Category Archives: Liberty and the RKBA

Five Reasons Republicans should fill that seat

In an election year that is shaping up to be the most pivotal, consequential and contentious in modern history, the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has raised the stakes exponentially. Democrats, of course, are demanding that the president and/or Republicans refrain from attempting to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court, while Donald Trump has promised to announce a nomination within the next few days. While it is true that the Republican-held senate did refuse to vote on election-year Obama-appointee Merrick Garland, there are some important differences in the situation and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stated that Mr. Trump’s nominee will get a vote this year. I can certainly see why the Democrats don’t want the seat filled now, when there is a chance that Joe Biden (or whoever is controlling him) could fill the seat in a few months, and I’ll admit that in their shoes I’d feel the same way, but there are some very good reasons that Republicans should go ahead, hold hearings and confirm Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court as soon as possible:

  • As Mitch McConnell has explained, in cases where both branches of government were held by the same party, historically, the nomination has been considered and voted upon.
  • Even more compelling is this: if the shoe were on the other foot and the situation were reversed, is there anyone anywhere in America who would care to assert that the Democrats would not push their nomination through? I didn’t think so. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” should not be applied in a political situation where the “others” are determined to seize power at any cost and have already clearly indicated what they intend to “do unto you.” (See next point.)
  • The Democrats have already promised that if they gain control of the White House and the Senate they intend to (among other things) “pack the court” by nominating and confirming a few more Supreme Court justices to ensure a more or less permanent liberal majority. If they’re going to “pack to court,” why are they worried about one more Trump appointee? Just throw in a few more activist judges when you start packing!
  • “Over our dead bodies. Literally.” (That is a quote.) Quite a few Democrat activists are warning that if Trump and the Republicans “even TRY” to fill the seat before the election that they “will burn the entire f—ing thing down.” Another tweeted: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.” The Democrats are threatening violence in the streets if the president and Senate dare to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. Threats of violence to force a political outcome is nothing less than terrorism and we must not acquiesce to it. Of course, this is a familiar tactic in the Democratic playbook. They are already threatening to “burn the entire f—ing thing down” if Joe Biden is not elected.
  • But most important of all, the Democrats have clearly warned that their plan for victory in this election relies heavily on a mountain of mail-in ballots (only God will know how many will be fraudulent) and a tsunami of lawsuits. More than 600 Democratic lawyers are waiting in the wings to attempt to litigate Joe Biden to victory. Many, if not all of those lawsuits will end up at the Supreme Court. We are close enough to a civil war now; having a 4-to-4 split on the highest court in the land as it tries to settle this contentious election is simply begging for bloodshed.

Justice Ginsburg reportedly told her granddaughter that her “most fervent wish” is that she would not be replaced until “a new president is installed.”* With all due respect, it isn’t the late Justice Ginsburg’s seat to bequeath, nor is the decision up to Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. The Constitution lays that responsibility upon the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Donald Trump is still the president and he will be, God willing, until January 20, 2021.

And if God is merciful to us, Donald Trump will still be president on the 21st.

It has been very encouraging that many Republicans finally seem to be waking up to the situation. The Democrats are playing to win–at any cost–and if they win the consequences for this nation will be grave. They have been playing hardball for decades. It’s long past time that Republicans woke up and got in the game.


*Note: she was not hoping that it would happen after the election is over, but only after Donald Trump is out of the White House.. I suppose if he should be reelected, she hoped that SCOTUS would operate for four more years with only eight justices.

The Unarmed Man with a Knife

“Instead of standing there and teaching a cop, when there’s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, you shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart is a very different thing. There’s a lot of different things that could change,” Biden said in a meeting with community leaders at Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Del.

[https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-terrible-gun-advice/]

I actually had to look that up because (and I hate to admit this) I couldn’t believe that even Joe Biden said that, but apparently he did. The article quoted above provides some very apt, very common sense analysis on why this is patently stupid advice, so I’m mostly going to stay away from that, but I will say that in my opinion, the article was just a little too soft on the “patently stupid” observation. It takes about two seconds for a man (even an unarmed man) with a knife to charge you from ten feet away and mortally wound or instantly kill you. If you are not in mortal danger, you don’t use deadly force. If you are in mortal danger, you shoot to kill. Even leaving aside the stupidity of risking your life, shooting to wound would leave the shooter open to the charge that he was not actually in fear for his life and therefore the use of deadly force was not justified.

