A good drill for shotgunners.

I’m not sure who invented the Shotgun Casino Drill. I first saw it on the Active Self Protection YouTube channel. Maybe the ASP crew created it, or maybe not. However, I give them full credit for them making me aware of the drill, which almost immediately sent me to the range to give it a spin.

I love shotguns and shotgun shooting, but there aren’t a ton of training drills with shotguns. It’s easy to see why. With the shotgun, it’s often an aim, shoot, target down scenario. The shotgun is an extremely powerful weapon and a dominant force in close-range fighting. There is something about a single shot putting eight to nine .32 caliber pellets into a bad guy that ends the fight. Still, we train for the worst possible scenarios, and the Shotgun Casino Drill allows us to stretch our legs and train and test a variety of skills.

The Casino drill didn’t start with the shotgun. The Casino drill is a classic drill that requires a bit of a special target. You start by firing one round into target one and escalate until you are shooting six rounds into target number six. It integrates reloads, target changes, and good marksmanship. The Shotgun Casino Drill does the same but with a bit less ammo.

What do we need to run the Shotgun Casino Drill?

We need a modern shotgun that falls into the repeater category. What’s a repeater? Well, you need a shotgun with a magazine tube or even a magazine. However, you’ll need several magazines if you take that route. A modern repeater is basically any modern pump or semi-auto shotgun. It needs to be able to hold at least four rounds, which tends to be the lower end for defensive shotguns.

We need ten rounds of ammo for each run. You can use either birdshot or buckshot. If you plan to shoot it a few times, consider starting with birdshot and escalating to buckshot when you develop a little more skill and experience with the drill. You’ll need to be able to hold at least six rounds on the gun or a mix of ammo on the gun and on the belt. Either way, it needs to be easily at hand and ready to load.

We also need four targets. Shotguns tear targets up, so steel is best, but man, four man-sized steel targets is an expensive venture. Good paper targets will have to be what it is. I prefer the Sage Dynamics targets, mostly because I can print them for free and not rip through fifty bucks worth of targets in an afternoon.

Don’t forget your basics: a shot timer and your eyes and ears.

As always, you’ll have to click the link to see the setup and drill specifics.

Interesting history. The list may have gaps because the data considered is official. There were other guns in use, especially during the civil war.

In any war, even the smallest advantage can mean the difference between victory and defeat. To maintain the upper hand, the Department of Defense spent $106 billion on research and development of weapons technology in 2021 alone. And while new and evolving technologies like precision guided missiles and drones have changed battlefield dynamics in recent years, outfitting troops with rifles that are reliable and effective remains a top priority – as it has since America’s founding.

Perhaps second only to the will to fight, the rifle is the most important asset of any army infantry soldier. And from the flintlock muskets used by the Continental Army in the American Revolution, to the M4 assault rifles carried by U.S. Army infantry units of today, weapons technology has evolved considerably over the nearly 250 years the U.S. has been a country.

U.S. Models 1855 and 1861 Springfield rifle-muskets (picture is public domain):

Using data from a range of sources, including military records and government websites, 24/7 Wall St. identified standard-issue and other common infantry rifles issued by the U.S. Army throughout history – starting with the Colonial period. We did not include rifles with specialized functions, such as sniper rifles and machine guns.

From the American Revolution through the Civil War, rifle technology changed little. Over that nearly 100-year period, American soldiers were issued muskets that were limited in range, accuracy, and reliability by any modern standard. Though there were some innovations during that period, including the rifled barrel and the switch from a flintlock firing mechanism to caplock, it was not until the 1870s, with the introduction of the Model 1873 Springfield, which fired a bullet with a self-contained cartridge, that the U.S. Army adopted anything resembling what we use today.

Even then, the M1873 was a single-shot rifle, with a maximum rate of fire of about 15 rounds per minute. For comparison, modern military rifles can cycle at a rate of about 950 rounds per minute.

List with specs and historical detail at the link.

This is a great discussion.

Source.

Fire threats and environmental concerns have prompted some US cities to forego traditional Fourth of July fireworks in favor of spectacular drone light shows this year.

Salt Lake City, Utah, tried out the alternative way of celebrating Independence Day on Saturday with its first-ever drone show.

The city’s mayor, Erin Mendenhall, said in a news release the new format marked an effort to minimize the area’s “high fire danger” and to lessen air quality problems caused by pyrotechnics.

