Mike Vanderboegh recently relinquished support for Rand Paul because of Paul’s stance on immigration.  Rand Paul is basically an open borders advocate.  Mike also calls himself a Christian libertarian.

I wouldn’t propose to speak for Mike, and he wouldn’t want me to even if I could.  Mike can speak for himself.  But I also consider myself both an opponent of open borders and a Christian libertarian.  How then can I take the positions that I do and be consistent?

I have long opposed Rand Paul because of his stance on the border and immigration, and the only Senator I find to be clearheaded on this issue (thus far) is Ted Cruz (and to some extent Mike Lee (to some extent because I need to know more about him).  To the extent that Ted Cruz repudiates my ideas in the future, I will oppose him.  But his views on immigration are far stronger than Paul’s views.  It’s one reason why John McCain and Lindsey Graham hate him so much.

But before we deal with immigration, let’s deal with broader doctrines like libertarianism and what I do and don’t believe.  Let’s deal with the issue of legalization of drugs and one example.  While as a Christian I should say that I care about my readers concerning their spiritual and physical health, from a legal standpoint I don’t care one whit what you put into your body.  That’s from a theoretical standpoint.

Now for the practical side of things.  If you want to legalize drugs of all kinds, then be my guest, right after you turn around socialized medicine and forswear forever my fiduciary responsibility for support for any drug addict or funding of their medical care.  While my hard earned money is confiscated by the power of a badge and gun to support people who will not support themselves, then those people (the recipients of my money) should expect me to be involved in their lives.  My involvement will be as obnoxious and overbearing as I can possibly make it – right up until you no longer want my involvement, and then at that point I will assume you no longer want my money either.  I’m good on both accounts.  Leave me alone and I will leave you alone to do what you want.

This relates to immigration and migrant workers in the following way.  Migrant workers who “do jobs that no one else will do” are a cost to me and other ratepayers and taxpayers that the employer won’t pick up.  When these workers get sick they go to the emergency room, and my insurance premiums pick up the tab.  When these workers have automobile accidents without insurance, my premiums pick up the tab.  And when these workers refuse to pay taxes, I have to pay more.

You see, the existence of migrant workers is a subsidy to corporations, a form of corporate welfare that I pay.  I don’t want to pay welfare to corporations any more than I do to individuals who won’t work.  True libertarians don’t advocate for open borders and then ask me to pick up the tab for the workers.  That’s fake libertarianism, and it proves that the one who advocates it is a farce and hypocrite.   If you want to go libertarian, then go libertarian.  Don’t go half way.  Otherwise you’re just a liar.

There is a larger issue for the border.  I have advocated for Marines being deployed on the Southern border with arming orders and robust rules of engagement.  I see no contradiction here either, just as I advocated robust rules of engagement for Soldiers and Marines in combat in the various campaigns in which we find ourselves.  Leaving aside what one thinks about the campaigns, to deploy men in harm’s way for the purpose of nation building is immoral.  Iraq and Afghanistan were campaigns fought by the social planners (Afghanistan more so than Iraq).

But as long as there are thousands of transportation routes across the Southern border and as long as we are seen as one gigantic trans-American economy, there will be no border security regardless of what we do on the other parts of the border.  No party appears to want the close the borders.  Not the Democrats (it means votes to them), not the GOP (they are in bed with the corporate executives), and no even the so-called libertarians.

Marco Rubio, the erstwhile savior of the GOP, has weighed in on immigration.

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

And thus Rubio is advocating adding millions of new socialists to the voting rolls.  As I have explained before:

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Neocons like Krauthammer are liars.  The Mexican immigrant doesn’t naturally vote conservative.  He naturally votes collectivist.  So don’t expect me to advocate adding more collectivists to the voting rolls.  It runs contrary to my world view.

And it runs counter to Christian libertarianism.  That phrase accurately describes me, but not completely.  I am a consistent Christian libertarian.  That means that neither Ron Paul nor his son Rand Paul cannot trot out the rubric libertarian and expect me to fawn over them just because they want to return to the gold standard (and I do too), or do away with certain government programs and departments (I do too).  Flooding the country with more collectivists won’t do their own cause any good, but they’re too stolid to admit it.

