Sarah Brady Cries! Film at Eleven!

December 26, 2007 on 8:23 pm | In 22/45, mosin, range day, ruger, sarah brady, sks | 3 Comments

Last Friday I went up to my range to practice for the monthly Plate Match which was held the next day. I was unable to go to the match because of a family emergency, but still it was good to get some trigger time in anyway.

Thanks to Robb at Sharp as a Marble, I had a fresh supply of “Every time you hit a bullseye, Sarah Brady cries!” targets with me. Thanks Robb! They’re great targets and the guys at the range loved them. :-)

Here’s the scoop on the Plate Match. The .22lr division shoots a 6″ plate from about 15 - 17 yards, roughly the same distance as the pistol range. Robb’s targets have one big 10″ target and two 6″ targets. First I’d warm up on the large target and then shoot the lower targets rapid fire to simulate the Plate Match. Rapid fire meaning 3-4 shots a second until I’d emptied the magazine (10 rounds). In this case, hitting anywhere within the 6″ circle is considered a hit, as it would certainly knock down the steel plate at the match. Having the targets the same size as the plates worked out great too!

Here we have an example of the target I was using:

And here are a selection of smaller targets in no particular order. I should point out that most of the “misses” on the smaller targets can be traced to screw-ups in shooting the larger target. Usually when I got a little too fast for my own good. *blush*





Next Friday, my birthday oddly enough, I intend to make another range trip to re-sight-in my SKS. Seems last time I shot it, the recoil was harsh enough to loosen the set screws on the scout mount. I took it down and applied lock-tite to them and put everything back together. When I did I noticed that the red dot was no longer anywhere near where the rifle was pointing. I’ve bore sighted it down the hall, but it definitely needs to be re-sighted before I trust it to 100 yards again. And yes, I’ll be shooting more Sarah Brady targets too. :-) Time willing I’ll try and get more hand gun practice in and perhaps try out some of my newly minted Mosin rounds. We’ll see…

Share/Save

Sarah Brady, Blood Dancer

October 12, 2007 on 12:32 pm | In H.R. 2640, NICS, blood dancing, sarah brady | 1 Comment

I just got an email from Sarah Brady. No, it wasn’t an invitation to her Columbus Day BBQ, and no it wasn’t an invite to her annual charity wheel chair race either. It was a solicitation asking for more money to help destroy my civil rights, using the latest school shooting as grist for her bloody donation mill. Nowhere in the email does she mention the six kids killed in Wisconsin by a deranged police officer. Where is her outrage about this? Are the lives of the school kids in Ohio worth more to her from a publicity standpoint than those snuffed out in Wisconsin? Do you still think that only Police and the Military are the only people who should have guns Sarah? be careful, your hypocrisy is showing…

Here’s the email, and my comments.

More Guns at Schools While Senate Stalls on Improving Background Checks

Your support can help us break the logjam on a bill to strengthen the Brady law’s NICS

Dear Mr. Orlov,

I’m once again heartbroken that a deranged teenager was so easily able to get his hands on two guns and ammunition, shooting four people before killing himself at a Cleveland school on Wednesday.

Together, we must stop senseless tragedies like this. And we can.

So, what do you propose we do Sarah? How about making murder more illegal, or making the “Gun Free Zone” signs just a little larger to make sure the bad guys see them. And how exactly is this, so called, NICS Improvement Bill supposed to have stopped a criminal who wasn’t even old enough to legally own those guns in the first place?

The first thing we must do is convince the U.S. Senate to strengthen the Brady background check system by passing the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act.

In other words, you want to deprive even more people of their rights, rightly or wrongly, just so you can feel good about yourself? Here’s some news for you lady, my rights are not there to improve your sense of self satisfaction. More feel good legislation that only affects the law abiding and which will be ignored by the criminals is not going to help matters any. How about you go after the real source of the problems, repeat criminal offenders?

Will you help me by making a special contribution to the Brady Campaign right now? Your contribution will be used to bring pressure to bear on the Senate, garner media attention, and rally public support for this critical bill.

Um, let me think about this…HELL NO!

Next week will be the six-month anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy where 32 were shot and killed. Since then, almost 6,000 sisters, brothers, fathers, and mothers have been murdered by guns.

While it may or may not have helped in the VT case, allowing CCW permit holders to lawfully keep their arms for defense of themselves and others around them is a huge step forward. Guns don’t kill people Sarah, criminals misusing guns do.

Immediately following the Virginia Tech shootings, the Brady Campaign pressed elected officials by asking “What are YOU going to do about gun violence?”

What have you done about criminals who misuse guns to commit violence? You say you don’t want to ban guns, and then you turn around and support gun bans. Liar. All you will accomplish is rendering the law abiding defenseless and empowering the criminal element.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives took a courageous first step to keep guns out of the wrong hands by passing HR 2640, the NICS Improvement Act.

We all know whose hands are the wrong hands Sarah, the hands of every law abiding, freedom loving, gun owner in the nation! Don’t lie to me, I know better.

