CNN:

Bold move for a politician? Perhaps.

But the decision reflects Cruz’s deepening alliance with the powerful gun lobby and his effort to cast himself as an unapologetic warrior for the Second Amendment.

A CNN review of speeches, interviews and court filings shows that Cruz has spent years forging ties with defenders of the Second Amendment — including a group to the right of the NRA. Some of those he’s allied himself with disdain all gun control, including gun-free zones at schools and other government buildings. Cruz has embraced those relationships as an aspect of his candidacy that sets himself apart from his rivals.

[ … ]

Throughout the primary process, Cruz has touted his endorsement by the Gun Owners of America, a gun-rights group that boasts a “no compromise” stance on gun control.

In an election season that has defied all odds, the gun-rights debate has not followed a predictable path in the primaries. And while Cruz has worked to establish his Second Amendment bona fides, some establishment figures in the Republican Party see this alliance as one of the most serious problems he would face in broadening his appeal if he reaches the general election.

“This is a group that could be portrayed as extreme, and off in a ditch,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former 2016 presidential candidate who has tangled with Cruz in the Senate but now sees him as a preferable alternative to Trump. “Anybody they endorse will have to carry those bags.”

[ … ]

The group’s executive director, Larry Pratt, opposes all gun control and sees massacres like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School as evidence of the need for more, not fewer weapons in America.

Pratt has little tolerance for those who oppose his views, including the President and members of Congress. He said “it’s kind of a good thing” that politicians who favor gun control are in fear of being assassinated or deposed.

“That’s what the Second Amendment is,” Pratt said, “It’s a warning.”

There is much more at CNN.  It’s a very lengthy article, and good except for the assumption that Cruz has triangulated his position rather than holding it outright.  I wouldn’t expect much more than that from the MSM.  But read the rest of the article.  His position on gun rights goes way, way back, well before he ever even got into politics.

As for the awful little woman Lindsey Graham, his hand-wringing over the baggage associated with Larry Pratt is amusing and pitiful.  Larry is right.  The second amendment is a warning – a warning to people like Lindsey Graham to stop lording it over the people and do their bidding.  That’s why Graham is so uncomfortable with it.

As for what people thing about Pratt’s endorsement, my God.  What a bunch of little girls.  What happened to the men of America, who would stand on principle and say what they thought, back it up, and refuse to equivocate?  It appears we’ve lost most of them.  Cruz is one of the good guys, one who has never backed away from gun rights.

Jeremy Bryant makes a 420 mile trip through Oregon to his grandfather’s funeral open carrying a .357 Magnum, hitchhiking all the way.  This is well worth watching in its entirety.  And Jeremy has given me a brand new expression which I will shamelessly parrot until I no longer have breath.  “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”

Tenth Amendment Center:

In “What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?” Clayton E. Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson provide solid historical context proving that the phrase was used repeatedly when referring to non-military individuals possessing weapons.

“Those who argue that the original meaning of the Second Amendment was only to protect a collective right, either of the states to maintain militias, or perhaps of citizens to jointly form militias, assert that “bear arms” refers exclusively or at least overwhelmingly, to the collective, military carrying of weapons,” they write. “If ‘bear arms’ referred only to the military carrying or use of arms, then the right protected by the Second Amendment would not be an individual right to possess or carry arms for personal self-defense. The right would be for a government organized militia, or at best, to exercise what the Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledged was a right to revolution.”

While pointing out that historical documents written at the time of the Second Amendment referenced by many scholars generally used the phrase “bear arms” to refer to military uses, Cramer and Olson say that this is due to a bias selection problem.

“Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that are clearly individual, and have nothing to do with military service. Some of these uses are by authors and in contexts that give special weight to an individual rights understanding.”

Among their historical evidence is a law written in England during the reign of King Henry VIII making it unlawful for any Welsh resident to “bring or bear, or cause to be brought or borne to the same Sessions or Court, or to any place within the distance of two Miles from the same Sessions or Court, nor to any Town, Church, Fair, Market, or other Congregation . . . nor in the Highways in affray of the King’s Peace, or the King’s liege People, any Bill, Long-bow, Cross-bow, Hand-gun, Sword, Staff, Dagger, Halberd, Morespike, Spear, or any other manner of Weapon . . . .”

“The specific problem that the statute sought to correct was not even Welsh rebellion,” Cramer and Olson write, “but simple criminal actions interfering with the operation of the courts.”

