David Codrea:

Noting he is prohibited from commenting on grand jury proceedings, perhaps the DA’s mindset can be gleaned from a statement that is on public record. Berberian had previously maintained the shooting was inappropriate and illegal due to what he called “community standards.” In Marin County, those standards place a political “stigma” on gun ownership, and Berberian’s personal hostility to gun ownership, where he goes so far as to invite citizens to “surrender” their firearms to a “buyback” program, is seen by some as an “unhealthy obsession.”

Community standards?  Perhaps we need a community standard that takes corrupt DAs out behind the jail to find a lamp post and some rope.

David is following up that awful commercial made by the anti-gun nuts. “The producer of an anti-gun “public service announcement” video appears to have violated California law regarding either real or imitation firearms on school premises, a Freedom of Information Act response by the North Oakland Community Charter School implies by default. Documents provided to Gun Rights Examiner in response to a Public Records Act request partially corroborate the school executive director’s earlier claim that “NOCCS does not allow, condone, or support bringing weapons of any kind (real or replicas) to school.”

David is pointing people to a debate appended to one of his articles, where Bruce Krafft argues as follows:

And after some argument, he says “You believe that immigration will be a net drain despite the fact that some 50% of new businesses are started by 1st generation immigrants.”

Let’s be clear here.  I can answer David’s first question with clarity and intentionally include not just some sort of vague, murky “natural” right (I am not a follower of John Locke and his ilk).  I believe that the God of the Bible has granted every man the right to defend his family the way he sees fit.  Now to Mr. Krafft’s problem.

He is a simpleton.  All of that has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether the U.S. recognizes aliens, gives them sustenance, recognizes rights, or anything else.  Just as I can point to God having granted the right to self defense and amelioration of tyranny to all men everywhere, I can also point to a sovereign state’s resposibility to secure its borders, protect its heritage, and secure its freedom from tyranny.

Allowing voters in who would undermine that runs directly contrary to a state’s God given duties.  What another state recognizes (or not) for its citizens isn’t our concern.  That is between God and those evil rulers.  Just as we cannot be the police of the world, we also cannot ensure every man’s rights are observed by allowing our borders to be violated.  Setting one concept over against another (in a Morton’s Fork) is fodder for college freshmen.  We aren’t college freshmen, we think more clearly than that.  As for the notion that “immigrants start this,” or “immigrants did that,” or “we are all immigrants of some sort,” I am completely unmoved.  This is a play on emotions because Mr. Krafft knows he has lost the argument.  I don’t vote or advocate based on emotions.  Go emote with someone who cares, Mr. Krafft.  David titles his post at WoG “A Libertarian Paradox.”  Philosopher Gordon H. Clark once said of paradoxes, they are a “charlie horse in the head.”  So this too.  There is no logical problem here, just a lack of clear thought.

In an exchange I knew nothing about until today (I have been out of pocket for a while), Mike Vanderboegh is contemplating potential arrest at the WA state house as part of “I will not comply” protests.  David weighs in with Mike asking him to reconsider, and for a rundown of his own reason you will have to read David’s letter to Mike.

I have nothing at all to add to either Mike’s reasons or David’s counterarguments.  This is entirely a personal decision, neither dictated nor forbidden by Biblical precepts.  Perhaps there is wisdom to be gleaned, but that’s not the same thing as rules, sin, righteousness and the like.  I have not been a part of things like this because I have a job, and that job quite literally required me over the past several weeks to work about 20 straight days without time off.  Moreover, my job requires that I stay free from felony arrests, and even lesser charges could be problematic.

That said, I do get that there must be a line in the sand.  Every man must make those decisions for himself.  I cannot suffer the notion that the federal government has a list of every firearm owned and who owns them.  What I would do about that is none of your business until I tell you and make it your business.  The one thing on which I disagree with David is this: “And no, I don’t see a way to back out of this without losing face.”

Oh, I don’t know about that.  Haters will always hate.  Anonymous commenters annoy me, and like David I require that men go on record, at least with me if not others.  But posting an anonymous comment ridiculing Mike’s decision, one way or another, impresses me as sound and fury signifying nothing.  It’s like the little yap-yap dogs who run up to my 82 pound red and rust Dobbi, Heidi, making all sorts of unappealing noises, until she looks their way, and then they turn tail and run.  I think Heidi must be amused.  I know I am.

That’s what I recommend for Mike.  Amusement is appropriate in some circumstances.  But if you want to go to WA, do it.  If you don’t, then don’t.  Here is how you tell folks your decision.  You simply tell them.  That’s the end of it.  I don’t embarrass easily (engineers usually suffer from over-confidence and an almost pathological inability to care about the views of others – so I acknowledge there’s a problem with us, but I’m confident that problem doesn’t apply to me).  So maybe I’m a bad one to offer counsel.  But I just don’t see the issue with “saving face.”  It doesn’t have even the slightest traction with me.

WeaponsMan has a demurral for the M-14 / M1A lovers.  Well, I suspect that this will draw out as many violent remarks as haters of the 5.56 mm round and M-16/M-4/AR-15 platform.