Herschel Investigates the Malheur County "Standoff"

… and reveals an "interesting" coalition of players leading up to the shooting death of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum.

Full post at The Captain's Journal: Why Did Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum Have To Die? The Connection Between Malheur, Putin, The Clinton Foundation, And Big Money

Thought-provoking, to say the least.

Stay safe.

This Day in History....

... this Sunday, anyway — 240 years ago, as told by the Suburban Sheepdog, Robert Kuntz:

“Stand your ground and do not fire unless fired upon,” Parker ordered. “But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Faced off across a space no larger than a football field, [American Captain John] Parker and [British Major John] Pitcairn each commanded their respective forces not to fire. Pitcairn had every reason to expect to be obeyed; British regulars did as they were ordered and Pitcairn’s force of elite light infantry were some of the best troops of the best professional army in the world. Parker, commanding farmers, merchants – and a slave named Prince Estabrook – likewise expected to be obeyed, if for no other reason than because his men had families close at hand, some watching from just off the field. Greek governmental theories, philosophical abstractions and offenses such as the Intolerable Acts may have driven rabble-rousers like Sam Adams and his Sons of Liberty. But for the militiamen on Lexington Green, their homes and farms and livelihoods were all too tangible realities, all too close at hand.

So no one was meant to fire a shot, but as it as has time and again throughout the years, the shot nevertheless was fired and then everyone on the field let loose. It was over in minutes and the outcome, with many rebels killed or wounded, and only one of his own men hurt, couldn't have surprised Pitcairn, who couldn't have had much doubt about how the rest of the day would go.

But it was only dawn. And he hadn't heard Parker. [links and footnotes omitted]

Read the whole thing. All the way to the end.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip and many thanks to Miguel for the reminder.)

Rand Paul: The Conservative's Proper Response to "Gotcha" Questions

I'd make this a Quote of the Day, but it's so much bigger than a mere QOTD. (Via Ace of Spades, in turn via Legal Insurrection.)

So Rand Paul just announced his 2016 Presidential campaign, and at a press conference was asked about his views on abortion (and abortion exemptions) by NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser. Mr. Steinhauser pointed out that the Democratic National Convention (DNC) had picked up on some comments Rand had said on the topic and asked him to clarify.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
(source)

Rather than fall for the "gotcha" question, Rand caught it and threw it back harder:

Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask [DNC head] Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she's willing to protect life.

When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.

BOOM!

"Gotcha" questions are intentionally pointed, designed and intended to fracture and divide the voter base, thus weakening the support any candidate can claim.

Republican candidates have to start realizing that the media is biased against them, and act/answer accordingly. The media is full of Democrat shills: they will never ask tough questions of Democratic candidates.

Call them to the carpet on it.

It's not about the question or the answer: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's views on any restrictions on abortion are well-known (if you can call that 18-word deflection to a "yes/no" question an answer). It's about the press grilling conservative candidates with hard-ball question after hard-ball question (and taking everything out of context whenever it makes the conservative look worse), all the while asking easy questions and no tough follow-ups of Democrats. It's about media bias, and the best way to confront it is to expose it for what it is.

Ace's conclusion is God's Honest Truth:

This should be the standard answer to any media question about the fringier parts of the Republican coalition: I will answer your question the very moment you ask the Democrats about this analogous fringe demand of the Democrat Party.

Come back to me with an answer, and I'll answer your question.

Oh, and caveat: If you ask the Democrat the question in an obligatory manner, and don't bother to ask the obvious follow-up questions to get past the first answer (which is always a hot ball of stinky gas), then that's the exact sort of answer I'll give you, refusing to answer the follow-up questions you wish to ask me but not your Beloved Democrat Politician. [emphasis in original]

I'll even add my own caveat: If you ask a "yes/no" question and accept anything other than "yes" or "no" (as in DWS's response), expect the same from me. If you want a one-word answer to a "yes/no" question from me, press for nothing less from your Democrat buddies.

Now, I'm not sure yet who "my candidate" will be, so I can't tell yet if Rand Paul is "my guy", but this was an epic turn-around of a hostile question and he deserves no small credit for it.

