Medical malpractice kills more people than all AR-15s combined. https://t.co/qhYdZVtR3G

— 🔫UR a Smart Ass, Carl🔫 (@Ur_a_Smartass_C) March 20, 2023

Here’s a puffy HufPo piece on how courts are impeding the efforts of the controllers.  Here’s the bit that captured my attention.

“It’s a completely crazy standard,” University of Chicago legal scholar Albert Alschuler said. “They have turned the interpretation of the Second Amendment completely upside down.”

[ … ]

The application of strict scrutiny allowed state governments to claim that gun laws served an important safety interest. This allowed some laws to remain standing despite Heller’s assertion of an individual right to own firearms.

The new historical test, however, provides sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose.

“The revolution has been going on at least since Heller,” Alschuler said. “But it took an enormous step with this Bruen decision.”

I’ll agree with him insofar as he points out that Heller was a weak decision.  It left doubt in place as to the right to carry outside the home.  In spite of the fact that the founders of the nation literally carried rifles to school in order to shoot critters for meals or other reasons, and despite the fact that men were required to carry rifles to church on Sunday for protection of the congregation, the controllers began putting more and more burdensome regulations in place.

They know better because they’re lawyers and have been trained that Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. DC, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County all demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the police aren’t there to protect anyone.

They have all allowed their politics to interfere with being good historians and lawyers.  But Bruen did do what Heller and McDonald didn’t – it recognized the right to self defense outside the home.

It upended their cart.  Thus, the highly emotional and charged language coming from alleged scholars, who cannot fathom why there even exists such a right to begin with.

Oh, and that part about “sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose” is just him making things up out of whole cloth.

Mark Smith has been very clear with his analysis of Bruen, and the SCOTUS was clear before that.  Laws that were in place at the time the 2A was written are fair game.  As are laws in place before that generation perished.  Laws subsequent to that are not, unless they confirm the laws in place at the time of the founding.  Subsequent (later in time) examples can NEVER deny the understanding of the 2A when it was penned.  Another way of saying it is that gun control laws that have burdened the public subsequent to the 2A don’t get to count in our understanding of the 2A, and that makes perfect sense to any reasonable man (and any good historian).

This test is simple.  There is no lack of clarity.  There is no sweeping power granted to judges, in fact, just the opposite.  Judges have been shackled, as they should have been, and as have legislators.

I’ll tell you what.  There is so much to say about this topic that I’ll write Prof. Albert Alschuler (facultysupport@law.uchicago.edu) and offer to debate him on the 2A.  We can use these pages to do that, and I’ll promise to publish his prose without editorializing, and then respond in separate posts.

How does that sound, professor?

Several remarks before you view the report.

First, there shouldn’t be any such thing as SWAT teams.  They aren’t constitutional – there is no basis whatsoever for busting in another man’s home, law enforcement or not.

Cops should not have machine guns.  Any need for machine guns implies a need to call out the local militia.

Cops should not have rifles.  Any need for a rifle should be reason to call out local militia.

Cops should not have semiautomatic pistols.  They should only be allowed to carry .38 special revolvers, and only when they have proven that they can be trusted with them.

Cops should always wear uniforms, including shirts, ties, slacks, and badges, along with name and rank.

Cops should NEVER be allowed to cover their faces for any reason whatsoever.

Cops should never even knock at doors at night time hours unless there is a clear and present danger inside the home from which the residents of that home need to be protected or for which they need to be warned (such as fire).

It should be a felony for a cop to interact with or engage with the population without a body camera.

All body camera video should be immediately made available to the public over web sites, virtually in real time.

Judges should not approve warrants for raids on homes.  Those who do should be removed from their post.

Yes, I’m an uncompromising constitutionalist.

“19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” – Mark 10:19-21

I woke up thinking about this post from Sunday night and its implications in today’s churches. In this section of Scripture, the rich young ruler tells Jesus that he has kept the law from his youth. Only Mark, of the three synoptic Gospels, records more closely the physical interaction between that man and Jesus. Perhaps Mark, who many consider to be an eyewitness to much of Christ’s time in public life, was in a position to see his Master, where Matthew was not, and Luke, we reckon, was not there.