Another English statue intended to disarm Scottish Highlanders also uses the term “bear arms” in referring to requirements for amnesty (emphasis added).

That from and after the time of affixing any such summons as aforesaid, no person or persons residing within the bounds therein mentioned, shall be sued or prosecuted for his or their having, or having had, bearing, or having borne arms at any time before the several days to be prefixed or limited by summons as aforesaid, for the respective persons and districts to deliver up their arms. . . .

This is a good essay.  While I do not ever advocate deference to international law or precedent, not even from our own English heritage, it is quite useful to understand the common usage of words and common practices of the times that led to the documents to which we are all supposed to live.

One can also see the nibbling around the edges of gun control, even in these words above, with the worst of it being gun control as a catalyst for the American war of independence.  Our forefathers fought against the notion of the divine right of kings and for the idea of covenant as seen in the light of continental Calvinism.

Don’t forget Who said it, Trump or Kanye?, or Who tweeted it, Trump or Kanye?  No indication yet whether Trump is going to select Kanye as his running mate.  I think it’s a match made in heaven.  Well, now there’s the Trump twitter bot.  I agree with one of the commenters here.  I don’t really think this is AI (artificial intelligence).  I don’t think it sounds intelligent at all, which is why it sounds so much like Trump.

Oh poppycock.  I don’t really think Trump is trying to make a photo look like Sieg Heil!  I think he is goading people to make (Biblically) unlawful oaths or vows.  Those folks don’t know everything about the candidate, and it’s foolish for them to swear to vote for a man who may later turn out to violate a tenet of their own conscience.

Trump wants to torture.  It will make us stronger, says he.  But then he won’t require any Soldier or Marine to do anything against the law (as if they would even be tempted to disobey the UCMJ and have their First Sergeant beat the hell out of them before they go to Leavenworth).  But he wants to change the law so that we can torture (what R. J. Rushdoony says about torture in The Institutes of Biblical Law comes to mind here).  So if you’re against torture, the good news for you is that Donald Trump is too.  On the other hand, if you’re for torture, the good news for you is that Donald Trump is too!

Trump is a Rorschach ink blot.  You get to project what you want.  He is your wildest imaginations, all of your hopes and dreams, the caretaker of your concerns, and in short, everything to everyone.  And he’s going to make America great again.  I can’t wait for the advertisement.  “Join the Army, drive bamboo splints under fingernails, watch the sobbing, hear the screams!  Kill women and children.”  It’ll be awesome.

Folks sure appear to be explaining their morals in this election cycle.  Ann Coulter apparently said, “I’d be happy to support Trump if he wanted to perform abortions in the White House.”  Well, there you go.

Uh Oh!!! Guess who’s a HUGE fan of immigration work visas?  That’s right, your favorite savior, Trump!  Please don’t tell me everyone knows he’s a fraud?  I just don’t think I could take not doing these little Fun With The Candidates pieces!

Fun With The Candidates, Part I

Fun With The Candidates, Part II

The National Association of Evangelicals (USA) has gone on record saying that there should be no religious test for “refugees.”

“Religion should not be a litmus test for receiving aid,” said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). “Most evangelical leaders believe compassion and security can and should go hand-in-hand.”

While the NAE races down the road to irrelevance, take note of this news from Austria:

Austrians fear parts of Vienna are becoming no-go areas after a father was attacked by a ‘Sharia patrol’ when he told them to stop threatening his wife and daughter for not being correctly dressed.

As various factions of migrants stake claims to territory in the city, it has been reported that the self-styled Sharia patrols have been visiting clubs and bars in the Millennium City area to make sure Chechen women were properly dressed and acting appropriately.

However, when one Austrian man tried to step in to stop the patrol from hassling his Chechen wife and daughter, he ended up being hospitalised.

I’m not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  But if such a person comes up to me or my family in that manner, I’m going to say “I feel threatened, back off.”  If they don’t, I will shoot them (hopefully before they close the gap, which means we will be backing up to keep distance).  After I do that, I will never talk to the police.  That will be done by my lawyer.

You should make plans of some sort for dealing with aggression such as this.  And do not ever give up your guns to anyone, for any reason.  I’m not just talking about your modularized-up, tricked out AR-15, with the tactical light, pressure switch, reflex sight and flip-to-side magnifier, because you don’t carry that with you everywhere you go.  In fact, you rarely carry it anywhere.