And because this is a gun blog, we can draw a parallel to gun-related questions: anytime the press asks about firearms and gets an, "I support the Second Amendment, but…" response, follow it up with a hard question like, "Can you reconcile all the proposed infringements you describe as 'common-sense' with the clear language of the Second Amendment, which you said you support, and which says 'shall not be infringed'?" Or, "You say you support the Second Amendment. What current gun laws are, in your opinion, overly burdensome or unfair, and will you work to repeal them?" At the bottom line, these are "yes/no" questions; if you get any wishy-washy statements that don't include a clear "yes" or "no", they are liars and should be exposed as such.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Ann Coulter (April 1, 2015)

From her article, "Hands Up, Don't Discriminate Against Gays!":

Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts.

This is reminiscent of something Joe Huffman said a while back, about some people who, while generally able to function in "normal" society, nevertheless lack the thinking process that allows them to distinguish what is true from what is false.

It's been joked that "gun control is a mental disorder". In reality, probably not, but it is a symptom of a larger, underlying issue: the complete inability to reasonably and objectively test beliefs to determine truth from falsehood.

Welcome to the mind of an anti-freedom personality. Watch your step.

Stay safe.

Movie Review: God's Not Dead (2014)

This is a movie that we'd been meaning to watch for a while, and it just recently showed up in our Netflix queue.

(source: IMDB)

Short synopsis: Josh Wheaton (played by Shane Harper) is a college freshman who finds himself enrolled in Professor Radisson's (Kevin Sorbo) philosophy class. Radisson is a devout atheist, and on the first day of class requires every student to write "God is dead" on a sheet of paper and sign it. Josh finds he cannot do so; it conflicts with his Christian beliefs. Radisson then offers a philosophical challenge: If Josh will not admit that God is dead, then he must debate and prove the "unprovable" opposite thesis — that God is not dead.

The movie follows several individuals and groups directly or tangentially connected to Josh and/or Radisson, and their journeys toward Christ and God as this challenge plays out. Also featured are Willie and Korie Robertson (of Duck Dynasty fame) and the Newsboys.

The characters (other than the Robertsons and the Newsboys, who appear as themselves) are believable and endearing. You empathize with them (at least I did); there wasn't a single named character you don't feel for, one way or another. Even the professor, who's kind of an ass (OK, not "kind of"), with his "Tony Stark" style and "Tony Stark +10" arrogance (seriously); you want to just hate the guy, but you can't help but feel sorry for him, even before you learn his back-story. And while the story and dialogue have a very strong pro-Christianity bias, I wouldn't say it's excessive to the point of being a propaganda film, which is how many critics described it*.

I'd give it a solid 4.5 out of 5. Great movie, highly recommended.

Stay safe.

------------
* - Full disclosure: I'm a Christian, so I can't be fully trusted to remain 100% objective on this point. That said, some clearly pro-Christian films have and do put me off by being over-the-top propaganda. This is not one of them.

Quote of the Day — Sheila Stokes-Begley (March 19, 2015)

Writing at The Zelman Partisans, which if you weren't aware is the group spun-off from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, after JPFO got bought out by the SAF/Alan Gottlieb machine.

From her article, "The Watchmen (and Women) on the Wall":

I recently had a very brief discussion with a Rabbi. […] I said I just think Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, and I do, and I mean right now yesterday. His comment was “When the Messiah comes back”. Really. Because this attitude of accepting little scraps of freedom, the little bits of the Jewish identity people are allowed to retain, the areas where it is safe to walk or as Y.B. pointed out, worship should all be determined by others? The Southern Cowgirl in me rears up and says “OH HELL NO”!

Because when you see attacks on a persons [sic] religion, on their ethnicity on their belief system when it harms no one else, you can just about bet the farm that not long after follow the physical attacks. WHY does it need to get to that point? (hyperlink added to Y.B.'s article)

Embedded in the article are a couple short videos. I highly recommend both articles and the videos, especially the one with New York City Councilman Daniel Greenfield, who has the nerve to call it like it is.

I know many if not most of our readers are not Jewish. I myself am a Christian. However, in my opinion ALL of God's people are under attack. It's just that the Jewish people and culture are the subjects of open, overt, sometimes even physical hostility, while attacks against Christians are more … subtle.