Many states fail to supply thousands of records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system. The result is that felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into gun stores or gun shows and buy weapons without being stopped.

The NICS Improvement Act would address this critical problem.

But the U.S. Senate has failed to take action and get this bill passed. The consequences of their inaction are a steady drumbeat of gun deaths, more student shooting rampages, more carnage, and untold suffering by the victims and their families.

The Senate should act to pass this important bill!

You mean the gun control expansion bill that expands the already illegal law? The one that has every gun control loving representative drooling in their eagerness to support it? The same bill the NRA is shortsightedly supporting? The same bill that will come around to bite them in the ass later on? Thanks, but no thanks Sarah. You can keep your phony act.

The Brady Campaign is working full force to convince the U.S. Senate to pass this bill immediately. Tragically, 32 Americans are murdered by guns every day and we cannot afford to wait another day for them to take action.

Again, guns don’t murder anyone, criminals do. How many of these 32 a day you claim, are criminals, already disallowed from having guns, killing other criminals? How many are criminals shot by law abiding citizens who were defending themselves? How many are victims disarmed by gun bans and other unconstitutional restrictions which you support?

We need your support today to put pressure on the U.S. Senate to pass this legislation and help stop the senseless violence.

Please make a contribution of $25 or more right now to help fund our efforts to pass this important bill in the Senate.

If you really wanted to stop the senseless violence you’d go after the real source of the problem, criminals, and not law abiding citizens. Once again, I’d sooner crawl across broken glass, gouge out my eyes with broken sporks and eviscerate myself with a rusty pair of scissors, while rolling around in rock salt, than donate money to you and your organization. Is that clear enough for you?”

Sincerely,
Sarah Brady, Chair

Share/Save

The Brady Campaign…the Criminal’s Best Friend


In actuality, this could apply to any of the anti-freedom groups out there. They say “We don’t want to ban your guns!” and then work actively to ban them and defend gun bans already in existence. They say, “We need sensible (common sense) gun laws!” while backing feel good legislation that does nothing to help crime and does more to hurt the law abiding gun owners. We have 20,000+ gun laws in this country already, if that many gun laws haven’t solved the problem, then what makes them think another one will have any more effect?

Criminals laugh at gun laws, plain and simple. They routinely break the law as it is, so why should they care about one more? The criminals will be armed, that is a fact. Even in the “gun free Utopia” of England and Australia, criminals seem to have an inexhaustible supply of firearms available to them. It’s no surprise to me and others like me that the violent crime level went up shortly after the law abiding citizens were forcibly disarmed.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims. In an interview with John Stossel, which was broadcast on nation wide TV, inmates openly admitted they chose victims who they thought would be unarmed. They admitted liking gun control laws because it made their job easier, and boasted how easy it was for them to get a gun if they wanted to. Criminals don’t buy their guns at the local Wal-mart or gun store, and as a result, they don’t have to pass a background check; it’s simply ‘cash & carry’ for them.

So as the anti-rights groups keep pounding away at our second amendment freedoms, all they are doing is empowering the criminal element. Is this really what they want to do? Probably not, but it makes you wonder. I’m sure there are some wonderful, but misguided people who are anti-gun. The problem is, they are so invested in their beliefs that no amount of “Reasoned Discourse” will ever change their minds. When someone presents facts that disprove their closely cherished world view, they just stick their fingers in their ears and say “lalalalalalalala - I can’t hear you!” Case in point, Paul Helmke and Robyn Ringler. They couldn’t take the heat, so they closed comments on their blogs. This does nothing to stop people with facts from disagreeing with them, but it means they don’t have to hear it.

I will never delete a comment just because the commenter disagrees with me, but I will not stand for personal attacks or rudeness. Luckily I’ve been troll free to this point, but just in case, that is my policy.

In Sarah Brady’s Utopian fantasy, guns have been banned, pure and simple. If she and her cohorts were honest with the American public they would admit this. And in this Utopian future, while you and I are disarmed and left to our own devices, the criminals will still have their weapons… Like sheep to the slaughter. Like I said before…

Criminals prefer unarmed victims!

Share/Save

Mack vs. Brady - 10 years after a defeat of the Brady Bill,… then the NRA Turns on us…again.


June 27, 2007; Sheriff Mack Ten Year Anniversary

On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley shot President Reagan and severely wounded his press secretary, James Brady. Richard Mack was watching the news about all this from his office in the Provo, Utah Police Station where he had just started his career in law enforcement. This was the first time he had really heard of James Brady, and 15 years later he would find himself on opposite sides of a lawsuit sitting next to James Brady in the United States Supreme Court.

Richard Mack was raised in Safford, Arizona. He graduated from BYU and stayed in Provo as a policeman for about 11 years. He left a promising career to move back to Arizona and run for Graham County sheriff. He was elected in 1988 and again in 1992. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill (named for James Brady) into law and the wheels of Sheriff Mack’s lawsuit opposing the Brady Bill began to turn.