As for Rubio, he is a progressive and collectivist, and his career is over except for the extent to which he allies himself with his natural friends, i.e., other collectivists.  As for me, I take my advocacy seriously.  Don’t expect giggles and grins from me because you simply say a few nice words.  I won’t whore my advocacy out to the lowest bidder.

So you lie to the people, rulers one and all.  Let the foreign nationals and socialists cross the border with impunity.  But as long as they transport their damn gangs across the border, I’ll keep my guns.

ABC News, Denver:

GREELEY, Colo. – Weld County commissioners have voted to unanimously to approve an ordinance restricting the creation of local gun control measures.

The County Commissioners object to gun control measures passed during the most recent legislative session and signed into law by the Governor. Among other things, the new laws limit the amount of ammunition in magazines, adds a background check requirement for private sales, creates a fee for background checks and requires concealed carry permit classes be taken in person.

Although the county commissioners can’t override state law, all five commissioners voted to approve an ordinance that prevents the county from further restricting gun rights. The protections in Weld County Code Ordinance 2013-4 establish tit for tat protections directly opposed to the new state laws.

“What we did today was take the strongest action legally according to our county attorney that we could take,” said Commissioner Sean Conway. “I think it’s a start. I think it tells our citizens that this board is very concerned with the action that was undertaken by the legislature and was signed into law.”

The article is a little short on details, but it would be nice if they would disavow any lawsuit and focus not on what they can’t do, but what they can do.  They can dispatch the local sheriff to prohibit enforcement of the new state law and let the chips fall where they may.

From Buffalo, New York:

Another raid on the wrong residence; another dead dog. This time, Iraq War veteran Adam Arroyo says he came home on Monday to find his door busted down, and his beloved pup dead from bullet wounds. The Buffalo, NY police did not seem too concerned with cleaning up blood or anything like that, but nonetheless left behind a note of sorts: a search warrant for the apartment next door.

“They busted the door down, with a battering ram or whatever,” he told the Buffalo News. “They came in, and within a few seconds of entering the apartment, they murdered my dog. They shot her multiple times. They had no reason to do that.” Arroyo says his dog, a two-and-a-half-year-old pit bull named Cindy, was killed while chained up in the kitchen, which he discovered ridden with bullet holes.

As WKBW points out, the police made a serious error:

The suspect named in the warrant was described as a black male and was wanted on suspicion of dealing crack.

Arroyo is Hispanic and lives at 304 Breckenridge, upper-rear apartment, which has a completely separate entrance and is clearly marked on his mail box.

Let’s ignore the fact for a minute that this was another wrong address SWAT raid.  There was no point to it.  If the police had any smarts whatsoever, they would have peacefully stopped him on the street, while uniformed officers executed a search warrant on his home after getting a locksmith to open the door, keeping the physical plant and hardware intact.

But that’s not sexy and it isn’t statist and totalitarian.  And it doesn’t allow the police to play soldier boy.  There is moral element to these types of raids.  As I’ve said before:

Law enforcement officers have no moral or legal right to trespass on my property and threaten me, or especially unholster their weapons and point them at me.  And LEOs have no moral or legal right to shoot at me, my family members or my beasts.  I consider every home invader to be a criminal, since impersonating the police is a common tactic among crime gangs now.  Any such invasion of my home or property will be deadly, for the invaders, me, or both.

Soldier boy will stop invading homes and killing beasts and human victims when the price is too high.  Thus far it is still too easy on Soldier boy.

My last article on ammunition availability erupted in a flurry of controversial comments, and I’m not trying to repeat that here, but I’m glad to report that my local gun shop is now selling 5.56 mm ammunition (PMC) for nearly 50 cents per round, approximately what it was going for prior to the run on ammunition.  I can also find handgun ammunition (of any caliber) for the same prices I could before the run.  So this article confuses me a little.  But I wanted to call out one quote in particular.

Federal Premium Ammunition, a large manufacturer in Minnesota, said Homeland Security’s contract makes up a very small percentage of its total output and any talk about the federal government restricting availability is “false” and “baseless.”

“This contract is not taking ammunition away from civilians,” states a message on its website. “The current increase in demand is attributed to the civilian market.”