For now.

I think what we're seeing — and what the Jewish people worldwide, but especially in Europe* are seeing — can be summed up in one word: contempt.

Contempt is born of disagreement and disrespect, and in turn leads to anger, hatred, and eventually hostility and violence. It's a pattern repeated throughout human history. Biblically, it goes all the way back to Cain and Abel. And right now the Jewish communities (and to a lesser extent, Christian communities) are viewed by other cultures with open, naked contempt.

The problem stems from what Sheila said of her conversation with the Rabbi: Many, including nominal leaders of whole communities, are content with whatever scraps of freedom the government deems worthy of allowing. It's almost as if the members of a whole culture have lost respect — and are headed down the path to contempt — for themselves!

Many American Christians, on the other hand, realize that rights are God-given (not government-granted), and hold ourselves in enough esteem to demand more recognition of those rights from our representatives.

I demand more. So should you. And so should we all.

Stay safe.
------
* - Tolerant, sophisticated Europe, which America should strive to emulate, right?

Quote of the Day — Kevin D. Williamson (March 8, 2015)

From an article at National Review Online, "Next!" (emphasis in original):

It’s easy to enforce the law on people who are inclined to be law-abiding, which means those of us in the middle, mainly: We have enough to lose that there’s a real cost to breaking the rules, but we don’t have so much that we can conduct our personal and professional lives as though we had sovereign immunity. […] When the law does not apply to the lawmakers and law-enforcers, you are not being governed: You are being ruled. And we are ruled by criminals.

Ain't that the truth? If you all are anything like me, you can't afford to not live within the law. Getting caught means either a) losing everything you have and everything you've worked for and spending time in prison; or b) throwing away five or six figures on a stout legal defense; or c) both a and b.

But for those with little or nothing to lose, or those with so much that no one dares challenge or question them, that's not an issue.

As with most QOTD sources, I encourage you to RTWT.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: Claire Wolfe)

Defending the Home On the Range

"For the female of the species is more deadly than the male."

                          Rudyard Kipling

     Brigid, of the Home on the Range blog, is a renaissance woman. Her curriculum vitae includes wife, mother, military officer, jet pilot, dog lover, hunter, best selling author, shooter, Gumby fan, real science Doctor, Secret Squirrel, home renovator, gourmet cook, bacon aficionada, and... redhead. <shudder> 

     She can go from waxing eloquently about hand soap scented with <two seconds of guy static> to discussing handguns suitable for shooting off an attacker in contact. All with thoughtful reasoning, intelligence, experience, veracity and clarity. 

     So, when she writes about Self Defense in the Home, it's something that needs to be read Right Damn Now. Go there. Now.

     Highly Recommended.  

Quote of the Day — S. Michael Fort (2000)

Buried in this post over at The Captain's Journal, I found this link to an article from way back in 2000:

As a group, the pro-gunners must stop arguing the issue on the terms of the other side. We must make this a worldview issue and not lower it to a level of who has the better facts and figures. We must stop worrying about the number of gun owners who have joined pro-gun organizations and start focusing on how faithful we are. We must remember the lessons taught through Gideon (Judges 7); the Lord fights our wars for us and our greatest weapon is the strength of our faith. Fight relentlessly and work to build that which God desires for us. In the end, we will be vindicated.

Amen to that.

While I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, I must make a small counter-point to one argument: In quoting Exodus 22:2-3 (NIV) — "If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed." — the author defines it as a question of knowing the thief's intent: as in, during daylight hours, his/her intent is more readily known and he/she may not be willing to bring harm/death to you and yours.

In my Bible studies, we used the English Standard version ("If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him.") or the King James Version ("If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...."). In our studies, it was generally understood that "the sun risen upon him" meant that the thief broke into the home, left, and then the homeowner tracked him down and killed him later, i.e. the next day. That would be murder; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the time of day the actual break-in occurred — rather, it's a matter of whether the thief is struck down during the commission of his crime (self-defense) or later on (vigilante murder).

And thus ends my minor quibble. On the whole, still a great article.

Stay safe.