The Brady Bill was a federal law which required the local Sheriff to conduct background checks on all of Sheriff Mack’s constituents who wished to purchase a handgun. The sheriff was responsible for all costs associated with the checks, keeping files on each purchase and notifying the gun shops and customers of his findings. Sheriff Mack told me that the most offensive portion of this legislation was that the bill contained a provision that threatened to arrest “anyone who knowingly failed to comply.” Well, sheriff Mack intended to do just that; he would not comply and instead filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Tucson to have the Brady Bill ruled unconstitutional.

At the time, he was the only sheriff in the entire country taking such action. He made the decision alone, except for consulting with his wife. He told her that this would probably be very unpopular and that this type of thing could cost them dearly; including everything they owned. She gave him her full support, but it did as Mack had feared, he lost his home, his job and his career in law enforcement.

Mack’s lawsuit was filed the very day the Brady Bill took effect, February 28, 1994. Approximately five weeks later another sheriff from Montana filed the same suit there. Ultimately, six other sheriffs joined the lawsuit that Sheriff Mack started, which made a total of seven; seven out of 3020.

The suit contended that the federal government had no authority or jurisdiction to compel or force any sheriff in the United States to comply with any mandate, funded or not. Sheriff Mack also objected to being forced to participate in a federal gun control scheme, but the suit had no standing on Second Amendment grounds. All the District Court cases were successful, with each sheriff prevailing except the case filed by a Texas sheriff. Losing a court case in Texas about guns and state sovereignty is of interest.

The government of course, appealed and Sheriff Mack and Sheriff Printz (Montana) headed to the Ninth Circuit court in San Francisco. They had just met for the first time a few weeks earlier as guests on the Phil Donahue Show. The case in San Francisco did not go well and this court, the most overturned court in the United States, dealt the sheriffs a crushing defeat. However, the Texas sheriff prevailed in the Fifth Circuit and this is exactly what Mack had hoped for; conflicting rulings from the Circuit courts. This all but guaranteed that the U S Supreme Court would have to take the case to settle the opposite rulings from the Circuit courts.

A few months later the miracle was finally announced; Mack v. USA would be heard by the Supreme Court on December 4, 1996. Mack had just lost his bid for re-election a couple of months prior. He was extremely disappointed, but not surprised. Appearing before the U S Supreme Court was an amazing and awesome experience. He spoke briefly with James Brady. He was very friendly and told Sheriff Mack that he admired him for fighting for what he believed in. After the hearing Sarah Brady called Mack and Printz “rogue sheriffs.”

Upon leaving the sheriff’s office Mack took a job teaching high school government. He enjoyed it and it kept him busy while he waited for the Supreme Court’s decision. On weekends he still made some appearances around the country speaking at freedom rallies. Then after six and a half months of waiting, CBS news called Mack at home on June 25th and informed him that the decision would probably be announced on the 26th or the 27th. They asked him to go to a hotel in Tucson so they could interview him as soon as the decision was published. He did as they requested. Then on Friday morning at about 7:30 a.m., June 27, 1997, CBS News called Sheriff Mack and congratulated him on his victory. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs and told the federal government, i.e., the Clinton administration, that it could not compel the states or the states’ officers to administer a federal regulatory program. Justice Scalia delivered the decision for the majority, which was a tenuous 5-4 split.

Mack’s case has appeared in history and government text books and it was covered by every major news agency in this country. The lamentable issue here is the real impact this victory should have had never happened. The Clinton White House said the decision was meaningless and Janet Reno quickly downplayed it stating that it would change nothing. The truth of the matter is Mack’s case changed history. There were actually five Brady bills scheduled for Congress’ promulgation, each one to be passed one year after the other. Brady bill two was introduced just two months after Sheriff Mack filed his lawsuit by Senator Moynihan. It failed in committee and Brady bills 3, 4, and 5 were never even mentioned. Sarah Brady said at the signing of the first Brady bill that this “was only the beginning.” If the rest of her Brady bills had been passed the Second Amendment would have been completely gutted and gun shows would have been a thing of the past. Mack’s case had a great deal to do with stopping this. He fought the Clintons, the Bradys, Handgun Control Inc. and countless others. He received hate mail and threats and ironically had a window shot out of his mini-van. On the other hand, he is the only person in history to have received the top law awards from the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Industry of America, and the Local Sovereignty Coalition. This battle was a real roller coaster ride for this small town sheriff. It cost him a lot and it brought him a great deal of satisfaction.

“What frustrates me to this day is the fact that state legislatures ignore the door that this case opened for them to keep the feds in DC. My other concern is that Congress violates his ruling from the Supremes on pretty much a daily basis. Why would we expect anything else from them? They violate the rest of the Constitution as a matter of routine also.” Mack said.

Richard Mack was a sheriff who walked tall. He stood against political correctness and made a difference for all of us. He gave us something to believe in. His case was extremely powerful. It re-established the lines between DC and local autonomy.

His favorite quote from the ruling made this entire battle and ordeal completely worthwhile: “But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location, as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” Now if our senators and representatives would follow this ruling? Thank you Sheriff Mack and happy anniversary!

