It’s entitled How Alexander Hamilton Solved America’s Gun Problem – 228 Years Ago.  I’ll only paste his conclusion.  You can read the rest for yourself.

The result of compulsory militia membership for gun owners is actual reform whose design originates directly from the framers of the Constitution. This reform adds oversight, training, and state regulation while keeping the federal government out (militias existing specifically as a check on federal power); preserving the right to keep firearms; contributing perhaps to the security of the United States in some presently unimaginable future conflict at home that involves enemy divisions and open warfare; and has a better chance of seeing law than does confiscation or a repeal of the right to bear arms.

There is the gist of it.  As I said, read the rest for the full argument.

But the argument fails the test of history and suffers from the obvious attempt to make a case where there is there none.  Remember that we’ve discussed this before, but just to rehearse, firearms ownership and use was ubiquitous in the colonies.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

The notion that the rights to firearms ownership was granted by any government would have been considered ridiculous and dismissed in colonial times.  God grants rights – the state merely recognizes them, and if it doesn’t, the people have a right and duty under God to take action to ensure that the right is recognized.  There is so much more.

“1. John Adams John Adams, as a 9-or-10-year-old schoolboy, carried a gun daily so that he could go hunting after class. 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 257-59 (1961). 2. Patrick Henry Patrick Henry would “walk to court, his musket slung over his shoulder to pick off small game.” Harlow Giles Unger, LION OF LIBERTY: PATRICK HENRY AND THE CALL TO A NEW NATION 30 (2010). 3. Daniel Boone “When Daniel was almost thirteen he was given his first firearm, a ‘short rifle gun, with which he roamed the nearby Flying Hills, the Oley Hills, and the Neversink Mountains.’ ” Robert Morgan, BOONE 14 (2007). 4. Meriwether Lewis Meriwether Lewis’s neighbor Thomas Jefferson observed that young Lewis “when only eight years of age . . . habitually went out, in the dead of night, alone with his dogs, into the forest to hunt the raccoon & opossum.” 8 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, at 482.  5. Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson himself carried as a lad. “When he was ten he was given a gun by his father and sent into the forest alone in order to develop self-reliance.” 1 Dumas Malone, JEFFERSON AND HIS TIME: JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN 46 (1948). As an adult, Jefferson wrote about a holster he made for one of his Turkish pistols, “having used it daily while I had a horse who would stand fire,” and he noted another holster he made “to hang them [the Turkish pistols] at the side of my carriage for road use.” 10 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, RETIREMENT SERIES 320-21 (2004). Jefferson advised his fifteen-yearold nephew to “[l]et your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” 8 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 407 (2004). 6. James Monroe Every day, “[w]ell before dawn, James left for school, carrying his books under one arm with his powder horn under the other and his musket slung across his back.” Tim McGrath, JAMES MONROE: A LIFE 9 (2020). 7. Ira and Ethan Allen Ira and Ethan Allen regularly carried multiple arms at once. For example, in 1772 Ira, Ethan, and a cousin went to purchase land near New York’s border “armed with holsters and pistols, a good case [pair] of pistols each in our pockets, with each a good hanger [sword].”

We could continue but won’t for the sake of brevity.  The point is that firearms ownership is the presupposition to understanding the constitution, not the outcome, product or pronouncement.

The men who wrote it had just gotten finished with a war against their former king, using firearms they personally owned, and so the idea that they wouldn’t have understood the God-given right to oppose tyranny is absurd.  Moreover, their real concern within the context of the covenant they were producing in the constitution was that their newly formed federal government would become just like king George.

In order to prevent that possibility, they recognized the right of the states to be free of intervention by the federal government within the context of their men and armaments.  They only needed one reason to write those protections into the constitution, and this was it.  To them, it was the most important.

The constitution was not and is not a treatise on the entirety of the history of mankind and his rights.  It is a covenant between the states and the federal government, and between government and the people.