When you go about your business every day, you carry a tactical knife and a handgun, perhaps a compact 1911 or a small airweight .38Spl revolver.  The best gun in your stable of firearms is the one you have with you when you need it.  I love the gun I carry, because it happens to be the one I am carrying at the time.

David Codrea:

That would seem to indicate that the issue isn’t “lax gun laws,” at all, as the majority segment of the population behaves remarkably peaceably around all those guns. The implication is what Michael Bloomberg articulated a few years back, when he advocated for cities to enact special race-based disarmament edicts aimed at “minority” males up to age 25.

I think the primary motive in gun control is simply control, including over peaceable and law abiding folk.  The next motive, and it can be seen everywhere there is gun control, has a race component, where one goal is to solve the problems created by progressive policies in the inner city.

Lost in the wilderness with only a single piece of gear.  I’m not sure my choice would have been a hand axe.  I would probably have chosen a fire starter.  If I get a choice of two pieces, the next would be a large, fixed blade knife.

Bob Owens on the Baltimore PD FN handgun issue.  I don’t do the Bob Owens scene where I blame striker fired pistols.  This isn’t new for Bob, having blamed Glocks in the past, especially for short trigger stroke and light pull force.  I tend to stick with the booger hook on the bang switch theory.

Bang Bang!  It’s the gun’s fault!

Times Higher Education:

At the beginning of this year, the University of Texas began permitting guns on its campus, including in the classroom. In response, I’m beginning a personal boycott. I will not accept invitations to speak at any university where guns are allowed in class – and I’d like others to join me.

I have in the past given talks in US cities where guns may be carried, and sometimes where murder rates are high. Many Americans say that they feel safer when carrying a gun. There is ample statistical evidence that they are not. Being in the vicinity of a gun immediately increases your chances of being shot. I’ve been willing to take that risk to visit the US, but once one crosses the threshold of a university campus, one should be in a place free of weapons and any threat of violence.

There are a number of reasons for this. Some of them are practical. I would not want to speak to an audience whose members may carry guns. Academic debate can become heated. A good lecturer challenges the audience, pushing people out of their comfort zones. The presence of guns would almost certainly change that dynamic. Suppose I get a stupid question, delivered in an arrogant or aggressive way. The thought that the questioner might be carrying a weapon might well affect how I respond. Perhaps I would just let it go. But then my academic integrity and freedom to give an honest reply has been compromised through fear.

Even if I’m not provocative, I am still not safe in a university with guns. For a variety of reasons, people are sometimes dangerously unstable. The threat of violence is hugely increased if handguns are available. And any such threat falls disproportionately on the most conspicuous person in the room: the lecturer speaking at the front of the class. If anything did go wrong in the mind of a gun-carrying audience member, I could well be in the line of fire, no matter how polite my talk.

These safety concerns might or might not be empirically well grounded. But the bigger reasons for my boycott are philosophical; I might even say metaphysical. Guns and universities simply should not mix.

The most important role of the university is as protector and nourisher of civilisation and culture. This is in direct opposition to the idea that physical violence solves anything …

Balderdash.  Violence solves a lot of things.  Violence overthrew the Third Reich when collegial debate would not have sufficed.  Violence repels rapists and murderers, and without responding with violence in self defense, Christianity in Mesopotamia is now no more, with Christians on the run or perishing throughout the middle east and North Africa.

The writer is a professor of Metaphysics at the University of Nottingham, but rather than believe he would get a stupid question from a student, I’m inclined to believe based on this article that he might be the one who poses stupid propositions.  And I’m not sure The University of Texas has lost much if Mr. Mumford cannot find it within himself to lecture there.  After all, they could always get Paul Helm, Alvin Plantinga or Nicholas Wolsterstorff to perform a visiting lecturer series.  It would probably be much better anyway.

But since we’re on this subject of metaphysics, and since Mr. Mumford has posed a number of problems associated with visiting the University of Texas, I have a little quiz for him.  He has pointed the finger of blame at the gun (presumably he wouldn’t also point to the reliability of the crystalline structure in the metal of the knife in the case of poor Lee Rigby – or would he?).  So what, Mr. Mumford, causes a person to pull the trigger?  Why would you be in any more danger around someone with a gun that any other time?  You may invoke the concept of immediate causes, secondary causes, or even launch into a discussion of evil, predestination, volition and theodicy if you feel froggy.

We’re waiting to grade the essay.

Herald-Mail Media:

Surrounded by law enforcement officials Thursday, Tomblin vetoed the bill over their safety concerns. He vetoed similar legislation last year.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to just look around this room for a moment, and see that law enforcement are concerned about this bill,” Tomblin said Thursday.