It is now 10 years later and Mack has sent a letter to Wisconsin Gunowners that were upset about increased background checks of the federal mandate that required access to mental records (unfunded mandates) first step to submitting to mental evaluation to purchase a firearm. “State legislatures are not subject to federal direction” NRA supported the Mack V. Brady litigation to the tune of almost half a million dollars and now is supporting federal legislation (HR 2640) that rips at the heart of this court victory.

Is the NRA just trying to fit in to political correctness or is there another agenda they are supporting? Sarah Brady put out a statement saying that this bill was a victory for gun control and was shocked that the NRA was supporting this.
The NRA’s cooperation with Congresswoman McCarthy and Senator Shumer isn’t a surprise to those of us that have been witness to the NRA’s authoring hand of gun control legislation, A+ endorsements of legislators that vote for legislation like the Assault Weapons Ban, provide cover for the passage of the Brady Bill in the first place and abuse the gun owner and their vote over and over.

“The Gun Control crowd is very happy that this is a step towards requiring a mental health screening before obtaining a firearm.” (Reporter Comment: …and the government gets to determine what is and is not proper mental health?) “I’m praying for the day that the NRA and Congress respect and follow the United States Constitution.” Richard Mack.
To celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Supreme Court victory Fmr. Sheriff Richard Mack will be honored at the Tucson Breakfast Club June 30th (Sat.) 520-419-4364 Mark Spear for details.

The Mack v Brady suit was directed at the Clinton Administration (The only non-sexually oriented lawsuit that I know of) but with the Bush admin in office now, the NRA has become the Gun Control darling of a Fascist Regime bent on total domination of an increasingly resistant population. And I was paying very close attention during those years in the mid 90’s when I met Sheriff Richard Mack while he was still Sheriff of Graham County. It was Sheriff Mack that confirmed for us the existence of “Project Lead” we had heard about through Maricopa County Sheriff Department Investigators. Sheriff Mack provided us the forms for this Clinton Administration effort to register every unregistered firearm in the nation that they could during any contact an individual had with law enforcement. This is when individuals were beginning to be asked if they had a firearm while being pulled over for traffic stops or any other contact with an officer. The form was adapted from the form used to track firearms involved in a crime and were traced by investigators of a crime. The forms now include providing the information of all of the people traveling with the person detained and even the license plates of other cars that might be associated with the person in contact with the law enforcement officer. This came to our attention because an officer under Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was very concerned about what they saw happening.

Many in Arizona may remember when Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that no Sheriff employee was to ever speak to the media again and that his office would be the sole media contact. This was a direct result of our published investigation into “Project Lead” conducted by the BATF in Washington that was originally to be test marketed in other large cities that did not include any in Arizona. It was Sheriff Arpaio that invited the Federal Government here and Sheriff Richard Mack’s opposition to such gun control caused a rift between the two Sheriffs that was more about who stealing Arpaio’s spotlight than the discussion of abuses of Federal Power and a Sheriff’s duty to use their powers as the _highest_ ranking law enforcement in their jurisdictions to protect the people from such abuses. This is what Sheriff Richard Mack did while Sheriff Arpaio has pursued an entirely different path.

Some of the Supreme Court’s decision is included to inform you of what should have been embraced by our government officials in what is suppose to be a Constitutional Republic. But what I fear Richard Mack’s greatest contribution to freedom has been, is that he has demonstrated just how overdue we are for a full blown revolution between the ears. It’s time we all recognize just how bad thing really are.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory, supra, at 458.
To quote Madison once again:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
“Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic’ in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era’s perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” Id., at 187.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

Richard Mack was inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame 1994 and was the NRA’s Law Enforcement officer of the year 1994. His books: “From my Cold Dead Fingers – Why America Needs Guns” 1995 republished and updated after SCOTUS Victory in 2000 – “Vicki, Sam and America – How the Government killed all Three” - 2003.


Share/Save

When you compromise with Evil, Evil wins!


“Victory for Gun Control in House. NRA Sees the Light” says the email I got today from the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun ownership. I am completely opposed to this bill. The fact that the NRA decided to negotiate with evil on this is incredible. I am a member, but more and more I’m becoming dissatisfied with their policies. From giving anti-gun sheriff’s and politicians “A” ratings and now this blasphemy. This bill would have gone nowhere without the NRA’s help. They say they will keep an eye on it and withdraw support if more anti-gun amendments are added to it, but I’m not sure I believe them. Besides, even if they do withdraw support, now that the Democrats control Washington it will get rammed through anyway.

By the way, who’s hands are the “wrong hands” they refer to in the letter? Pull back from the computer, raise your arms up in front of the monitor and have a good look.

From the Brady’s:

Victory: Bill That Strengthens Brady Backgrounds Checks Passes U.S. House

Dear Mr. Orlov,

That’s right! You read it correctly. With your help, we’ve been asking legislators, “What are YOU going to do about gun violence?”

And we got our first BIG answer yesterday, when, by a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2640 to strengthen Brady background checks!!