Off to prison you go!

But I sat down at my keyboard tonight to record one simple observation: of all the stupid, nonsensical, totally incoherent thoughts that former Vice President Joe Biden has expressed, surely this one has to rank near the top. An unarmed man with a knife or something? Something like a sword? Something like a handgun, maybe? Or a hand grenade? Maybe the unarmed man has a chainsaw? Or perhaps the unarmed man is armed with a semi-automatic “assault weapon” with a “high-capacity magazine”?

We all know that Joe Biden is a walking gaffe machine, but this is just too much.

The Upside of Covid-19

It’s true that the pandemic has been a catastrophe for the entire world, but there is one silver lining. The death counts from the flu, emphysema, cancer, automobile accidents, suicides and a host of other common causes of mortality have plummeted!

No, we all know the reason that deaths from other causes have dwindled. It’s because of “guidance” from the CDC and good old-fashioned dishonesty that is chalking a host of other deaths up as due to the coronavirus when it was (or simply may have been) in the system of someone who died from other, unrelated causes. A few months ago, based on computer models that showed that millions of deaths could be expected, the “experts” demanded that our entire nation grind to a halt and “shelter in place” in order to save America from the Wuhan Virus. As more data has become available, though, it’s now starting to look like the voluntary self-immolation of the United States economy was–well, shall we say, premature? Now those “experts” have a vested interest in inflating the numbers of deaths from the coronavirus in order to protect their reputations.

Of course I’m not serious about the silver lining, but there are a couple of “good” things about this pandemic.

First, it has clearly demonstrated the folly of making monumental economic decisions based on computer models. Computer models are basically programs that manipulate data and draw “possible” conclusions from that data. They will never be any better than the data put into them and the skill and intentions of those who write the programs. In the case of Covid-19, we cannot (at this time) make any observations about the intentions of the model creators, but the data, from the very start, was deeply flawed and so were the conclusions drawn from the models. It’s now becoming clear that although it is unusually contagious, the death rate from the Wuhan Virus is not, under most circumstances, nearly as high as the models originally predicted.

More importantly, it has clearly demonstrated that there are a lot of people who govern us that are simply waiting for an excuse to seize and wield extraordinary, authoritarian powers over our daily lives. In states all across this country (usually “Blue” ones) governors effectively declared themselves King and have issued a wide raft of decrees that are supposed to keep us “safe” and save lives. In many cases, these emergency orders are arbitrary, stupid, counterproductive and dangerous, but the would-be dictators are wielding the police powers of their state to shutter business, close churches, order people from the streets, close beaches and harass mothers who allow their children out of the house to play with other children. They have issued decrees such as:

  • In some states, boating alone to fish or kayak was forbidden. In other cases, two people may boat together, but not three or more–regardless of the size of the boat.
  • Liquor stores may open for drive-through or parking lot pickup, but churches may not hold in-car services in the parking lot.
  • Marijuana stores may open, but not gun stores.
  • People may jog or run on the beach, but not stop or sit.
  • “Essential” stores like Wal-Mart, Home Depot or Lowe’s may open and practice “social distancing,” but small convenience stores may not.

We could go on and on, but let’s just draw the conclusion and finish up. This pandemic has given all of America a chance to see what life looks like under the control of leftists and statists (Democrats, mostly) when they gain power. Their goal is obvious: to gut the thriving Trump economy that seemed likely to propel him to a second term. But I think they underestimate the intelligence of the American people. As folks in Blue states watch the people in surrounding Red states go back to work, they are going to understand that it is their own Democratic state governments that have placed a boot on their necks. Come November, they won’t forget.

One a Month…

Real quickly, let’s establish once and for all that in Virginia Democrats are either ignorant of both the Virginia and United States Constitutions and the principles of limited government–or just don’t care. Virginia’s Democrat-controlled senate just passed SB 69 which establishes a “one gun a month” policy limiting Virginia citizens to purchasing only one handgun in a 30-day period. Assuming that it is passed by the Virginia House of Delegates, Governor Northam is expected to sign it into law. (This will reinstate a previous VA law placing such a limit on handgun purchases.)