The author at The Week, David Brown, is correct to highlight the noted militia clause in the second amendment.  I wish more people would become aware of their history and heritage.  The militia needs to exist today, and for the very same reasons it did in the 1700s.

But David’s presuppositions led him astray.  He believes that a different rendering of the second amendment changes the well-documented, well-rehearsed, and well-established history upon which America was built.  So in conclusion, let’s pose two questions David could have asked, and give the correct answers to those questions.

First, “Is it important for men to own firearms to be able to answer the call to oppose tyranny, or in other words, does the militia have a valid role in today’s society?”  We may answer, yes, and in the superlative in today’s society.

Second, “Should compulsory militia membership be required as a precondition for firearms ownership?”  To which we may answer, the mere asking of the question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the source of our rights, the history of colonial America, God’s expectations for us, and the reasons for the Bill of Rights.

The question isn’t just answered with a ‘no’, it is completely irrelevant and immaterial.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with rights granted by the Almighty, or for that matter, the second amendment.

Seen at Ken’s place, this ridiculous report.

Cops who returned fire after gunshots erupted outside of a high school football game in the suburban Philadelphia area last week likely killed an eight-year-old girl and wounded three others.

Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer released the preliminary findings of the investigation into Fanta Bility’s death on Thursday.

Bility’s sister, who was cheerleading during the game, was also shot. She is in stable condition after a bullet grazed her arm.

Eh, who needs a backstop when you’re throwing lead if you’ve got a badge?

As we’ve observed so many times before, you’re never in more danger than when the cops are around.

David Codrea linked three good reads today that are worth passing along.  Thanks to David for that.

• What the Church Needs to Know about Covid-19
• How The Church of “Nice” Replaced The Church of Christ
• The Pulpit of the American Revolution

He puts it through the paces.  Interesting review.  The gun probably isn’t for me, but it’s certainly an interesting gun and cartridge.

Fred.

Limited war is NOT war … You can’t fight a war of defense only and win.

Whoever (the UN?) came up with the doctrine of limited warfare needs to be taken out back and shot, bulldozed into an open grave, burned, the earth salted, and the history books to all point out how totally retarded that notion is.

News from New Jersey.

On August 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit weighed in on the uncharted boundaries of rights afforded under the Second Amendment, namely whether restrictions on where citizens can purchase or practice with firearms implicate the right to bear arms, and whether zoning rules interfere with that right.

In a precedential decision that tracked historical frameworks and recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Third Circuit reversed a U.S. District Court ruling that dismissed a challenge to two zoning ordinances that limited the types of firearms with which one could practice at gun clubs and also limited for-profit ownership of such a facility. In doing so, the Third Circuit reinstated the lawsuit seeking an injunction against the enforcement of those two ordinances.

Although the Third Circuit’s opinion in Drummond v. Robinson Township stopped short of a general prohibition against such restrictions, it opened the door to challenges against anti-firearm zoning far wider than it had ever been opened before. Prior to the ruling, neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit had confronted a Second Amendment claim challenging a restriction on firearms purchase or practice. The Third Circuit decided that if a zoning ordinance “has the effect of depriving would-be gun owners of the guns and skills commonly used for lawful purposes like self-defense in their homes,” it would likely be unconstitutional. Drawing comparisons to free speech legislation and prohibitions that were previously struck down in Chicago and the District of Columbia, the Third Circuit held that such an ordinance will only be valid if (1) it serves a “significant, substantial, or important” government interest, and (2) “the fit between the asserted interest and the challenged law” is reasonable and “does not burden more conduct than is reasonably necessary.”

Occasionally a court gets one right.

I still wouldn’t live in New Jersey.

Remember boys and girls, Coyotes are predators.

Two toddlers were taken to the hospital after being attacked by a coyote in separate incidents in the Massachusetts town of Arlington, officials said Monday.

In the first incident, around 5:40 p.m. Sunday, the animal approached a 2-year-old girl, bit her on the back and dragged her across the yard, according to police. About 10 minutes later, police received a report of a coyote scratching another 2-year-old girl at a different yard, authorities said.