The bill, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) requires states to automate their lists of convicted criminals and the mentally ill who are prohibited from buying firearms.

It also requires states to report those lists to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that was enacted with passage of the Brady Law.

And now this important bill is moving swiftly to the U.S. Senate and we need your help today to make sure it gets passed.

Please make a generous contribution of $15.00 or more today to help us make this happen.

Surprisingly, the NRA supports the bill. The Virginia Tech shootings were a horrific reminder of the gaps in U.S. gun laws. The gun lobby knew its usual opposition to any and every solution we brought forward would be unacceptable to the American public so it made this concession.

But we know we still have much more to do to keep guns out of the wrong hands and that the gun lobby will oppose us as we move forward with other sensible steps. We will work to push Congress to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales ? especially those at gun shows.

To do the work ahead, we need your support today to sustain this strong momentum. This is the BEST time for you to make a contribution to help our fight to make Brady background checks stronger … step-by-step we are making progress.

Show us what YOU’RE going to do to help stop gun violence by making a contribution of $15.00 or more right now.

Thanks for your support! We’ll keep you posted …

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

Hmmm, I feel the need to make another contribution to the gun Rights organization of my choice. I suggest you do the same.

Share/Save

Does God Believe in Gun Control?


By David B. Kopel

“You are doing God’s work,” Brady Bill sponsor Charles Schumer remarked to Sarah Brady at one Congressional hearing. And perhaps one could argue that if it took God seven days to make the world, people shouldn’t be able to buy a gun in any less time.

But did God really endorse the Brady Bill? One would certainly think so, given the huge number of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious organizations that endorsed the Brady Bill, and which endorse virtually every other gun control proposal. God’s anti-gun army is prominent not just in Washington, but also in the state legislatures.

This year, for example, as legislatures have debated laws allowing licensed, trained citizens to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for protection, some of the most vocal opponents have been religious groups. Now the state chapter of the National Council of Churches does not show up at legislative hearings armed with criminological data. Instead, persons claiming to testify on behalf of “the religious community” come to express their “moral” opposition to the use of deadly force against criminal attack.

This same world view is at the heart of the federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which attempts to distinguish good “sporting” firearms from bad “antipersonnel” weapons. It likewise motivates the stated long-term agenda of Sarah Brady’s organization Handgun Control, Inc.–to outlaw firearms possession for self-defense. Within the gun control movement, one does not have to dig very far to find the strongly-held and sanctimonious belief that the NRA and its ilk are moral cretins because they believe in answering violence with violence.

But is hostility to the lawful use of force for defense the only morally legitimate position? The moral authorities relied on by most Americans suggest otherwise. The Book of Exodus specifically absolves a homeowner who kills a burglar. (Exodus 22:2, “If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”)

The Sixth Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” refers to murder only, and does not prohibit the taking of life under any circumstances; notably, the law of Sinai specifically requires capital punishment for a large number of offenses.

A bit earlier in the Bible, Abram, the father of the Hebrew nation, learns that his nephew Lot has been taken captive. Abram (later to be renamed “Abraham” by God) immediately calls out his trained servants, set out on a rescue mission, finds his nephew’s captors, attacks, and routs them, thereby rescuing Lot. (Genesis 14). The resort to violence to rescue an innocent captive is presented as the morally appropriate choice.

Most gun prohibitionists who look to the Bible for support do not cite specific interdictions of weapons (there are none) but instead point to the general passages about peace and love, such as “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5: 38-39 ); “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5: 43); and “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Romans 12: 17). None of these exhortations take place in the context of an imminent threat to life. A slap on the cheek is a blow to pride, but not a threat to life.

Reverend Anthony Winfield, author of Self-Defense and the Bible, suggests that these verses command the faithful not to seek revenge for evil acts, and not to bear grudges against persons who have done them wrong. He points to the passage “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone” (Romans 12: 18 ), as showing an awareness that in extreme situations, it might not be possible to live in peace.

Further evidence that the New Testament does not command universal pacifism is found in the missions of John the Baptist and Peter, both of whom preached to soldiers who converted. Neither John nor Peter demanded that the soldiers lay down their arms, or find another job. (Luke 3: 14; Acts 10: 22-48 ). John did tell the soldiers “Don’t extort money, and don’t accuse people falsely,” just as he told tax collectors “Don’t collect any more than you are required to.” The plain implication is that being a soldier (or a tax collector) is not itself wrong, so long as the inherent power is not used for selfish purposes.

Of course most gun prohibitionists do not see anything wrong with soldiers carrying weapons and killing people if necessary. But if–as the New Testament strongly implies–it is possible to be a good soldier and a good Christian, then it is impossible to claim that the Gospel always forbids the use of violence, no matter what the purpose. The stories of the soldiers support Winfield’s thesis that the general “peace and love” passages are not blanket prohibitions on the use of force in all circumstances.

Is an approving attitude towards the bearing of arms confined to professional soldiers? Not at all. At the last supper, Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles begin: “When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” the apostles answer. Jesus continues: “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.” He ends by observing “what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The apostles then announce, “Lord, behold, here are two swords,” and Jesus cuts them off: “That is enough.” (Luke 22: 36-38 ).