Only Mark records, “Then Jesus beholding him loved him.” We’ve heard some speculation about this in preaching and teaching. Some say the love Christ showed was actually pity for the man because he must have lied about keeping the law. And yet others have attempted to reduce the significance of the moment and the non-verbal response of our Lord.

During travels this last summer, I attended a Wednesday night meeting at a small church. In becoming acquainted with the Pastor before the service, he revealed that we would discuss the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the law of God until the temple(s) was built, where the law was then held in the holiest of holies. The Pastor asked me and a few others from his church in the pre-meeting discussion where the ark is now. Well, I said it was in heaven, always has been in heaven; the ark and the temple were merely types or a picture of the throne room of God. Fortunately, only a few people heard me because I gave away the conclusion to his lesson. The Pastor offered for me to stay in his RV while passing through. Good folks, down to earth. A discussion with a very recent convert was especially fruitful and enjoyable. It’s always a delight to meet newer believers. That night’s lesson did not mention the section of Mark above, but you’ll see the point momentarily.

Back to the rich young ruler and Jesus. Why wouldn’t Jesus have looked upon a man with love who had kept His law? The law was given by God, and Christ is God, Himself being the law in the flesh; “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Could that look of love have been God’s approval as He called the rich young ruler to follow Him to his own cross of martyrdom? The ruler kept the law but loved his stuff; this we all get. Having observed the ordinances, he was called to abandon the things of this life, going wheresoever the will of God would take him (Joshua 1:9).

There were attempts to downplay the law’s importance in those poor lessons about this passage. All failed to show that Jesus is God and that the law is The Word of God! “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” – John 1:1.

It’s bothersome having never heard a preacher state simply that God loved him for keeping His law. Why is this so hard to say? Because it hurts, all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. God loved the man for keeping His law. The only way around this is to press incredulity losing the straightforward meaning of the interaction between Jesus and the ruler. We’re not saying that the man never sinned; only Jesus has done that. But he did, apparently, keep the Commandments Jesus cited.

The keeping of the law can never save a man’s soul, this we know, but where is the error in righteous living unto a holy God? Surely the churches are not advocating theft, dishonor of parents, deceiving, cheating, or killing, are they? Why can’t a man who believes, and is sure of his eternal station, keep the law? Is it so offensive to believers today?!?!

Some said the law was for the Jews, which is true, but if you search the Scripture, only the law of sacrifice (and the rules of Pharisees) has been done away with. We still live with sin today. The law remains and convicts the sinner unto repentance which is its purpose (1 Timothy 1:9). The implication is that some seem to claim that we can now, living under grace, pretend to be Christians while acting much like those headed to the devil’s lake of fire, which is a perilous new doctrine. But as the linked post from Sunday night shows, it may not be so new after all.

Wickedness remains; the law and God’s judgments are in the New Testament and are used by the Holy Spirit of God to bring conviction of sin in the heart of the lost man and believer alike. Yes, Jesus loves us and is the Saviour offering the gift of eternal life, but He is no less Lord (Romans 6:23).

When we witness to lost sinners, we use the simple example of a lie to prove their sin. Is this wrong to cite one of the Ten Commandments today? No, all men have lied. It’s a simple way to prove sin while not getting sidetracked into various debaucheries and sinful living. Slightly off-topic, but while we’re here: people under conviction might confess felonies. For many reasons, some obvious and some not, don’t let detailed discussion of sinful behaviors happen when talking to the lost; keep it simple; use the lie as a single primary example. Looking them right in the eye, you can tell them they’ve lied and done much worse. This drives the point home while sticking to the subject of salvation by the grace of God’s forgiveness of sin.

The law is in heaven; it’s always been with our holy God. The law is there in the throneroom with the four living creatures, all the holy angels, and the four and twenty elders on their faces saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” Amen.

The law is still there, right where it’s always been. The point is, if you’re in one of those churches that downplay righteous living for the Lord, get out and find a church that’s at least serious about all that God commands, teaching His whole counsel. People now verbally dancing around the law of God expect to stand in its very presence one day soon. God have mercy on them.