On the So-Called "Caliber Wars"

It seems everyone has an opinion, so I thought I'd take a turn stepping into the minefield weighing in on this highly divisive topic.

(source: Gun Nuts Media)

Via Uncle, in turn via Roberta X, we have an article from Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media, "Let's Talk About Handgun Stopping Power". Caleb does a good job dissecting the issue and burning away the straw-man arguments that come up, both in the article and the following comments.

(Note: Before it comes up here, too, let me clarify one thing: For the purposes of discussion, we're talking about service calibers for pistols — 9mm, .357 SIG, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. No rimfire or magnum loads, and no rifle or shotgun rounds. I'm aware that plenty of bad guys have been put down by .22LR, .25 ACP, and .32 ACP, and that the 12-ga shot-shell is king of one-shot-stops, but let's stay on topic.)

What? No .357 SIG? No .38 Spl?
(source: Buckeye Firearms Assoc.)

I also found this article by Greg Ellifritz at the Buckeye Firearms Association site, "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power". Among other things, he points out that the vast majority of "one-shot-stops" are psychological; the wound isn't necessarily life-threatening, but the bad guy decides on his own initiative to cease his bad behavior. Being shot* tends to do that to most people, and if that's the case, even the lowly .22 will do the job. It's when the psychological aspect fails as a deterrent — when the bad guy is not inclined to cease after being shot or shot at — that the bigger calibers are useful for a physiological stop. It's worth a read, as well.

The bottom line: Assuming quality ammunition, a quality gun, and good shot placement, there's no appreciable difference between any of the "service calibers". So carry what you want. The "best" caliber is the one that you are comfortable with, that you practice and train with, and — most importantly — that you have with you when you need it. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but the best "carry caliber" is the one you shoot well and will actually, y'know, carry.

Is that a non-answer? Yes. Does that make it an entirely personal choice? Yes.

Will people still insist that the 9mm is the best because of higher-round magazine capacity and lower felt recoil, or that the .45 ACP is best because it leaves a bigger hole (and because John Moses Browning!), or that the .40 S&W is the best because the FBI uses it? Absolutely. (The FBI, by the way, is switching to 9mm.**) Gun enthusiasts become invested — financially and emotionally — in their preferences, and will continue to present their opinions as if they were absolute truth. They're free to do that. Liberty is funny that way. But most will admit that when the feces connects with the rotary air impeller, any gun beats no gun.

Stay safe.
------------
* - The threat of being shot tends to discourage most bad guys, as well. That the vast majority of defensive gun uses end with no shots fired is old news.
** - So, what's going to happen now to DHS' infamous order of 1.6 billion rounds of .40 S&W hollow points from a while back?

Guess What, #Ferguson Protesters? #PoliceLivesMatter, Too!

I'm going to address this, hopefully, for the last time here (but I'm not going to hold my breath). I know this is going to piss some people off, but all this hysteria about police officers' "racially-motivated" "murders" is getting out of hand.

So here goes nothing.

To the "#BlackLivesMatter" crowd: Yes, they do.

But you know who else's lives matter?

The police.

Police Lives Matter, too, guys.
(source: Twitter feed)

Yes, police lives matter, too. So much so that they also have a hashtag — a couple, actually: #PoliceLivesMatter and #CopsLivesMatter — that I imagine will soon be trending as well.

Police lives matter, because it's the police who patrol those crime-ridden neighborhoods and do everything in their power to remove the criminal class and keep law-abiding folks safe. On the extremely rare occasion they're forced to use their weapons to stop crime or defend themselves or others, they get crucified in the media.

Talk about a thankless job.

So black lives matter, and so do police lives. But black lives just might matter TO police more than you may think.

Interest piqued? Read on below the break....

I Am The Second Amendment

Brigid, proprietress of the Home On The Range blog, is a rare gem in the gravel pit of the intrawez. She writes an eclectic daily blog tinted with firearms, family, friends, dogs, philosophy, history, food, scotch, beer, aircraft, flying, military, fellowship, duty, and bacon.