Even if the passage is read with absolute literalness, Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were “enough.” More importantly, Jesus may not have been issuing an actual command that anybody carry swords, or purses, or bags. The broader, metaphorical point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The purse (generally used for money), the bag (generally used for clothing and food), and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. When the apostles took Jesus literally, and started showing him their swords, Jesus, frustrated that they missed the metaphor, ended the discussion. The metaphorical interpretation is supported by scholarly analysis, and seems to best account for the entire conversation.

Even when reduced to metaphor, however, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor, any more than Jesus would have created metaphors suggesting that people carry Ba’al statues for protection, or that they metaphorically rape, rob, and murder.

A few hours after the final instructions to the apostles, when soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, and Peter sliced off the ear of one of their leaders, Jesus healed the ear. He then said “No more of this” (Luke 22: 49-51) or “Put your sword away” (John 18: 10) or “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26: 52). (The quotation is sometimes rendered as “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”) Jesus then rebuked the soldiers for effecting the arrests with clubs and swords, for Jesus was “not leading a rebellion.”

The most immediate meaning of these passages is that Jesus was preventing interference with God’s plan for the arrest and trial. Additionally, Jesus was instructing the apostles not to begin an armed revolt against the local dictatorship or the Roman imperialists. Jesus had already refused the Zealots’ urging to lead a war of national liberation.

Do the passages also suggest a general prohibition against drawing swords (or other weapons) for defense? The versions of the story recounted in Luke and John do not, but the version in Matthew could be so read. If Matthew is analyzed along the lines of “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword,” the passage is an admonition that a person who centers his life on violence (such as a gang member) will likely perish. On the other hand, a translation of “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” could be read as a general rule against armed violence in any situation.

The best way to understand the Bible, most theologians would concur, is not to look at passages in isolation, but instead to carefully study passages in the context of the rest of the Bible. If the single line in Matthew were to be read to indicate that to draw the sword is always wrong, then it would be difficult to account for the other passages which suggest that drawing a sword as a soldier (or carrying a sword as an apostle) is not illegitimate.

Looking at the passage of Matthew in the context of the rest of the Bible would, therefore, look to the passage as a warning against violence as a way of life, rather than as a flat-out ban on defensive violence in all situations. A 1994 document produced by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace states: “In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.” The document notes that “the right” to armed defense “is coupled with the duty to do all possible to reduce to a minimum, and indeed eliminate, the causes of violence.”

The Catholic Church recognizes people as saints because (among other reasons), the lives of saints are considered to worthy of study and emulation. February 27 is the feast day of Saint Gabriel Possenti. According to The One Year Book of Saints, as a young man in 19th-century Italy, Francesco Possenti was known as the best dresser in town, as a “superb horseman,” and as “an excellent marksman.” The young man was also a consummate partygoer, who was engaged to two women at the same time. Twice during school he had fallen desperately ill, promised to give his life to God if he recovered, and then forgotten his promise. One day at church, Possenti saw a banner of Mary. He felt that her eyes looked directly at him, and he heard the words “Keep your promise.” Possenti immediately joined an order of monks, taking the name Brother Gabriel.

The main incident for which Saint Gabriel Possenti is remembered was this: “One a summer day a little over a hundred years ago, a slim figure in a black cassock [Possenti] stood facing a gang of mercenaries in a small town in Piedmont, Italy. He had just disarmed one of the soldiers who was attacking a young girl, had faced the rest of the band fearlessly, then drove them all out of the village at the point of a gun….[W]hen Garibaldi’s mercenaries swept down through Italy ravaging villages, Brother Gabriel showed the kind of man he was by confronting them, astonishing them with his marksmanship, and saving the small village where his monastery was located.”

Saint Gabriel Possenti’s “astonishing marksmanship” was displayed after he had just disarmed the soldier. The mercenaries’ leader told Possenti that it would take more than just one monk with a handgun to make the mercenaries leave town. The saint pointed out to the mercenaries a lizard which was running across the road. Possenti shot the lizard right through the head, at which point the mercenaries decided that discretion was the better part of valor; they obeyed Possenti’s orders to extinguish the fires they had started and to return the property they had stolen. They then fled the village, never to be heard from again.

Jewish law comes to the same conclusion as the Vatican Pontifical Council: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” commands the Talmud. Bystanders are likewise required to kill persons who are attempting rape. As Columbia University’s George Fletcher explains, while there is a duty to self-defense, the duty to defend others is seen as prior.

The view that forcible resistance to evil attack is itself evil has serious implications: Patrick Henry and the other founding fathers were wrong to urge armed resistance to the British Redcoats; the Jews who led the Warsaw Ghetto revolt against Hitler were immoral; Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims would have been wrong to use a weapon to protect themselves; Saint Gabriel Possenti was a paragon of evil; Abraham should not have rescued his kidnapped nephew; and police officers who fire their guns to protect innocent people are sinful.