Both children sustained non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to a hospital for evaluation. Officials believe the same coyote was involved in both attacks, but they were still searching for the animal Monday.

The two incidents come just three weeks after another child had a violent encounter with a coyote in the same town. The 5-year-old victim in that attack was playing in a sandbox when a coyote approached him and bit him in the leg, police said.

They won’t just take your pets, they’ll take your children if you’re not aware of the threat.  And they’ve learned to hunt in packs, and are no longer afraid of humans.

Survival Blog.

I am strongly opposed to this proposed rule. It is a gross violation of the Second Amendment. For the ATF to contravene their numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal is an absurd over-reach of regulatory authority. This is truly an “arbitrary and capricious” move.

Pistol arm braces serve a useful purpose for those who are crippled, deformed, injured, elderly, or infirmed.

Because of the numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal, there are now more than 3 million braces in private hands. Many of the guns equipped with these braces have changed hand numerous times, without any paper trail, as private party sales. So, even if the original owners were informed of the change in legal status via letters from the manufacturers or retailers, the subsequent owners may very well be oblivious. The end result will be that hundreds of thousands of people will become unwitting FELONS, overnight, with the stroke of the pen.

Because there is no compensation for the owners of the 3 million braces in circulation, the proposed rule is a grossly unconstitutional “taking”. Here is the math: 3 million braces valued at an average of $155 each equals $465,000,000. ($465 million dollars!)

These sorts of arbitrary and capricious moves by regulatory agencies undermine public trust in our government. If they continue, they will sow the seeds of so much discontent that they may lead to a revolution by righteously angry gun owners.

Good enough that I thought you should see it.

At Instapundit Ed Driscoll links this piece at Reason.  It’s basically about how the imbeciles caught the anti-Ivermectin train to nowhere and all looked rather stupid.  But this particular paragraph that stands out.

It is vital for the media to communicate correct information to the public about ivermectin. While the drug is not only used for de-worming horses and is in fact prescribed to humans, overdoses can cause nasty side effects. Moreover, its viability as a COVID-19 cure is highly disputed. As Reason‘s Ronald Bailey noted in a recent article, there’s little evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for the virus. Reporters should make crystal clear that the best way to fight the COVID-19 pandemic is mass vaccination. But communicating wrong information about ivermectin overdoses works against this goal, as it is likely to convince vaccine skeptics that their skepticism is justified.

“Little evidence,” he says.

So for starters, we could cite the following studies: (1), (2), and (3).  But why stop there?  There are many more such studies.

Here is the source.  And they also monitor studies on Hydroychloroquine.  When something is important, you can’t leave it to the FedGov.

You might be forgiven for saying that “I just want to see more studies.”  That’s a bit strange if you accept the effectiveness of any of the vaccines but reject Ivermectin as a prophylactic.  But if you say something like there is “little evidence that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for the virus,” you’re just parroting talking points developed by people who have a vested interest in how this all turns out, whether from laziness or intent.

By the way, if you reject Ivermectin but accept something like Fauci’s Remdesivir, you are aware of the fact that in the very approval given for Remdesivir, of the two (only two) studies cited, in both of the studies, Remdesivir was pulled before the study was complete due to its propensity to cause liver damage and make the disease even worse?  You are aware of that, aren’t you?

So who decides to write something like “little evidence?”  The author has these creds.

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason. He enjoys writing about culture, politics, education policy, criminal justice reform, television, and video games. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Report, The Orange County Register, and The Detroit News. In 2016, Forbes named him to the “30 Under 30” list in the category of law and policy. In 2017, he became a Novak Fellow at The Fund for American Studies. He also serves on the D.C. Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

I guess as it turns out, when you make enough money to pay professional writers and analysts, it’s tempting for those writers to grab the pronouncements of those who have unearned authority and repeat them, in lieu of doing your own fact-checking.

But wait, isn’t that what Rolling Stone did?