Proving A Negative ... Guns This Time

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/06/re-the-do-something-bill.php

As in sexual harassment law, the the new "do something" gun law puts the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser. 

While common law forever has put the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused because proving a negative is nigh on impossible, we continue to slip into the insanity of "prove to me that we have not been visited by space aliens",.

On federal red flag law funding, perhaps the most controversial provision, the bill makes a big show of demanding protections for “due process rights” and against “infringement of the Constitution.” It demands there be penalties against “abuse of the program.” All of this is unenforceable, as Republicans know. A number of blue states have already passed red flag laws that nullify gun rights on the word of third-party accusations—sometimes, ex parte—and not only demand the accused prove their innocence before having their rights reinstated but allow for property searches without the usual evidentiary standards. Until the Supreme Court undoes these laws, highly unlikely, states will receive funding. But it’s one thing for California or Rhode Island to do so, and it’s another for national Republicans to fund their efforts.

"Ex-parte" done with respect to or in the interests of one side only ... in this case, only the accuser. 

So a disgruntled spouse, ex lover, neighbor, someone in your community that doesn't like you, just doesn't like guns, etc can have your house searched with no due process, and if your guns are found, remove them with no due process. 

Marvelous. 

As in all totalitarian states, removal of rights, and even locking them up without due process is an important government principle. The US used to be a real champion of "innocent until PROVEN guilty", and if you were a "protected group" (any minority), that proof had to be really airtight. 

F-15s And Nukes

 

The cadaver thinks you need to have F-15s and nukes to challenge the Wokeistani government. 

In Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, even the pre-pregnant fighter pilot military seemed a bit "challenged". 

Enforcement of gun laws has always been lax, I'm sure we can trust the alzheimer's poster geezer to fix that!

oh, and actually you CAN own a cannon, even today! 

You can also own a fighter jet (though probably not an F-15 unless you donate a lot to Biden). Interestingly, when I was at the EAA convention, many of the owners of the fighter jets bring their "25-30 something" exceptionally beautiful "daughters" along!

Here is my personal hand cannon  S&W .460 mag. I need it in case the home intruder steps behind the refrigerator. 

The Culture of Black Guns

 https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/in-defense-of-the-ar-15-cult/

Yes, "black guns" look mean. So do chopped, ape hanger, no muffler Harleys. So do lots of muscle cars. Lots of tattoos intentionally look mean. The list could go on.

As an owner of one full sized AR style gun, and one pistol style black .223, I can say that like a lot of "hot/mean" looking objects, these guns are both fun and functional. They are the most popular for a reason ... they are light, accurate, reliable, and maybe most importantly, readily customizeable. They are the "Barbie of the gun world" ... only they are real, and they really work. WELL.

The linked is worth a read.

The AR-15’s versatility and adaptability has made it the rifle of America’s militia, which is nothing more or less than America’s responsible gun owners. It is within the AR-15 cult that gun owners are likeliest to get the best education in gun safety, the best training for being a responsible gun owner at home, traveling, or on a range. It’s there that they may get the best understanding of where the gun fits into America’s tradition of republicanism. A country of determined men who have arms like the AR-15, or even significantly less-capable rifles, is almost impossible to rule without consent. Just take a look over at Afghanistan.

ARs, shotguns, and pistols are the core of America's "gun culture". In order to shoot, most serious gun owners are members of a gun club, which is a social activity. 

One of the fastest growing shooting sports is Practical Shooting, a challenging and fun activity where you will really learn how to safely handle a gun around others. 

American gun ownership is somewhat like golf ... although the adult beverages have to wait until after the shooting is done! 

Mass Shootings, Whiteness, Media Playbook

https://spectator.us/topic/mass-shootings-colorado-presumption-whiteness-ahmed-al-aliwi-alissa/ 

The outcry of Whiteness, racism, etc was was immediate and loud when it was assumed that the Boulder shooter was "White". "If he had been black, he would be dead" was one of the instant memes. 

When it was discovered he was Syrian, Muslim, and likely mentally ill (not that the mental illness would have mattered if he was white), it was basically "never mind" ... oh, Gun Control! 

Certainly we would not need any sort of AI to replace the MSM. A simple table lookup would do ... I'm not going to do anything extensive here, but enough to get the idea. 

• White police shoot black man ... armed, unarmed, etc it really doesn't matter. (media) GO CRAZY! 
• Back police officer kills black man? (media) We will have to carefully (and quietly) look into this. 
• Police shoot and kill a white unarmed woman veteran when she was not a threat to the officer? (media) Not only is there no outcry, we don't even know the officers name, and no charges are recommended. It appears the officer is black (not that in a sane world, that would matter). 
• White man, shoots and kills a 8 sex workers, 2 of which were  Asian? (media) Not a lot of outrage, little finger pointing because he may be "christian", and a little murmur of "sexism". 
• Comfortably wealthy white man shoots and kills 60 mostly white Country Music fans in Vegas, with no known motive? (media) Short lived coverage (it is a record after all, but in this case it counts for very little. No real interest from MSM ... after all, most of the victims were white, and likely a high percentage of Trump supporters! 
• Black man kills another black person? Crickets. 

Naturally there will be bunch of demands for "Gun Control". If you factor out large Democrat controlled cities, the US would be on par with Switzerland. Even as it is, we just barely make the top 100 (94th). If you want to take the time to look at the rankings, you might just consider cultural difference as a factor. Russia is 56th, Jamaica is 3rd. 

As Solzhenitsyn sadly said, "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being".