Consider the situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house. The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38 special, the children will be dead before the police will arrive. Is the woman’s moral obligation to murmur “violence engenders violence,” and keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the mother’s moral duty to save her children, and shoot the intruder?

The view that life is a gift from God, and that permitting the wanton destruction of one’s own life (or the life of a person under one’s care) amounts to hubris is hardly new. As a 1747 sermon in Philadelphia put it: “He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.”

Whatever their disagreements on other matters, the natural rights philosophers such as Blackstone, Montesquieu, Hobbes, and Locke who provided the intellectual foundation of the American Revolution saw self-defense as “the primary law of nature,” from which many other legal principles could be deduced.

As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force…”

Leading 19th-century criminal law scholars emphasized a less philosophical, point: that victims protect the entire community when they kill a dangerous criminal rather than leaving him free to prey on others. As Frederick Pollock summarized the views of James Bishop and of Sir James Stephens, “Sudden and strong resistance to unrighteous attack is not merely a thing to be tolerated …as a necessary evil [but is] a just and perfect” right. A good citizen attacked has “a moral duty” to use all force necessary to apprehend or otherwise incapacitate criminals rather than to submit or retreat.

Janet Powell, speaking for Australia’s Anti-Gun Lobby, Incorporated, insists that a person should never use a gun for self-defense, because of duty to the community. But what kind of decent community would prefer that an innocent member of the community be harmed instead of the harm being suffered by a conscious predator?

John Crook, the head of Gun Control Australia, stated that any woman who would defend herself with a firearm is “selfish.” But a Psychology Today study of “Good Samaritans” who came to aid of victims of violent crime found that 81% “own guns and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with violence, feel competent to handle it, and don’t believe they will be hurt if they get involved.” Are these people selfish, inferior beings?

Having been through the Bible several times, I still can’t find the parts where God (or even a minor prophet) endorses a handgun waiting period, one-gun-a-month, or any other item in the litany of the anti-gun lobbies and the religious groups that endorse them. (Nor, of course, is there anything in the Bible implying that there is anything immoral with any of these proposals.)

But the idea that pacifism in the face of violent attack against one’s family or oneself is some kind of moral imperative that should be enforced by the state is not only missing, it is contrary to common sense and the Western religious tradition. Making it illegal for citizens to own firearms for defense of home and family may or may not be a good idea from a criminological viewpoint–but it is certainly not God’s work.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/oprelign.htm

Original content is Copyrighted © by NoDNC.com . Original author(s) retain their own copyright(s). Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment.

Share/Save

No Living Person Left Behind


I haven’t had time to Fisk their new 54 page treatise on “Guns Bad, Victims Good!” called “No Gun Left Behind”, but I do have some comments on the website that accompanies it.

Some salient quotes:

“Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let’s give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers.”

Okay, let’s tone down the rhetoric here. As it stands currently, there is no crossfire. Teachers and students cannot defend themselves. They’re DYING instead!

Yes, let’s talk about Utah. How many mass shootings have taken place in a Utah school? Come on, I’m waiting… Times up!

I seriously doubt anyone at the NRA is suggesting that kids younger than 18 carry AK-47’s to school. But even if they were, there was a time in this country when school kids did take their guns to school, put them in a locker, and then took them home with them after school was done. Tell me how many school shootings happened back then. I’ll give you the answer, none.

I can think of a lot worse things than arming K-12 teachers. Like my kids dying because their teacher wasn’t able to protect them.

Take a lesson from the Israeli’s. After terrorists began targeting their schools, they armed their teachers and armed guards patrolled the perimeter. The terrorists soon learned that schools were no longer an easy target. And that is all a “Gun-Free Zone” is anyway, a target rich environment.

Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, et, al. Pull your collective heads out of your butts and smell the coffee!


“Obviously, arming students and teachers is a bad idea.

Here are a few reasons why it would be insane to introduce guns into colleges and schools. The college age years — 18-24 — are the peak years for engaging in gun crimes, abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting suicide, and having other mental health problems. A binge-drinking, drug-using student is dangerous enough; let’s not give him or her a gun.”

Obvious to whom? But yet at the same time Sarah, you’re perfectly fine with heavily arming the same age group to go fight, kill and die for this country. Given your logic, a large portion of the armed forces should be disarmed and given pepper spray and keys to defend themselves with against the terrorists.

Positioned right next to this argument is a disgusting cartoon which includes, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho taking turns reciting parts of the second amendment. I will not post it on my blog on principal, but you can view it here. Any respect I may have had for these idiots evaporated on the spot. Sarah, which of the other rights should we make fun of and denigrate? How about free speech? How about freedom of the press? To peacefully assemble? How about the right against illegal search and seizure? You people disgust me!

“Do We Really Want Guns in K-12 Classrooms?

Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20% of the time.

Arming teachers would likely make them the first targets in an attack, and could encourage attackers to increase their firepower or wear body armor.

More than 2,000 K-12 students are expelled each year for carrying guns to school. Do we really want armed teachers confronting them? What if a teacher shoots a student?”