On Saturday, opponents echoed concerns that the Republican leadership was ignoring law enforcement’s worries.

“It’s a slap in the governor’s face, but it’s a slap in the State Police’s face, sheriffs, municipal police officers and the vast majority of our constituents,” said Sen. Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha.

Proponents contended that the proposal would help people protect themselves through a constitutional right.

“This bill will help protect West Virginians, in addition to keeping West Virginians free, as guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Sen. Kent Leonhardt, R-Monongalia.

Well, they all deserved to be slapped in the face for opposing the free exercise of constitutional rights.  So I’m back to my original prediction.  “Nothing will happen.  The doomsday predictions the LEOs most assuredly made will not obtain.  There won’t be any discernible change in the number of firearms related crimes as a result of the elimination of permitting requirements.”

Someone remind me in about a year and we’ll go back and dig up statistics and data on this.  It’ll be fun and enlightening.

News and views from Baltimore:

BALTIMORE (WBFF) – There are two investigations centered on the gun almost all Baltimore County Police officers use as side arms. Crime and Justice Reporter Joy Lepola began investigating these guns more than 18 months ago. One of those guns went off inside a police precinct, while secured inside an officer’s holster.

On February 2, 2016, a Baltimore County police officer walks into the Pikesville Precinct when the jolt of a gunshot, stops him from taking another step. What’s unclear is how it happened.

According to reports FOX45 obtained from the county, the officer says the gun discharged while in its holster. Five officers gave statements saying they were nearby when they heard the gunshot.

The department says it is unaware of a holstered gun ever discharging until now. The department was warned it could happen.

In 2014, a FOX45 investigation uncovered serious safety concerns buried within hundreds of reports and inter-office emails. At the time, the county was in the process of buying new guns for every police officer, almost 2,000 .40 caliber pistols made by FN-America. In one complaint, an officer claimed a round went off without someone’s finger on the trigger.

Oh dear.  Okay, before we begin the “guns don’t just go off” routine, let’s stipulate right up front that there are three types of discharges.  (1) intentional, (2) negligent, and (3) due to mechanical malfunctions.  Number (3) does in fact happen, when there is a very bad design flaw, or perhaps in older firearms models if a firing pin got stuck and cycling the slide causes a “slam fire,” to name one specific malfunction.

Number (3) is also very, very unlikely, and a low probability scenario.  Furthermore, the notion of a gun discharging while sitting in the holster (with no human interaction) is ridiculous.  The officer likely put his finger on the trigger and caused a negligent discharge, was embarrassed about it, didn’t want to be reprimanded or lose his job, and fabricated a false story to hide the truth.

If a gun ever discharges without your finger on the trigger (think Remington 700 by cycling the bolt, a failure Remington documented dozens of time at their own facilities), go see a Gunsmith.  Don’t write discussion threads, don’t make allegations, don’t hide it.  Go see a Gunsmith.  Not an armorer, not a parts changer.  A Gunsmith.  If it’s a mechanical failure, it will be repeatable.  If not, you put your finger on the trigger when you shouldn’t have.

How safe are police service weapons?  Never.  It is a gun.  It isn’t safe.  Don’t ever treat it as if it’s inherently safe, any more than you would assume that you can drive an automobile just any way you wish and be safe because of the structure surrounding you.  It is a car.  It isn’t safe.  Sitting still on your bar stool at home isn’t safe because it may fail and send you to the floor, bruising or even fracturing your pelvis.  It is a chair.  It isn’t safe.  If you have to climb ladders, you engage in one of the most unsafe practices in America, often fatal (or leading to TBI) for men over 55 years old from any height.

But weapons are safer when people use them responsibly than when they don’t.

David Codrea:

For the second year in a row, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed a bill that would recognize the right of citizens 21 and over to carry a gun concealed without permission from state bureaucrats, the Associated Press reported Thursday. Tomblin was flanked by “dozens of police officers and deputies,” there to provide PR support and imagery intended to “legitimize” the governor’s flouting of “shall not be infringed.”

What a putz.  I had covered this bill as if it had become law (I assumed that the legislature had overridden his previous veto), and I was clearly mistaken.  I hate that.  I hate it for the folks in West Virginia, and I hate it for the prediction I made.  I would love to use WV constitutional carry as a test case and flout my prediction (and resultant data) in front of the anti-gunners.