For those who may not be familiar with Virginia’s Constitution, take a minute to Google it and read Article I, Sections 2 and 13. Like the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia also explicitly recognizes that the source of all government power is the consent of the people. It also recognizes the right of all the people to be armed for the defense of their liberty just as clearly as the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights–if not more so.

So, just thinking clearly for a second, where do you suppose that the Democrats currently in control of Virginia’s State Government believe that they derive the authority to limit Virginia citizens to one handgun a month, or to place any limit on how many guns of whatever type and capacity Virginia citizens may purchase? The Constitutions (US and VA) are limits on the power of government, not the rights of the people. Among the enumerated powers granted to the governments (US and VA) I am unable to identify any section that grants those governments the power to limit the lawful, clearly described rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.

But logically, if the government does have the power to limit citizens to only one handgun a month, then doesn’t that mean that the government also has the power to limit them to only one handgun a year or only one handgun in their lifetime?

Or no guns of any kind at all?

Remember, in our nation and our states, we do not derive our rights from the consent of government. On the contrary, our governments derive their just powers (only their just powers) from the consent of the governed–us. In other words, if we choose, we the people have the power to limit our government to only one law a month, but our governments do not have the power to limit us to only one anything a month.

Swalwell Farts: IG Reports

[Just found this in my “drafts” folder. I should have published it back then, but I held off for some reason. Maybe my wife talked me out of it? I’ll ask her. No, on second thought, I’ll just post it now.]

Following the release of the long-awaited Inspector General Report on the origins of the “Russia Collusion” investigation, I was reminded of the fairly-recent “Fartergate” incident. (They call it “Fartgate” but I think “Fartergate” sounds better.) For those who may have missed it and don’t want to watch the YouTube clip, Congressman Eric Swalwell “apparently” breaks wind during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Now, that’s really not that big a deal–everybody does it from time to time, just usually not on national television. However, the real significance (as with Watergate) is in the coverup. As soon as the uproarious laughter commenced, MSNBC immediately began trying to save the Democratic congressman from embarrassment, asserting that the sound came from Matthews “sliding a coffee cup across the table back in the studio.” If you can stand it, watch the video. Swalwell pauses speaking and you can actually see him clenching up as he rips.

Now consider that the IG report into the Clinton Email Investigation found numerous instances of “mistakes, bad judgment, and even overt expressions of unseemly political bias,” but no evidence that political bias tainted the investigation. In the face of outrageous and repeated lapses in FBI protocol (always in favor of exonerating Mrs. Clinton) the report nevertheless concludes that the essential integrity of the investigation was not influenced by politics.

Fast-forward now to the IG report into the origins of the Russia Collusion investigation, where numerous instances of “mistakes, bad judgment, and even overt expressions of unseemly political bias” were found (including fraudulent submissions to the FISA court) but no evidence that the origination of the investigation was anything but fully justified and legal.

Just as the Mainstream Media rushes to cover up anything that might embarrass the Democrats, the Deep State will continue to protect their own. They both think that we are stupid.

We are not.

The Nature of Compromise

In grammar school I was taught that our system of government is based on compromise. That’s not true, but that’s what I was taught. Compromise is fine, but there is something you have to understand about it. You cannot compromise with someone whose ultimate goal is diametrically opposed to yours.

For instance, let’s say you and your friend are going on vacation together. You both want to go to the beach, but you want to get there as fast as possible and he/she wants to take the cross-country scenic route. Perhaps you can travel part of the way on the Interstate and part of the way on the secondary roads, and you both wind up where you ultimately wanted to be. But suppose you want to go to the beach and he/she wants to go to the mountains. You compromise and travel part-way toward the beach, and then turn off and go to the mountains. When you get there, you suddenly realize that your friend got what he/she wanted and you got nothing.