It may seem to be a bit of dog's breakfast, but she writes about all these subjects with an unmatched, effortless brilliance. Words and thoughts flow together as if someone else was playing Tetras. It's said that she writes in Technicolor, but that's probably too bland a description. I think she writes with a Kodachrome pen dipped in bacon grease.

Brigid has the rare ability to bring focus and clarity to a subject; like a sudden, deft adjustment of a telescope. The latest example is her piece I am the Second Amendment. Stop reading this drivel; go there - Now!

Highly recommended. 
 
Pix from the Home on the Range blog




 

Seen Elsewhere in the Gun Blogosphere...

Or, as The Tam says, "because I hate wasting good material at an away game."

Herschel over at The Captain's Journal offered up some discussion, "Will Democrats Control the Legislative Agenda on Guns?"

Naturally, this drew a ... dissenting opinion, this time in the spectre of commentator "Kaiser Derden":

seriously ? they think the lame duck Senate can pass gun control ? so far the GOP House has stopped everything ... quit crying wolf ... this is just a fundraising stunt ...

... to which people responded appropriately (actually rather kindly and patiently, in my opinion).

I had this to say in reply:

As has been implied, the GOP - while in power - doesn't have to push "gun control" for us to get "gun control". Or "immigration reform", or single-payer healthcare, or any other "Progressive" policy change.

They just have to not actively oppose it.

Don't underestimate how painfully easy it is to convince a lazy or spineless individual to do nothing.

Emphasis added on that last line; it's the important one.

So the Senate has changed hands and will be controlled by the GOP? Big deal. That will mean absolutely nothing if the Democrats can convince a just few RINOs to cross the aisle and most of the rest to simply not vote against The Agenda.

Also, click over to David Codrea's piece about the upcoming "continuing resolution" vote that inspired Herschel's post. It's a stark display on how a little "go along to get along" can produce massive setbacks and unintended (or intended?) consequences.

The GOP, starting in January, will control both chambers of Congress. Let me be clear(er than the President, who misuses/abuses the phrase): It's not over, and this is not the time to grow complacent. We won big, no doubt, but we have to keep the GOP lawmakers' feet to the fire, or all that we have gained will be just as quickly lost. The GOP Congress must cede no ground — not on gun rights, not on "immigration reform", not on healthcare, not on the budget, not on anything the Executive Branch doesn't have the explicit Constitutional power to control. Keep the pressure on.

And please, stay safe.

"The Gun Wire" is Back!

Good news, everyone! (Yes, I shamelessly ripped that off from "Futurama".)

Via Dave Workman, I'm pleased to report that as of this morning, "The Gun Wire" is back after a six-week hiatus.

(image links to source)

As Mr. Workman notes, The Gun Wire is "the equivalent of the Drudge Report for gun-related stories". Founder Todd Bergin posts dozens — sometimes hundreds — of links and videos every day, updated as they happen.

Stay safe. Stay informed. Enjoy!

Quote of the Day — Lyle (October 30, 2014)

Derived from his comment to Joe's Quote of the Day post:

To say that restrictions or encumbrances on gun ownership have “no effect” on crime is to defend those restrictions and encumbrances. … It is somewhat like saying that slavery has no effect on the general welfare of the slaves, being that good slave masters see to it that their (rather expensive) slaves are housed, fed, trained, cared for, and so on.

[…]

When Progressives claim “no effect” on crime, what they should be saying is that their gun restrictions failed to reduce crime rates. Failing to reduce is very different from having “no effect”, and it’s a way of letting them off the hook for their role in encouraging violent crime through their wholesale violation of a human right.

To add: "no effect" implies a "no-harm-no-foul" on violations of fundamental civil rights. That's not how this works. If you're going to restrict the free exercise of an enumerated right - especially via a prior restraint - there must be some definitive, measurable, and overwhelming benefit to doing so.

"No effect" fails to meet that burden. The somewhat more honest* "fails to reduce violent crime" fails even harder, and the strong possibility that "gun control" laws actually increase crime undermines it completely.

When we let the anti-rights people claim "no effect" without qualification, we're letting them claim that a given law has no effect on either violent crime rates OR gun ownership. That might be true for the former**, but is absolutely not true for the latter. And yet, they will shriek like banshees if you try to repeal a law that restricts a fundamental right by creating an entire class of victimless crimes (and "criminals"), but at best provides zero net public safety benefits.