This denial is just wrong.  It may in fact be correct to say that the federal orders have had little effect on the market (a denial I also question because I think the effect is more than trivial), but to say that federal sales are “not taking away from civilians” is the baseless claim here.

Any assembly line tooled for making ammunition for federal agencies could be one that is tooled for making ammunition for civilians.  It’s simple.  If they weren’t selling to the federal government, they would have more to sell to us.

According to one doctor, this becomes something more than you and your children.  Listen carefully.

In the middle of a routine well-child visit, my 4-year-old patient started creating a ruckus in the exam room. Johnny systematically opened all the cabinets, pulled out any loose bits of paper he could find, and tore them up. He then got on the exam table, picked up my expensive ophthalmoscope, and almost took a dive to the floor before his dad stopped him.

Knowing that unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among children, I used this opportunity to educate Johnny’s parents about safety at home.

Do you have your medicine cabinet locked? Are detergent bottles kept in the top shelf? Do you have working fire alarms? Do you have guns in your home?

While a routine part of well-child checkups, that last question has come under scrutiny lately. Why do I ask?

The data are clear: Gun violence is a public-health threat to children.

Now, it occurs to me that gun owners must consider what they might say when asked by their doctor about guns.  I could say something like the following.

“Well doctor, I’ll answer your questions about guns, but first you must give me verbal and written agreement that you’ll also respond to my questionnaire, and that I can publish the data (if you refuse to answer any specific question the answer reverts to the default answer in the data bank).  I have a web site with a page rank of 5, and after I publish your name and the Q&A session, I’ll own the Google search results on your name within 20 minutes of the page being indexed.  Yes I own guns.  Now for your questions.  First, do you still sexually abuse your wife?”

But I don’t have to do that.  I am good friends with my doctor, and I would respond (I’ll assume that his name is Michael), “Why yes, Michael, you know that I do.  You’ve been shooting with me before.  Why would you ask me?  How much pressure is the new Obamacare paperwork putting on you, and how late do you stay up doing it?  Is there something you need to tell me?  Why are you being forgetful like this?”

But take note of the reasons for the doctor’s questions.  Guns are a “public health concern.”  Doctors have been trained to treat “social ills” for the collective.  This mentality is alive and well among the totalitarians in the most recent attempt to encroach on firearms and related information.

Experts laid out a broad plan for firearms research on Wednesday, saying data is needed on who owns guns, where they keep them, how likely a gun is to be used to hurt someone else, whether having a gun keeps you safer, and whether there are ways to make guns any safer.

“There is no question that this is a public health issue,” says Dr. Alan Leshner, who chaired the Institute of Medicine panel that issued the report. “We have no political agenda.”

[ … ]

“Basic information about gun possession, acquisition, and storage is lacking. No single database captures the total number, locations, and types of firearms and firearm owners in the United States,” the report notes.

This work was commissioned by the totalitarian in chief, Mr. Obama himself.  And of course they’re “experts.”  And of course they want more information.  And of course they want to know everything about all people who own firearms.  And of course they intend to push so-called smart guns.

And if Mr. Obama cannot get the Senate to pass his gun legislation, maybe he can convince everyone that guns are a public health concern worthy of engagement by physicians who need to know everything about you and your guns.  This is the argument du jour.

It’s just totalitarianism masquerading as public health, and there is no doubt that state universities all over America teach it to doctors and in MPH courses.  There is nothing new under the sun.

David Codrea notes on his web site a passing thought that isn’t given in his Examiner article.  For the ATF, “a day of judgment is coming.”  At Examiner:

The case of Jay Anthony Dobyns v. The United States is scheduled to begin Monday by the United States Court of Federal Claims, an entry yesterday on the ATF agent’s blog announced. “The trial will start in Arizona and end in Washington, D.C. in early August,” Dobyns wrote.

[ … ]

“ATF has breached its settlement contract terms … and has continually failed to approach minimal standards of law enforcement safety practices by failing to properly assess, respond to, investigate, process or document any of these threats and occurrences,” the Synopsis of Facts in Dobyn’s complaint states.

Dobyns was a whistle blower, and you can read the rest of the story at Examiner (which keeps me from having to recapitulate it here).  Now, take a slight detour to WRSA, where their reaction to Senator Lautenberg’s death was exactly the same as mine: “Good Riddance.”