“11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Romans 2:11-16

We won’t go through this thoroughly now. I tell people to read these verses first as one reading. Then read what is not in parenthesis and then read, thirdly, what is between. This will significantly help with comprehension. The section outside parenthesis cannot save you by the law, nor will the part inside save you without the law; salvation is by Christ alone.

Assuming you never attempted the foolhardy life of trying to keep the law absent the Holy Spirit, when you sinned, you sinned without the law and were headed to perish in hell, but you had broken the law nonetheless. When God saved you by faith in Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection, He forgave you forever. When you sin in the law, even today, having heard His word but being already saved, you have even less excuse not to live according to God! Is the law of Mighty God written on your heart, yes or no? We’re not telling you to stand before God depending on the law, but verse 15 indicates that God shows the work of the law written on our heart, our conscience also bearing witness.

The Church is trying to thread the needle between saying we have no obligation to the law and demanding righteous living; it’s not working. Everything is falling apart, and it started with the churches long before the government, family, and society went to the dogs. One reason a Reconstructionist approach attracts is that clearly, what the Church is doing isn’t working. And blaming our failures on escatology is a lousy excuse to accept rampant heathenism and an even worse excuse for believers to live like heathens themselves!

What is a Christian that spends his day as a liar, cheating, stealing, abusing family, etc.? Well, he’s not Christian; we know that. Those saved by Christ no longer live like that; that’s part of the miracle of salvation. We are being recreated in the image of God’s own Son and trying to live a life spent as the image of Christ to those around us. When Christ looks upon you, will He love you?

All Outdoor.

Ideal twist rates produce a gyroscopic factor between 1.5 and 2.0.

Factors between 1.0 and 1.3 are marginally stable, but they’re generally considered too slow. Factors between 2.1 and 2.9 are fast, but stable and accurate. Factors above 3.0 are suitable, but not ideal. Climbing above 4.0 may cause over-stabilization of the round being fired, which can harm accuracy. The optimal twist rates for 5.56 and .223 loads are:

• 45-gr Varminter: 1:12 twist
• 55-gr (M193): 1:9 twist
• 62-gr (M855): 1:8 twist
• 77-gr (Mk262): 1:8 twist
• 80-gr Sierra Match: 1:7 twist
• 90-gr Sierra Match: 1:7 twist

The way I read the table, 1:9 twist rate is good for just about anything up to 77 grains.  I wouldn’t shoot anything above that in 5.56mm anyway.  Heavier bullets than that need to be .224 Valkyrie, 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendel.  I once thought that .224 Valkyrie was a flash in the pan, but occasionally I do see it at Academy and Cabella’s.  It’s also possible to pick it up via Ammoseek.

I don’t have anything in that caliber and would not.  I like the 6mm ARC too much to switch to something less effective and versatile.

Via David Codrea, this piece from Bearing Arms.

I am an immigrant and a Second Amendment advocate myself, and two, I have also written about long-term threats posed to our right to keep and bear arms (shameless plug ahead!) in a book co-authored with Greg Camp: “Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century and beyond.”

In the above work, I touched upon how immigration plays into the various threats to the Second Amendment, not because immigration per se is dangerous, but as a factor that compounds the mass ignorance which is the real threat. Most immigrants, unless they’re naturalized citizens, cannot vote. So, the unrelenting attacks on the Second Amendment cannot be attributed to immigrants because the mass ignorance lies in the body politic of natural-born American citizens, who are the absolute majority of voters in this country.

As expected, the comments in reaction to Smith’s video have their fair share of people who think that immigration itself is a problem. From my vantage point, I find it totally ironic because every single vocal gun control activist that I know is a white progressive and an umpteenth-generation American, some even being descendants of American revolutionaries. On the flip side, some of the most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment are immigrants, who have taken it upon themselves to do a job that many natural-born American citizens refuse to do: unapologetically defending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

My religious roots, cultural background, and upbringing are all contrary to gun ownership. I grew up in India and was raised vegetarian in a religious Hindu family. People from my caste background historically have been academics and priests who don’t wield weapons. My grandfather is a Gandhian who was part of the nonviolent independence struggle against the British. Yet not only do I own guns, but I am also an evangelist for gun rights. How did that come to pass?