The question we need to be asking — and demanding a response to — is, "Why?" But we already know the answer.
------------
* - But who really expects statists and collectivists to be honest, anyway?
** - Again, the numbers show a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, meaning "no effect on crime" is statistically the BEST result the antis can hope for.

VIDEO: The Hickenlooper Blues

Presented without (much) comment beyond this: Any Colorado readers we might have, there's only one week left! Post it, share it, spread the word! Vote the bum out!

(via the Examiner.com article, ‘Armed American Radio’ premieres ‘Hickenlooper Blues’, by David Codrea)

"Graphics Matter" — Five Years and Counting

Linoge, who runs the excellent Walls of the City blog, just posted up the latest in his annual "Graphics Matter" series:

• graphics matter, year the fifth (part one, comparing U.S. population, firearms ownership, and firearm-related homicide [a.k.a. "gun deaths"])
• graphics matter, year the fifth, part two (comparing U.S. population, firearms ownership, and firearm-related crime [a.k.a. "gun crime"])

To anyone who's kept track of these things, his conclusions are no surprise. However, unlike the anti-rights crowd, Linoge publishes his numbers and sources, and welcomes people to go over them checking for errors.

Spoiler alert (highlight the text between the brackets to read): [The negative correlation between U.S. gun ownership and "gun death"/"gun crime" is even stronger than in previous "graphics matter" posts, once again utterly disproving the "more guns == more 'gun deaths'" and "more guns == more 'gun crime'" hypotheses.]

Now, personally, I don't buy the statistical arguments against gun ownership to begin with. Rights are rights, and are therefore not subject to popular opinion or statistical references. If they were, they would be privileges, to be revoked at any time if the popular opinion (fickle and arbitrary thing that it is) goes against them — and good luck getting them back once gone.

That said, Linoge once again shows (using delightfully-colored and easily-readable charts and graphs) that the anti-rights folks don't even have the statistical analyses on their side. The science is becoming increasingly settled, and not in their favor.

Previous installments of the "Graphics Matter" series can be found here.

Newest from Alan Gura: The Second Amendment as a Normal Right

Alan Gura
(source: Wikipedia)

It's been said before, and I'll say it again: Alan Gura is the MAN! His latest analysis has been published in the Harvard Law Review: The Second Amendment as a Normal Right.

(Almost) needless to say, it's worth reading the whole thing. It's not terribly long but contains vital — yet easily overlooked — points.

Now, I'd heard that the Second, Third, and Fourth circuits upheld "good cause" requirements (under whatever name they give them) for carry licenses, while the Seventh and Ninth circuits struck them down*, but it's interesting to see an analysis of exactly how and why those conclusions happened.

I for one don't like having to rely on the courts. I believe Mr. Gura himself concedes that taking a case to court is a crap shoot, and a 5-4 split is a MUCH closer margin than I'm comfortable with. The Ninth circuit's approach - assuming the right exists and questioning whether the legislation should, rather than acknowledging the legislation exists and therefore questioning whether the right does - should not be a novel approach to Second Amendment jurisprudence. It should have been a given, a default. It should have been how these cases were always decided. Still, it's good to see at least one circuit taking it seriously.

Another thing that's been said before: The courts don't treat any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights the way they treat the Second. If they allowed a fraction as many "reasonable restrictions" on the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, the country — liberals included — would be outraged.

(Hat tip to Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned)

------------
* - Strictly speaking, the Ninth's decision specifically says it's not striking the requirement, only the practice that says self-defense does not constitute "good cause". But as Mr. Gura writes, it's hard to imagine how the effect would be different.

Because This Came Up Elsewhere

And like Tam says, there's no sense throwing away good material at an away game. Besides, this is important.

So Miguel posted up this article, and a good discussion was had in the comments...

...which led me to seek out and find this article from January at the Volokh Conspiracy.

