out The Strident Conservative most days, and found this gem today. For those who don’t know me well (via blogging that is)…..I left the ranks of reliable Republican voters in 2000. I’m a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, though I have some significant differences with the national platform. While I consider myself a Conservative, the mainstream definition has been perverted…..so perhaps I should switch to Classical Liberal. The Libertarian Party most closely represents my politics (extreme fiscal conservatism/extreme social liberalism/extreme self sovereignty). No other party, and almost every candidate of those parties are remotely close to these ideals. So I work for change and choice. I vote, and sans an LP candidate, usually vote Republican….on the rare occasion, a Democrat. Though I will not cast a vote on a race if all candidates (usually a ‘both’) are equally awful. So, given the effect trump has had on the GOP, I’m interested in pushback by actual Conservatives. I’ve found The Strident Conservative to be one of them…..although I don’t come at Conservatism from a religious perspective.

In the summer of 2016, when the Republican National Committee hijacked the Republican Convention to ensure Trump’s nomination, I wrote an article declaring that as a conservative, I had moved from being “Never Trump” to also being “Never GOP.”

The reason I decided to make this move was twofold.

First, steamrolling conservatives who were opposed to Trump’s nomination solidified the GOP’s standing as an enemy to conservative values. Second, selecting Trump as the Republican Party’s standard bearer meant the destruction of the conservative movement was assured.

This wasn’t a surprise. The post-Ronald Reagan GOP has been working on getting rid of conservatives ever since The Gipper turned over the reins to George H.W. Bush and rode off into the California sunset. Their work culminated in 2012 when Republicans changed the rules to ensure conservatives could be weeded out of presidential primaries, and in 2014 when party control was handed over to Mitch McConnell to wage an all-out war against the TEA Party and other conservative groups.

Since the 2016 election, Trump and the GOP have confirmed my decision by proving there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them and the Democrats. We’ve witnessed fundraising groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund sell out to Trump, and we’ve been betrayed by so-called conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus as they sold out first to Trump and then the Republican establishment.

Sadly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has also been severely damaged by Trump as the Fellowship of the Pharisees have traded morality and Christian values for cheap grace and a seat at Herod’s table. Jerry Falwell, Jr., Robert Jeffress, Franklin Graham, and other members of the Fellowship have not only given Trump a “mulligan” for his immorality and lack of character, but they have also attacked Christians for not supporting him.

The completion of Trump’s trifecta of destruction is, of course, the so-called conservative media. Once the defenders of conservative values, media outlets like BlazeTV have become pro-Trump echo chambers.

There are those who continue searching for ways to rationalize their #NotHillary vote in 2016, despite every fear expressed about Trump being realized. Using the same double-speak and lying used by Trump himself, these cult-like followers of the NY liberal will heap unconditional praise on him while scolding — or worse — the nonbelievers.

Trump’s Republican party doesn’t represent conservative values, which is why I am “Never GOP.” And while some continue to file me away as an “Orange Man Bad” conservative for refusing to bow at Trump’s altar, I’m also “Never Trump.”

I’m a Constitutional conservative and a Christian, and that’s never going to change.

The Gun Control Debate in Ine Image

Religious Freedom: A Two-Way Street

Yesterday, former V.P. and potential 2024 POTUS candidate employed a typical slogan from his camp, in an interview with Larry Kudlow: “Well, the radical left believes that the freedom of religion is the freedom from religion. But it’s nothing the American founders ever thought of or generations of Americans fought to defend.”

With Kudlow offering his own tired and empty slogan: “These lefties want to scrap religion, Mike Pence, and I think it’s a terrible mistake.”

I would offer that ‘freedom OF religion’ absolutely includes ‘freedom FROM religion’. Tommy J had something to say regarding this as well:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

So while we can all agree that religious freedom means that a Citizen has the Liberty to worship as one pleases (so long as it’s a State recognized religion of course……..), do we not also have the Liberty to not be regulated by religious dictates with no corresponding secular value?

Or the inclusion of religious worship and affirmation in secular activities (where the participants may be religious or not)?

The undercurrent of all of this of course, is that those pining for Pence’s ‘definition’ are really only talking about one specific religion…..

What say you?

Finally, a step in the right direction! And from a Democrat?

I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana. I have directed the Attorney General to develop an administrative process for the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible individuals. There are thousands of people who have prior Federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions. – Biden

It’s about damn time. I defy any liquor-swilling opponent to make their case against this long-overdue action.

I’m never happy to praise a Democrat, but of late….they’ve been the proponents of Civil Liberties.

Another Flawed Argument Against the PLCAA

From a typically (somewhat) rational forum for analysis of US national security law and policy – Just Security. A typically flawed argument for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA):

Since its adoption in 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has largely shielded gun manufacturers from civil liability suits. Although originally designed to deflect frivolous litigation, PLCAA has been invoked and interpreted expansively over the years in U.S. courts in a way that jeopardizes the right to a remedy to which survivors of gun violence and their family members are entitled, including under international human rights law. As the momentum to dismantle PLCAA steadily gains ground, international law and norms further support the case for the law’s repeal.

Congress should repeal PLCAA for myriad reasons, including to ensure judicial relief as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international commitments the United States has undertaken.

So much wrong in such a long article. The authors even cite portions of the law, which seem to undermine their own argument. The bottom line is this – the gun control cabal seeks to limit, restrict or negate the 2nd Amendment (and Natural) Rights of Citizens to keep, carry, store, manufacture and utilize firearms any way they can. The PLCAA was passed specifically, not as some sort of special privilege to firearm sellers and manufacturers, but to ensure that industry has the same legal protections as any other sector in American society……protections against frivolous and malign lawsuits, seeking damages or worse, against third party, uninvolved and non-complicit entities.

Victims and their families already have legal and financial recourse against the party or parties that committed a criminal act against them. To cite the oft-used (but entirely appropriate) analogies – a Citizen cannot (successfully) sue Ford, if a drunk driver injured them or killed a family member. Why? Because Ford (or eve another party widening the chain of custody) sold a lawful product to a customer who was legally qualified to acquire it.

And just as other consumer products are open to, firearm manufacturers and sellers are culpable if they make or sell an unsafe, defective product….or sell a product to a customer who is prohibited from acquiring it. To restate – the PLCAA ensures that the firearm industry and retailers have the same basic legal responsibilities and protections as any other consumer good.

But wait, the PLCAA (as the authors do note) have six specific exemptions not common to other consumer goods, that allow for the pursuit of legal recourse to be brought before a court – negligent entrustment, actions for breach of contract in connection with a purchase, and actions brought for damage caused to individuals or property due to a design or manufacturing defect.

And still….the gun control camp isn’t satisfied. They don’t actually care about fairness under the law. Victims and plaintiffs already have access to the courts to seek redress from the person or persons who transgressed against them. The gun control camp wants to eradicate the firearm industry using perfidious backdoor means, since their repeated frontal assaults against the 2A have come to naught.

Remember this, and the other asinine attempts (1000% taxes on firearms, registration for ammunition, “assault weapons” bans, etc…..) each and every time you see them bleat “we don’t want to take away anyone’s guns”.

Yep. What I’ve been saying for years.

h/t Rothmus on Twitter