“As temperatures rise and fire danger increases, we must be conscientious of both our air quality and the potential for wildfires,” Mendenhall said in the release.

Utah has an average of 800 to 1,000 wildfires each year, and the state is among the most wildfire-prone in the US, according to the Utah Department of Public Safety.

In neighboring Colorado, also in its wildfire season, the City of Boulder made a similar decision this year with its first-ever nighttime drone show next week.

Blah, blah, blah.  Nothing is ever good enough for these people.  Did they call up mother Gaia before making that decision?

On another front, there is a question when the celebration is really supposed to occur.

Sunday, July 2, is the 247th anniversary of the Continental Congress voting to secede from the British Crown. That’s right, July 2 is America’s actual Independence Day.

The Declaration of Independence was approved/signed on July 4. But two days earlier, on July 2, the Continental Congress passed the resolution submitted by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, declaring that we were independent of Britain. This simple resolution was a stirring call to throw off the bonds of tyranny …

In the meantime, Congress appointed a committee to write a formal declaration of independence. Its members were John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Jefferson, the best writer in the group, was the document’s primary author. Jefferson’s document read like a mission statement for the revolution and set up how this nation would be different from others—the people’s rights don’t come from the government. They come from God. The document was first presented to Congress for review on June 28, 1776.

After voting for independence on July 2, Congress turned its attention to finalizing the declaration. Over several days of debate, Congress made some alterations to the text, including adding the wording of Lee’s resolution of independence to the conclusion. The text of the declaration was approved by Congress on July 4 and sent off to be printed.

Then for me the case is clear.  July 4th is really the day of celebration.  They could have changed their minds in the mean time, but didn’t, and formally approved the declaration on July 4th.

As for the drone, eh, whatever.  Drones are cool, but they’re not fireworks.  I’ll stick with John Adams.

It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Whether it’s celebrated on July 2nd or July 4th, it should be celebrated with illuminations from one end of the continent to the other.

Boulder can keep its drones.

As you know the SCOTUS has granted certiorari to US versus Rahimi.  It’s interesting to see just how this debate is framed by the likes of Vox.

Last February, the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a federal law prohibiting individuals from “possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order” is unconstitutional. On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear this case.

It is fairly likely that the justices will reverse the Fifth Circuit’s extraordinary decision — as many as six current members of the Court have signaled that, while some of them support an expansive reading of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rahimi goes too far. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has endorsed some prohibitions on gun possession by people who have not been convicted of a felony, including laws prohibiting people with serious mental illnesses from owning guns. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, wrote when she was still a lower court judge that “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.”

A more uncertain question is whether the Court will use the Rahimi case to impose some coherence on the incomprehensible approach to the Second Amendment that it announced just one year ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

Bruen held that huge swaths of US gun laws must fall unless the government can prove that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” And it instructed judges to determine whether a particular challenged gun law is consistent with this tradition by searching for “historical analogies” in early American firearm regulations.

In practice, however, it is often impossible to draw precise analogies between today’s gun laws and those from two centuries ago, because both American society and firearms technology have changed so much since the Second Amendment was ratified.

[ … ]

Or consider, for that matter, the law at issue in Rahimi, which prohibits many individuals who are “subject to a court order” that restrains them from “harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner” from possessing a gun. Notably, this law applies to individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime, but who have had a court proceeding that determined they are a danger to their partner or their partner’s children.

The dummy who wrote this tripe for Vox has framed the question the wrong way.  I don’t know the likely outcome of the decision at the supreme court when they write it, but this isn’t the way it works.  Leaving aside the issue of whether this was a criminal or civil case (it was a civil case), there is the issue of how the retraining orders are typically issued.

They don’t decide the case before it’s tried.  That would violate due process rights.  So courts don’t simply restrain the offending party (whomever that is – that is yet to be determined because the case hasn’t been adjudicated).  Restraining orders are issued for both parties.  The fifth circuit spoke directly to that issue.

But “[t]hese judicial assessments have often led to the issuance of unmerited mutual restraining orders, namely in situations where one party is the abuser and the other party is a victim.” Id. (emphasis added). As a result, “both parties are restrained even if only one is an abuser.” Id. at 1055 (emphasis added). See also Elizabeth Topliffe, Why Civil Protection Orders Are Effective Remedies for Domestic Violence but Mutual Protective Orders Are Not, 67 Ind. L.J. 1039, 1055–56 (1992) (“[J]udges often issue a mutual protection order without any request from the respondent or his lawyer. . . . [J]udges and lawyers . . . may be tempted to resort to mutual protective orders frequently. However, when they do this in cases where there truly is one victim and one batterer, they ignore some of the real difficulties of mutual protection orders.”). See generally David Hirschel, Nat’l Criminal Justice Reference Serv., Domestic Violence Cases: What Research Shows About Arrest and Dual Arrest Rates (2008).