Can mass shootings be stopped? Probably, at least private ones if we go totalitarian as we seem to be heading. Then the mass killings will be buried in trenches dug with backhoes, and the victims will just be "disappeared". So no outcry! Progress! 

Humans have always killed each other, and always will until Christ returns. When we broke our culture in the 1960's, the mass killings increased ( although they are still a tiny percentage) ... most likely. as we continue break our culture, they will continue to increase. 

I Am Not A Pacifist

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-you-should-buy-a-gun-according-to-c-s-lewis

No Christian should consider it his duty to roll over and die. “Love” is not another word for “nicety” or “passivity.” It is as fiercely aggressive as it is aggressively selfless — and sometimes, it means taking up arms.

As I observe the territory that used to be the Democratic Republic of America (amazingly, once known as the "united" states!) drift farther and farther into godless tyranny, likely rupture, and possible war, my personal inclination is to sit in "Red America" and watch it burn. I'd rather see a divorce between the states than a war. 

The phrase that keeps nagging in my brain is "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".  A quote I choose to attribute to Burke, but one that many have claimed. I don't claim to be a "good man" -- as Christ said, in Mark 18, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." Naturally since he is God, there is some mystery there -- he is also fully man, so we will just leave it there for today. 

In this age of relativism however, "good men" is a lost concept, and "evil" is at best relative if recognized as existing at all, with the possible exception of "Whiteness".  

On top of this sad reality, the general very short attention spans of our population, and the total vacuity of our "elites", is the fact that Social Media is a shallow fetid pond that requires a shower after just dipping a toe in, let alone attempting to seed it with "pearls" -- I expect nobody to agree with my assessment of "pearls". Each of us now has the dubious "right" to consider our own views to be metaphysically "true".  

The topic of this post is my concern that too many Christians today believe that they are required to be pacifists. CS Lewis disagrees, as I believe does Christ. As he said in Luke 22 -- He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one".

Trump is the only evidence that "the Deplorables" are not going to just roll over and die quietly. One notices a distinct lack of violence as Christians gather (50K + in this case). My current studies are largely on the time before, during, and after the Civil War. Can a return to America happen without massive violence?  I'd argue that the America that resulted after the Civil War is a different country relative to foundational belief, it was really only "united" in territory. America was founded to be a collection of states where power was primarily with the people, then the community, then the states, and only then the Federal Government. The Civil War essentially reversed that order and it has been getting more explicit ever since. I'm not arguing the correctness of the Civil War. Certainly racially based chattel slavery was wrong, but there is a lot to argue on the METHOD of attempting to remove it, and the costs.  The discussion bears a lot of similarity to the use of the atom bomb. 

An excellent exploration of that topic is covered in "The Stakes" -- oh that millions of people could read that as a current version of "The Federalist Papers". Color me highly doubtful. While our founders deeply understood the stakes of their revolution (once "ours"), I'm certain that a culture that is unsure of how many genders there are is incapable of counting costs (or correct change for that matter). 

Lewis made this argument most forcefully in 1940, in front of a society of pacifists in a speech called “Why I Am Not a Pacifist.” He pointed out that pure nonviolence, if carried to its logical conclusion by all men of fighting age, would leave the pacifist nations defenseless and the world at the mercy of totalitarians and Nazis.

This post so far hasn't explicitly addressed the issue of defending your own body. The  commandments (in Hebrew) explicitly say thou shalt not MURDER as opposed to the common english false translation as "thou shalt not kill", causing much confusion. The real meaning in Hebrew  is clear -- thou shalt treat the issue of translation with fear and trembling! 

Historically, much of our Christian law is based on Natural Law ... in which self defence is clearly allowed. To some extent, Christ calls us to "rise above" nature, although clearly realizing that to be human is to be physically part of nature and it's laws. Yes, we have the  Holy Spirit, and we also know that we fail to follow his leadings on a regular basis. 

I think this article does a good job of covering the issue, I see the closing paragraph as a good summary. 

We recognize that this is a sensitive issue of conscience for many, and that grace and love must characterize this conversation. We also are convinced that any such self-defense must be considered as a last resort and in response to a reasonable threat. The same principle of valuing the image of God in others that drives us to protect the weak among us also compels us to a careful and measured response.

The bottom line is that when the issue comes to the fore, nobody really knows how they will react, just like a trained soldier doesn't actually know if he will kill until he does. Being armed (having a gun) is one level of decision, having a baseball bat, or being trained in self defence would be another. Depending  on your physical  characteristics,  when in extremis, your body may decide, and the result may surprise you.

We may get to the point where everyone claiming to be a Christian may have to display a cross on their home. As we saw in Germany, it may well be likely that as a first step to disarming the nation, the "authorities" will go house to house collecting weapons. Once they have them from the Christian minority (getting smaller and smaller),  it will be easier to take the rest. The knowledge that the population is heavily armed is itself a deterrent to tyranny. Even if you ARE a pacifist, having a few guns, even if they are in their original boxes with no ammo in the home, is a way to "vote for peace". 

My conclusion  is that if someone comes to my home with apparent violent intent, "official" or otherwise, it is my duty to forward  them to the eternal judge. I will also face that judge, and under Grace, even if I made the wrong choice, it will be covered by the sacrifice of Christ. Other Christians will face that same judge. If  not defending your neighbor was the wrong choice, Grace will be sufficient for that as well. 

My advice is to get a few weapons (shotgun, Armalite Rifle (NOT "assault"... that is propaganda), and a pistol that you can handle. Take a gun safety course, and learn how to use them. You may find that putting holes in paper or clay pigeons is actually quite fun. It is called "shooting, not killing  ... same for hunting/killing and fishing/catching.