It's worth looking at because it gives a unique glimpse into the Leftist/"Progressive"/Collectivist mind. As it happens, conservatives and libertarians (both big 'L' and small 'l' varieties) -- hereafter referred to as "The Right" -- really do resolve moral dilemmas differently from Leftists. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt identified five (or six) "vectors of morality" people use to decide the "correct" position, and noted that while the Right tends to weigh all five (or six) more-or-less equally, the Left places value in only two, essentially ignoring the rest.

Perhaps most interestingly (and perhaps as a direct result), while the Left is unable to accurately determine or predict what the Right thinks and does, the Right has no trouble at all figuring out the Left's positions.

Where the Left can seem to justify anything based on their values, the Right can only "universally" justify a few things and seems confused or conflicted on others. According to Haidt, this happens when the five (or six) factors conflict. The Left, using only two factors -- the most highly subjective two at that, in my opinion -- rarely experiences this dilemma. On the other hand, where all the values align and agree, the Right has a much stronger moral position and a "thicker", more layered justification for holding that position.

I believe this is also why the Left relies so heavily on straw-man arguments, projection, and other logical fallacies; they really don't understand the conservative mind or value system, so they have to fill in the gaps somehow. Their conclusions are technically logically sound, but their initial assumptions are way off-base. Garbage in, garbage out, as it were.

The take-away is this: We really can't reason with the Left on issues of right/wrong; their moral compasses are calibrated to a different value of North.

Just thought I would share. Enjoy!

A Price of Freedom - The 2nd Amendment's Defining Moment

Several days ago we celebrated a ruling that struck down the majority of California’s 10 Day Waiting Period law as un-Constitutional.  SAF Wins on Waiting Periods In California!

At the same time, the petulant boys and girls of the California Loonieslature were churning out a host of very bad anti-gun bills.  2014 California Gun Bills

One step forward -- Four steps back.

Cali Pols Hard at Work (iaconoresearch)

It's relatively easy to pass legislation, especially in California’s overwhelmingly one-party, looney left legislature. It's what those busy little biebers do to avoid honest work. Paid for by the much-abused taxpayer, the avalanche of new laws each year makes living and working in the Grate State of California a head-swimming experience. Especially, if you are one of the elite’s despised minorities: a businessman, smoker, or gun owner. 

SCOTUS (Bokertov)

Fighting bad laws in Court is an expensive, one-at-a-time, years-long process. Often the California fight must go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with the progressive leanings of the local courts and the lovingly defamed Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. That torturous path can take decades. At times, it seems that the tide of anti-gun legislation is an all but an unstoppable flood. 

However, there’s hope, according to a Forbes article: The Second Amendment's Defining Moment. In a very gun rights favorable piece, Frank Miniter points out the Heller and McDonald decisions are starting to be incorporated in the host of lawsuit brought after the SCOTUS decisions. The aforementioned 10 Day Waiting Period case being a prime example of the changes Heller is making. Even where the RKBA loses, as in the Maryland Assault Weapons case, the decision was made by deliberately refuting the Supreme Court decisions. It should be pointed out to the district court judge that You. Can’t. Do. That. As such, the decision will likely be overturned by a higher court. 

These court victories have not come by happenstance. They are the product of far-seeing visionaries, decades long commitments and significant amounts of long-term funding. Heller/ McDonald were a long time coming, starting with legal research and legal journal publications supporting the Second Amendment. Then came the metric sh!tload of lawyers filing carefully chosen and coordinated lawsuits. It took money - a lot of money - much of it coming from the people, through organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA. As the post Heller/ McDonald suits are pressed through the legal system, with each win, an  all-important precedence is established. Perhaps, just perhaps, choking off the flood of anti-gun laws at the source.

Takeaways:

• Elections matter. The President appoints the Federal judges and the Senate confirms them. Hold your nose if you must, but vote Republican for Senate if you want to limit the number of progressive, anti-Constitutional judges confirmed. But, by all means VOTE!
  
  
• Donate to the organizations that are suing and winning for us. Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation has proven to be a Past Master at the three-dimensional chess that is gradually pulling down the anti-gun edifice. Other, ill-considered suits, with the wrong plaintiff at the wrong time, have hurt our cause.

I’m donating to the proven winners: SAF, CalGuns, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the NRA-ILA

 

            FightON!!!