The net result of all this is profoundly perverse, because it means that § 922(g)(8) effectively disarms victims of domestic violence. What’s worse, victims of domestic violence may even be put in greater danger than before. Abusers may know or assume that their victims are law-abiding citizens who will comply with their legal obligation not to arm themselves in self-defense due to § 922(g)(8). Abusers might even remind their victims of the existence of § 922(g)(8) and the entry of a mutual protective order to taunt and subdue their victims. Meanwhile, the abusers are criminals who have already demonstrated that they have zero propensity to obey the dictates of criminal statutes. As a result, § 922(g)(8) effectively empowers and enables abusers by guaranteeing that their victims will be unable to fight back.

Perverse indeed.  But the controller who wrote this silly commentary doesn’t care about a victim’s right to fight back and duty to self defense because controllers hate people, themselves included.

So if the supreme court falls for this and curtails 2A rights, they’ve fallen victim themselves to the treacherous behavior of the thug AG for this administration.

Tennessee Republican Fudd Explains:

The basics

Many are familiar with basic weapons handguns, rifles, shotguns, and machine guns.

Gill (Bo Gill, chair of the Bedford County [TN] Republican Party and a self-described “amateur gunsmith,”) said firearms are broadly categorized into two main types: automatic and semi-automatic. The difference lies in their firing mechanisms, which significantly impact their functionality and practical applications.

Semi-automatic firearms are designed to fire one round with each pull of the trigger. After firing, the expended cartridge is ejected, and a fresh round is automatically loaded into the firing chamber for the next shot. Unlike automatic firearms, the trigger must be released and pulled again to fire subsequent rounds.

For reference, the transgender shooter at The Covenant School used a semi-automatic, which is the most common type used for recent mass shootings.

“Any semi-automatic firearm cannot be readily converted into an automatic firearm,” though bump stocks, which the 2016 Las Vegas shooter used, can mimic an automatic.

Automatic firearms, commonly known as machine guns, are capable of firing rounds continuously as long as the trigger remains depressed. These firearms use the energy from each fired round to automatically load and fire subsequent rounds without the need for additional manual manipulation.

Often automatic weapons are $10,000 and up and not readily available in gun stores but are available online.

You know it’s coming, or it wouldn’t be a “news” article. Ah, yes, the, however!

However, like some gun owners, Gill agrees, “I don’t think automatic firearms have a place anywhere but war. They’re not practical and they’re a waste of ammo.”

It’s a Bill of Limited Ammo Use. What he’s saying is that the government should have a sole monopoly on force. He’s for self-defense and “sporting,” which is a totally made-up word. But he misses the purpose of the Second Amendment if he thinks the government is the only acceptable entity to make war. That’s scary to the modern weak, prissy Western man of which America has an epidemic.

There is also much discussion around “military-style” weapons.

Gill explains, “Visual resemblances do not necessarily indicate an increase in functionality or lethality beyond that of other semi-automatic firearms.”

Military-style firearms, also referred to as “assault weapons,” feature certain cosmetic characteristics that resemble firearms used by military or law enforcement agencies. These features can include folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and detachable magazines, among others.

The article indicates those are not “genuine” firearms. Only Fudd purposes are genuine.

Then there are genuine firearms that come in a multitude of designs and models, serving various purposes such as self-defense, sport shooting, hunting, and collecting.

Gill explained, in an opinion letter he wrote in 2020, that, “It is important to evaluate the firearm’s functional characteristics rather than solely relying on its appearance to determine its intended purpose or danger level.

He said, “The main thing is the guns are not the issue. It’s the intent, the person that does it.”

The intent of a person, in Western Jurisprudence, is determined solely by courts of law in a trial by jury. Red Flag laws are a usurpation of the right to a fair trial. You can’t possibly know the intent of somebody or their mental condition. You could, however, stop giving psychotropic mind and mood-altering chemicals falsely labeled as medicine (which they are not) to people.

“Now the ease of mentally ill getting a gun, it could be tightened.” Gill added, “I think private sales is something that could be done more responsibility.”