Totalitarians will answer for their totalitarianism in eternity if they don’t answer in the here and now.  You can count on it.  But totalitarianism is way down the list of things for which the ATF will be held accountable one awful day.  This leads me to my main point about the ATF and Dobyns.  All of those who work for the ATF and who superintended this ugliness are in great peril.  Take careful note what a testimony it is to one’s character to make an agreement and then break it.

There can never be a time or situation when truth is not the morally right thing to declare. Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology says, “A man who violates truth sins against the very foundation of his moral being. … Truth is at all times sacred, because it is one of the essential attributes of God. Truth is … the very substratum of Deity.” (Vol. III, chapter XIX, section 13)

Lying is a characteristic of Satan and his kingdom. This is openly declared by our Lord when in John 8:44 he said of the Devil, “… he is a liar, and the father of lies.”

I might take some issue with the expansiveness of this edict, witness Rahab’s lie and the fact that the enemy didn’t deserve the truth.  But let the weightiness sink in.  The ATF had contractual terms with Dobyn’s and violated those terms.  Shame.  Eternal shame.

David is right.  There will be judgment on the ATF – now or in eternity, or both.

Paul Markel writes a fawning piece at AmmoLand on the AR-15 being the king of home defense.

What is the most effective tool to engage and defeat these vermin as rapidly as possible? Handguns are carried for convenience, not power. No handgun, regardless of caliber or configuration, can produce the same effect as a centerfire rifle.

This is not opinion, this is physics. Crunch the numbers and even the mighty .44 Magnum pales in comparison to the 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. Many years ago an instructor friend of mine offered that “a handgun is simply a rifle waiting to grow up”.

Also, it cannot be denied that a long gun (rifle or shotgun) as a tool is much easier to aim and index on a target than a handgun. Again, this is simply physics. A rifle has four points of contact with the body and a long sight radius. By comparison, a handgun has only two points of contact, the left and right hand, and a short sight radius. Rifles are infinitely more forgiving of slight errors in sight alignment and body movement than are handguns.

As a practical matter, during the panic and adrenaline dump of a life threatening attack, the rifle will be inherently easier to index on target and as an added benefit transition to additional targets more quickly than will any pistol, regardless of make, model, or caliber. While you might desire to argue this point, your energy might be better served elsewhere.

Here is a quick number crunch for the doubting Thomases in the audience. The following numbers come directly from Hornady. The Hornady .44 Magnum 180grain FTX load generates 610 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. By comparison, the 5.56mm 75g. BTHP generates 1410 FPE and the 6.8mmSPCII cartridge with a 110g. BTHP bullet produced 1588 FPE.

To be sure, I like the AR-15 for home defense, and I’ve written so before.  But it’s more complicated than Paul makes it out to be.  I recommend (as I have before) that you send your wife and children to the movies one night, turn the lights out, and practice turning corners and developing your sight picture in rooms with a rifle and tactical light.  I have.

I also carry my weapon from room to room with me at night.  One of my handguns isn’t sitting too far from me as I write.  So I recommend that in order to get the full effect of using a rifle exclusively for home defense, you tote your AR-15 from room to room with you at night.

You see, there are legitimate reasons for handguns, portability being one, maneuverability being another.  No one argues that a rifle will deliver more punch due entirely to muzzle velocity.  But don’t tell me that a .45 caliber 230 grain fat boy won’t deliver enough punch to handle most situations.  And don’t tell that to John Basilone.  Toward the dawn of the battle, Basilone fought Japanese soldiers using only a .45 pistol.

ABC News:

Connecticut lawmakers who passed strict new gun control measures in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre approved a package of revisions Monday to reduce confusion about the new rules and expand the list of officials who can legally possess restricted firearms.

Both chambers of the state legislature voted to adopt changes and exemptions to the bipartisan deal that strengthened the state’s assault weapons ban and banned the sale of high-capacity magazines.

The legislation emerged from a bipartisan working group that sought to refine the original gun control bill, which proponents hailed as one of the most far-reaching in the nation, in response to ambiguity that came to light in part through feedback from constituents and gun owners. A spokesman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said he supports the changes.