Now they trot out the “Police officers are the only ones trained enough to handle a firearm safely and accurately” myth. Police officers are less likely to hit what they aim at simply because most of them only have to qualify once a year, with a limited number of rounds. The gun for them is just a part of the job and they take no interest in honing their skills further. Therefore, it is no surprise they can’t hit what they aim at. I personally asked an officer in my town what kind of gun he had and all he knew was that it was a Glock (stamped on the side of the gun) and that the bullets were the kind that expanded and wouldn’t pass through, hitting other people. From the small clues he awkwardly gave me, I deduced that it was a Glock in .45 ACP with hollowpoint bullets. I’m not trying to run down cops, merely demonstrating that holding them up as the paragon for weapons handling is goofy at best. I belong to a shooting range, and among the people I see there, 95% of them are very good with a handgun. The simple reason is, they practice. They practice many more times a year than most cops do.

Seriously, aren’t teachers usually the first targets of an attack anyway? They’re bigger and older and more able to resist than their children. This is a strawman and that’s all I’m going to comment.

Well, what if a teacher shoots a student? What if a wack-job storms into the school with a 9mm and a .22lr pistol and kills 32 people? Is one better than the other? Are the victims more righteous if they can’t or won’t fight back? Would a teacher be better off confronting the attacker or cowering in fear beneath their desk?

As soon as I have the time and a large supply of antiacid, I’ll peruse their little booklet and post the results.

Anyway, I’ve got some kids to feed…

Share/Save

Come again?


Does he seriously think we’re stupid?

“CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — A police officer pleaded not guilty Wednesday to beating a female bartender, and to threatening to arrest bar employees in a failed attempt to suppress a video of the attack that has been viewed around the world.

In a brief hearing, Anthony Abbate’s attorney entered not guilty pleas to all 15 felony counts of aggravated battery, official misconduct, intimidation, conspiracy and communicating with a witness.

“He’s pleading not guilty because he is not guilty,” Peter Hickey said after the hearing. “And we expect at the end, the conclusion of the trial, that that’s what the outcome will be.”

…clicky…

For those of you with short attention spans, here’s the video of him not misbehaving.

…and these are the very same people the Brady Bunch would have us believe are the only ones who should have guns?

Yeah right…tell me another one Sarah!

-Yuri

Also found on The War on Guns.

Share/Save

STOP! Hammer Time!

May 15, 2007 on 12:01 am | In Carolyn McCarthy, comedy, hammer time, sarah brady | 4 Comments

(The following is based on a real event, which I link to after, but it has been highly fictionalized and exaggerated to prove a point. -Yuri)

Beaverton, OR- A 56 year old woman was randomly attacked in the Beaverton, OR Fred Meyer store by a hammer wielding psychopath.

Beaverton Police Sergeant Paul Wandell confirmed that the attack happened around noon at the Fred Meyer store located at the Beaverton Town Square. Details are still sketchy, but the victim has been identified as Sharon Weil, and the hammerman as 65 year old Eric Osterholme.

Witnesses said the hammerman hit Weil in the head with a hammer and then threw it into the next isle before walking away. Police arrested him at the scene on attempted murder charges.

Police have recovered the hammer, a Stanley roofing model with a high grip capacity, texturized rubber handle and nail claw shroud.

Police have tracked the hammer to the hardware store where it was purchased by the suspect. They say that the hardware store did nothing wrong, and that Osterholme had passed a federally mandated background check at the time of purchase. While Osterholme does have mental health issues, apparently they were not entered into the system because he was being treated on an out patient basis.

Shortly after the incident, Governor Ted Kulongoski announced an executive order closing the “psycho-hammer” loophole. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy appeared on nation wide television and stressed that the Assault Hammer Ban should not have been allowed to sunset, and that her new Assault Hammer Ban would have prevented this tragedy. Her new bill would ban Assault Hammers as well as “claw shrouds”. When asked by the news commentator several times what a “claw shroud” was, she evaded the question, but was finally forced to admit she had no idea what they were. She made a feeble attempt to answer by saying “..the thing that goes up???” to which the commentator said simply “No, it’s not.”

Sarah Brady and The Brady Campaign wasted no time in milking the incident to try and raise a little cash. They immediately fired off a letter to their supporters asking how this senseless tragedy could have been averted. Their answer of course was to give them more money, to stem the flow of “hammer violence.” Part of their email read, “Everyday in America, thousands of thumbs are painfully mashed, including many childrens. We can stop these painful and senseless ‘accidents’. Remember, if it saves just one thumb…”

As the facts in this case continue to come to light, one thing is certain. The debate in this country over the average citizens right to keep and bear hammers will become even more heated. With the anti-hammer camp continuing to insist that hammers should only be available to licensed carpenters, and the pro side insisting that every American citizen has the God given right to own a hammer.

-Yuri Orlov, Reporting.

Here are the links as promised:

http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6514690
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/05/suspect_in_hammer_attack_refus.html
http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/oregon/stories/NW_051207ORNhammerKS.62e019d5.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/

Share/Save