Who get’s to define mentally ill? What is the definition?

He explained those purchasing firearms in private sales are asked for the receipt, name, and number. This information is then run through the sheriff’s office.

If you’re in Tennessee you should check to make sure, but I don’t think that’s the law. You need to verify TN state residency with a Driver’s License.

“That is what a law-abiding citizen should do,” said Gill. “But, see, that’s not going to happen with ‘no guns allowed.’ All the responsible gun owners are going to put their guns back and that’s going to create soft targets.”

Often, places that do not allow for guns on the premises, such as schools, some churches, and movie theatres, are the targets of mass shootings.

“I don’t think the solution is taking away guns. It’s a societal issue that independent families have to fix,” said Gill.

Disarmed men create soft targets. There’s more at the link. Anyway, what’s the rule? Never talk to the press! The guy probably feels bad. I’m certain they mischaracterized some of what he said, but some are quoted. He’s a Fudd.

FPC.

FORT WORTH, TX (June 30, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that a federal judge has granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in VanDerStok v. Garland, vacating the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule and preventing the federal government from enforcing it. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule… is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.”

“We’re thrilled to see the Court agree that ATF’s Frame or Receiver Rule exceeds the agency’s congressionally limited authority,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation and FPC’s counsel in this case. “With this decision, the Court has properly struck down ATF’s Rule and ensured that it cannot enforce that which it never had the authority to publish in the first place.”

“This is a monumental victory against the tyrannical ATF. Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Law have argued that this rogue agency has unlawfully attacked gun owners in this latest round of ‘rulemaking’ and we are grateful to see the Court agree,” said Richard Thomson, FPC’s Vice President of Communications. “We will not stop, however, with this latest victory. FPC and FPC Law will continue to bring these cases to put a stop to the immoral and unconstitutional actions of the disarmament regime.”

Winning is fun!

Part One

Romans 9 and 1 Corinthians 1 as references.

There is the offense of the cross and the scandal of the cross. But they, at the center, have much overlapping commonality. It could be the scandal that offends, but both are scandalous and appalling to men.

The New Religion and mock-Christian liberalism are both inclusive, but neither is actual Christianity. At the center of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the exclusive nature of Christ and by Him Christianity.

The Roman Empire had many gods in the first century. So too, the continual influence of the last Greek empire and its philosophies in Christ’s day permeated much of European and Mediterranean basin civilization; the seeking of “new knowledge” and the presence of many gods was in every town and hamlet.

What struck the first century’s polytheistic (and pantheistic) senses as the Gospel went west was that Christians proclaimed one God, a living God, and an undivided title by Him to be made a son of God. To the exclusion of all religions, Christ stands as the only way to have a personal relationship with God. He alone is the door and salvation for entrance into the legitimate flock (John 10:9), which is His Church – the body of Christ; everlasting life in heaven is through Jesus. This is deeply objectionable, still today, and even among some professing Christians.

The world nods in acceptance and approval when you find a new way to have temporary comfort in your own skin. Whether that path is proper or even wholesome doesn’t matter. Everyone is allowed to have his unique god, which does not matter as long as everyone finds the thing that helps him justify his evil while conforming to the modern sense of ethics and morality.

It’s claimed that you can have any savior you like and be secure in your feelings; this is the least objectionable thing in which there is no scandal. Can’t we all get along? But to the mind of the man in Christ, he knows Holy God is deeply offended at making yourself accepted among men in the rejection of Him; Christ said, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

All those professing to be wise by knowledge and “science” and well-doing, comfortable in their own deception, are brought to ruin in the simplicity, exclusivity, power, and authority of Christ’s cross.

The abject sinfulness and grotesquely open wicked flaunting of sin as pride all started with well-doing. Where else could the works of men, trying to do good, lead but to proclaiming themselves to be free from consequence? These works of faith have led directly to the place warned of by the prophet in Isaiah 5:20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

All this evil of the New Religion in the West started as well-doing; the works of being a good person but outside of God’s holy law through faith in Jesus Christ is ruinous. They still think they are correct; the claim is that good people are being tolerant. They genuinely believe. You might say, well, I’m not that bad, I would never land in the bed of someone of my own sex, but the works of your own righteousness, whatever they may be, will no less land you in the same hell with them.

Also, today, self-centered humanists are significantly at odds with the message of the cross. As it was from the start, the preaching of the cross two thousand years later is somewhere on the scale of foolishness for them (1 Corinthians 1:18) to causing seething murderous rage (Acts 7:45). Without Christ, you are numbered as an enemy of God.