That’s where we are with the “gun control” debate. Thanks to Beto, everyone can now see where the democrats have been wanting to take us for fifty years, but everyone is still crying out for compromise on this issue. Democrats, when asked straight up if they agree with Beto on confiscation, hedge, dip and dodge. They use phrases like, “we’ve got to do something now,” and “starting place” and “first steps” and “what is achievable.” What they are saying is that they know they can’t get confiscation right now, but if they can get us to compromise and move in that direction a little, they will be patient and come back for more after the next mass shooting.

Make no mistake: no matter how much they may deny it and claim to be “firm supporters of the Second Amendment,” confiscation of all privately held firearms is their ultimate goal. Why is disarming the population so important to them? Because you can’t make a tyranny without it. Compromise is just another word for slow defeat. In the end, we will either defeat the enemies of freedom or be defeated by them.

My Response To Beto

My sincere thanks to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, who finally admitted what most of us have known all along. Hell yes, they want to take our AR-15s and AK-47s!

And when that doesn’t work and the violence continues, they will be back for our other semi-automatics, pump-actions, bolt-actions, revolvers and anything else that goes bang and could put a hole in a would-be tyrant.

You cannot compromise with someone whose end goal is diametrically opposed to yours. You can only defeat them, or be defeated by them. So here is my response to Mr. O’Rourke:

The Third Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Purpose of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Even many who admit to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment declare that it is an anachronism, a throw-back to an earlier time and no longer relevant today. We live in an enlightened civilization and the notion of tyranny in America is silly! And besides, the idea of the people standing up to a despot is ludicrous. One democratic lawmaker (Eric Swalwell) even suggested that the people would be hopelessly outgunned since the government has nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Recent events should convince us that now more than ever before in our nation’s history, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is indispensable to maintaining our free state. It is only the millions of arms in private ownership in America that have kept the forces of tyranny at bay to this point. An armed population is the last line of defense for liberty, and when our government succeeds in disarming us our days of freedom will be numbered.

Imagine a government-required license before starting a church or holding a prayer-meeting. Imagine a government-required background check before being allowed to speak at a public rally. Imagine certain types of unpopular political speech being banned by government and we’re just about there. Why have we tolerated so many restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms when we would never (and should not) tolerate the like when it comes to freedom of speech, assembly, religion or any of our other fundamental rights granted by God? Because “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” But to continue quoting the Declaration of Independence, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We’re not quite there yet, but when our government determines to finally destroy that last line of defense, “a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism” will be evident. Freedom-loving Americans will never surrender their arms. Doing so will be surrendering our children and grandchildren to slavery.

The Second Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not about hunting, target shooting or even defending your life or your home. Although these pursuits are certainly protected by that same right, they are not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now we are constantly hearing about “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war,” and too often I hear gun owners and self-proclaimed supporters of the Second Amendment declare that “no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47!” And one democratic candidate for president finally just admitted it: “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

The intent of the Second Amendment’s writers is clearly demonstrated in the use of the phrase: A well-regulated militia. The word “militia” comes from the same roots as military and militant and that means fighting wars. Of course, many have tried to define the term “well regulated militia” as the equivalent of today’s National Guard, but both history and just a little thought will inform even the most casual reader that this argument is spurious. The founders clearly wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and nowhere in the constitution or any founders’ writings was the phrase the people used to describe anything other than the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right of American citizens to retain the means of overthrowing their government should it become necessary. Therefore, “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war” are exactly the kind of “arms” that the Second Amendment is talking about.

The First Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Second Amendment does not create a right to keep and bear arms. I thought that would get your attention. The fact is, none of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) create any rights. All of our rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the foundation of government in the United States of America, and what sets it apart from virtually every other nation in the history of the world. The powers that our government holds are granted to it by the people, and the people retain all of their God-given rights that are not specifically yielded to the government in our founding documents.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not established by the Second Amendment, and it does not rely on those words for its survival. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not created by the political process, and it cannot be withdrawn by the political process. It cannot be abrogated by executive order, by act of congress or decree of the United States Supreme Court. It cannot even be withdrawn by repealing the Second Amendment, any more than the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion can be withdrawn by repealing the First Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is not up for a vote. Government cannot withdraw any of our rights through the legal process. It can only take them from us by force—if we allow it to do so.