The new bill allows individuals to possess and register assault weapons they purchased or placed on consignment prior to or on April 4, the day the gun control law was passed, but did not receive until after that date.

The bill also clarifies the status of .22-caliber rimfire rifles, defining them as assault weapons when fitted with a detachable magazine and more than one of several features including a folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. With passage of Monday’s revisions, the firearm so constructed will no longer be available for sale in Connecticut, but consumers who purchased it since April 4 will be allowed to register and keep it.

The revisions expand the list of inspectors and enforcement officers who can legally possess and purchase the banned firearms to include sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles, the chief state’s attorney office, the department of energy and environmental protection and some constables with police certification. It exempts such officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership, and allows them to maintain possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

Like the State Department of Energy or EPA needs weapons!  So it looks like this bill expands the list of state employees and former state employees who can own banned weapons, and then puts .22LR rifles in the same category if they have scary features.

Hey.  It’s Connecticut.  What do you expect?  I hope the state of Connecticut fails as badly as I hope that the state of Colorado fails.  Utterly and completely.  There is no better or surer teacher than consequences.

Denver Post:

In time, President Barack Obama and Gov. John Hickenlooper may be considered the greatest gun salesmen since Remington and Winchester. And, in turn, they could be viewed as colossal contributors to federal and state habitat and wildlife programs.

According to a Congressional Research Service report published this spring by natural resource and economic policy specialists M. Lynne Corn and Jane G. Gravelle, fears spurred from “recent debate over guns, gun rights and gun-related violence” have generated a spike in sales of guns and ammunition. As a result, the federal excise tax known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, which funds state projects to benefit wildlife resources and hunter education, reached a record $555.3 million in fiscal year 2012, an increase of 43 percent over the $388 million generated the year before.

“With reports of surges in gun sales due to current controversies over guns rights and gun-related violence, substantially more funds seem likely to be available in FY2014,” the report states.

Funny enough, the previous single-year record for the excise tax placed on guns, ammunition and archery equipment was $474 million in 2009-10, which was credited primarily to Obama’s first election.

There is a poetic justice, from the wildlife management perspective, in record funds appropriated to our state in the face of a threatened boycott of hunting in Colorado this fall in protest of gun control laws recently signed by the governor. Even after accounting for a 5 percent federal cut because of sequestration, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s slice of the Pittman-Robertson pie will bump up from $9.3 million in 2012 to $13.1 million in 2013.

Although any impact of a boycott isn’t likely to be known before next year, the current gush in gun and ammunition sales offers promising compensation for any loss of income from licenses. It is important to recognize, though, that Pittman-Robertson funds must be used specifically for projects benefiting wildlife resources and hunter education programs.

This is a fascinating analysis on multiple levels.  To the author, it’s “poetic justice” that Colorado would benefit from the gun laws and boycott.  But only someone who thinks this way would even consider equating justice and economic benefit with revenues to the government for hunter education programs and one department’s slice of the pie versus other departments.

To be sure, there are many small businesses who will suffer in the wake of the boycott, which is more far reaching that the author admits or perhaps even knows.  Additionally, people are purchasing guns for reasons that the author would find troublesome rather than for hunting.

But time and change will serve to educate both the author of this analysis and the authors of the new gun laws.  I am double minded concerning the courtroom challenges to the Colorado gun laws.  On the one hand I want them to succeed, and on the other hand I want Colorado to fail in the wake movement towards totalitarianism.  I am not saying that I want Colorado gun laws to fail – I am saying that I want Colorado to fail.  There is no better or surer teacher than consequences.

Reason.com:

President Barack Obama has vowed to keep pushing for new gun control measures and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the failed gun vote in the Senate was “just the beginning.” However, the latest Reason-Rupe national poll finds just 33 percent of Americans feel the “Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again,” while 62 percent want the Senate to “move on to other issues.”

This data is surprising given earlier polls finding what appeared to be overwhelming support for expanding background check for firearm purchases. For instance, Gallup found that 83 percent of Americans favored a law requiring background checks for all gun purchases.

But the data isn’t surprising to me.  I told you so.  Phrased the right way and posed at the right time, a pollster could get 80%-90% of Americans to agree that the moon is made of green cheese.  That’s why the polls are meaningless.