There’s a movement that’s gained little traction, but we must be on guard. There are those saying that Talmudism (modern Judaism), Mohamedism, and Christianity are all Abrahamic faiths and are, therefore, equally valid. The Talmudists are promoting this but don’t actually believe it and still hate Jesus Christ. This is the subtlety of the devil, a broad way, an easy non-offensive path, but Christ has defeated sin, death, and the grave; Jesus says, “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Few find it because it must be sought by faith in Jesus and only by faith in Him. Talmudism and Mohamedism are founded in hatred, not in the love of God, who gave His only begotten Son to reconcile sinful man to Himself. It is not holy God that must negotiate with all the faiths; it is men that must be reconciled to God by surrendering to Him through faith in Christ Jesus.

All men are helpless before the God that created them. The evolving god that changes as a man ages and learns, built by the world’s wisdom, is foolishness to holy God (1 Corinthians 1:23-29). But men, in their vanity, assert a god: regardless of the form, the mastery claimed by man is to conceive his god and make that god the symbol of his many illusions so that he may placate his fears of the unknown universe. But it’s not the man that can conceive God but God that creates the man.

“For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” – Romans 14:9

Jesus Christ is Lord of all. We must convey that you can, in accordance with the power and authority of Jesus Christ, enter into His kingdom and eternal life in heaven by placing your faith in Him. He died for your sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Jesus lived a sinless life, defeating sin on the cross, and He rose again on the third day conquering death and is now seated at the right hand of power in heaven, crowned Ruler and King of all that is. The power and authority of God to make life eternal can be realized by you, in faith, and the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord imparted unto you by the forgiveness of your sin and imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” – Romans 9:18

The acceptance of Jesus Christ’s payment for your sins on the cross and sole reliance on Him for eternal life, by faith in His resurrection, is for those that belong to Him mercy, but to those that are not, it lends to a hardened heart. God’s authority over all His creatures and, therefore, the offense of the cross is well shown in this verse. God does what He wants with whom He will, and nobody can tell Him to do otherwise; He is sovereign. But we know that entrance may be gained by much prayer in seeking not to rule God that He changes His mind but by calling upon the mercies of Christ Jesus the Mediator. Nonetheless, God does as it pleases Him with His creatures.

But this exclusive title offered by Christ to become a son of God comes not by the workings of man, for what difference would Jesus Christ make if He were just one more religious figure added to the pantheon of global gods? That notion is no offense to the world or the New Religion. Jesus, the “good guy” and guru of kind living, is easily assimilated into the many false world belief systems, and thereby, Christ, in the mind of the unconverted, becomes just another inoffensive idol among the rest.

A man is not saved by following the moral life of Christ or the ethics of His teaching but by faith; except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God: ye must be born again. Nonetheless, if they would be called friend, those that are His keep His commandments. In fear of the Lord, when He reveals Himself and His divine authority to judge your wicked crimes against him, a man can receive Christ as having taken his substitutionary punishment. As applicable as Christ’s teachings may be, and indeed, obeying Christ’s commands is a fact of life after conversion, the rest is simply religion.

——-

Part Two

No man genuinely converted by Christ chose to become Christian; neither did any man who did not receive Christ get converted.

This statement about the undivided authority of the Almighty to work His will for His unknowable purposes will offend not just unbelievers but 95 percent of professing Christians. Salvation is an exclusive moment. You can join a denomination, church, cult, or movement and perform rituals, rites, recitations, and ceremonies, but that’s not conversion. All other associations exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of performances; the object of our faith is not ceremony; it’s Christ.

God, in His grace, may reveal to a lost sinner his sin, allow him to see that he’s headed to hell, or leave him fearful without excuse knowing he will stand before the God of creation. All these things are true.

The scandal is this; there’s nothing any man can do but surrender his whole being to the One who made him, accepting that God does that which He will. There’s no way but the cross, and unless God, in His mercy, shows you your need, you’ve been condemned already, a helpless soul headed to an unknown death and an eternity of darkness and separation from God. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost; until the soul of a man knows it’s lost, in need of Jesus, he is unlikely to be found. Here’s the offense, those dead in their sin, except God quicken them through faith in Christ, are damned; all men have sinned against God, and only Jesus can save them.

Except God calls you, there is no heaven for you. You deserve the eternal torture of God for your sin, and until you face this fact, under the power of conviction from the Holy Spirit, the Christ of the Bible is just an imaginary being. Every man’s salvation testimony is unique, but every man who’s been converted has one. A testimony of Christian ceremony is not a conversion covenant with the holy Creator. If your testimony relies upon a ceremony of any kind for eternal life and not upon Christ, why are you waiting? We suppose a man could reject the call of God, but having shown Himself to them, it’s unclear how or why he would. Reading this, God is offering you the way by faith in Christ alone; if you’re feeling helpless right now, you are being called; Jesus is the way!

God doesn’t force Himself on a man; that would not bring love and mutual fellowship but resentment in the man. But in His lovingkindness, our merciful God shows the man his need for Christ. By a thought, God could make all men little robotic automatons of obedience, but that’s not love; that’s tyranny leaving God little better than a petty despot, which He is not. Faith in God’s love and trust in Him through His Son brings salvation!

Starting a discourse about preparing a home in heaven for His followers, Jesus said, “ye believe in God, believe also in me.” Elsewhere, a forewarned seeker, whose child was possessed, cried out in faith with tears unto Christ and said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” You must receive the Christ of God.

And so we begin to see a more complete picture of the offense of universal damnation for sin and the scandal of the exclusivity that is the cross of Christ.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” – John 14:6

With God, there is no doubt allowed as to who is the Saviour and who is the way to heaven. Contained therein is the very right of Christ set forth before all men: He claims to be the sole path to heaven for meeting the Maker (Romans 9:21), the Father of us all by faith; if you would be forgiven and made His son being condemned no more and welcomed into eternity.

But you must face some facts; no man comes to God but by Christ. That is the most offensive claim ever made, and they killed Him for it. For we are designed to seek a god, as religious beings, to have a god, and Jesus, being the only way, destroys all the imaginations of the hearts of men, leaving them helpless at the mercy of He who says, “I Am.” Salvation isn’t merely through Christ, but only through Christ. Other means are hereby resolutely rejected, leaving a man helpless and thus deeply offended in his pride.

If Jesus weren’t the only way, but just another way, He would have been gladly added everywhere to the list of fine men who’ve benefited history with excellent teaching on lofty living, and there would be no persecution of His followers. But being the only Saviour, exclaimed by those in Christ who must abide by their new nature never to deny Him, brings hatred from all corners to the Christian man. The name of Jesus is hated the world over by those that remain in their sin, but unto us that are saved by His grace, we know, neither is there salvation in any other. The religious despise Jesus most of all, even today, and two thousand years ago if He had been just another teacher of good things, they would not have tortured Him to death.

If the offense of the cross is done away with by inclusiveness, so too is the glory in Christ’s power by the resurrection gone. The simple question remains, do you believe in the power and authority of Jesus Christ to save your eternal soul; will you be converted through faith in Jesus Christ? Christ has bound all men’s hope of peace, faith in God, love, redemption, forgiveness, grace, new birth, soul salvation, and eternity in heaven to His person. Jesus isn’t only a good life, He didn’t teach merely another truth, and He isn’t only a way; He is the way, the truth, and the life.

The offense of exclusivity and the scandal of the cross is the beauty of Christ to those who belong to Him by faith.

Source.

“Even though (Wagner leader Yevgeny) Prigozhin acted out, yelling give me ammo, give me ammo, there was no actual ammo hunger,” says Ocherkhadzhiev. “The problem was, they used six times more ammo than is tactically and academically called for. They just buried the Ukrainians in shells. And in these conditions, the Ukrainians still defended.”

I don’t want the discussion thread to turn into a political one.  That’s not the point of the post.

But I find this remark utterly fascinating.  I know that when the Marines first joined the fight in Afghanistan, the Taliban were surprised at the fact that they (the Marines) could carry a half dozen magazines in a tactical vest and stretch the ammo out to cover a 24-hour fire fight under the supervision of good NCOs (the NCO corps in the U.S. military is entirely a product of Western culture and Eastern and Middle Eastern armies completely lack such a structure, focusing instead on commissioned officers, in the end making them less capable or efficient, something I’ve written on extensively).  The disciple of targeting, fire control, etc., surprised the enemy combatants.

Similarly, the practice of the Taliban was to bury U.S. troops in fire.  Seldom would they take the attack straight to U.S. forces except en masse (Battalion versus Company).  I’ve also written extensively on that subject in Massing of Forces.