The gist of what I wrote in my book is that immigration, along with other factors, is a threat only if you let it be a threat. The core of my prescription for preserving and protecting the Second Amendment is outreach to groups that have historically not been associated with gun ownership, and included prominently in that are immigrants and new Americans.

This commentary has the unfortunate feel of something that would be published at Bearing Arms.

To begin with, he exaggerates the case when he implies that immigrants constitute some of the most ardent 2A supporters.  I’ve pointed out many times before that immigrants from south of the border – which comprises most of our immigration, both legal and illegal – oppose gun rights by some 75%, and vote that way when they have the chance.

Second, he exaggerates the case that it’s even possible to conduct the outreach he claims is our responsibility.  How?  Media?  Church?  Pamphlets?  Books?  Someone else owns the media.  Churches have gone to the dogs.  Pamphlets and books are for people who will take the time to read them.

Next, he misses the point (and exaggerates again) when he insinuates that any of the above is a good remedy for a world and life view contrary to the Christian world and life view.  Only an understanding of being designed in God’s image supports the notion of firearms ownership and covenant responsibility, blessings and curses.  Seeing the relationship between people and their government as a covenant that can be nullified is broken is unique and solely a Christian belief and doctrine.  No other world and life view has such a concept.  Not … a … single … one.  And I’ve studied them.  If the writer believes in the RKBA, he does so in spite of his Hindu upbringing, not because of it.

Finally, he implies that it’s my responsibility to educate and indoctrinate new immigrants in the virtues of firearms ownership, when in fact it’s safer, tidier, and has a much better chance of success to carefully husband our borders and allow only those in who already believe in the American system.

Why would someone claim anything different?  This is analogous to someone claiming that it’s our duty to marry unbelievers and then try to convert them.  But then there’s that whole issue of being “unequally yoked.”

This is a bad commentary from a very questionable source, and I remain disappointed in the quality of analysis coming out of Bearing Arms, from their disdain for open carry to [apparent] support for unfettered immigration.

In short, “is immigration bad for the second amendment?”  Short answer: yes.

Surprisingly, PJM has a piece on J. Gresham Machen’s “Christianity and Liberalism.”  It’s a quick read but a good piece to start the day.  Thie gem appears.

Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist.

A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument for tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective.

True, all of that.  I’m proud and pleased to say that I own a copy of Machen’s “The Origin of Paul’s Religion.”  At the time Machen taught, the liberal school of theology was promulgating the idiotic notion that Paul’s theology was at odds with, or an addition to, Christ’s theology.  Red Letter Christians, they are called.  You get to accept the words of Christ, but ignore everything else, especially all of Paul’s difficult teachings.

It makes a mockery of the unity of the Holy Writ, and Machen addresses the issue in the book.

By the way, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism can be found in PDF version without even having to purchase it, if you don’t happen to have the small bit of money to get a hard back copy.  Nearing the conclusion of this brief book, he observes the following.

“The present is a time not for ease or pleasure, but for earnest and prayerful work. A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those who reject the gospel of Christ. By the equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith. And now there are some indications that the fiction of conformity to the past is to be thrown off, and the real meaning of what has been taking place is to be allowed to appear. The Church, it is now apparently supposed, has almost been educated up to the point where the shackles of the Bible can openly be cast away and the doctrine of the Cross of Christ can be relegated to the limbo of discarded subtleties.”

Maybe so (via David Codrea).

“In passing Senate Bill 41, today was a great victory for the Second Amendment. GRNC wishes to thank Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, as well as sponsors and “main movers” of the bill including Sens. Danny Britt; Warren Daniel; and Jim Perry; and Reps. Destin Hall; Jay Adams; Hugh Blackwell; Allen Chesser; Kyle Hall; Bobby Hanig; Kelly Hastings; Neal Jackson; Keith Kidwell; Jeff, McNeely; Ben Moss; Mark Pless; Jason Saine; Carson Smith; plus Democrats who stood courageously: Marvin Lucas, Michael Wray, and Shelly Willingham, and finally the many others whose co-sponsorship and votes who made the victory possible. GRNC particularly thanks our members and supporters, whose thousands of emails and phone calls made this victory inevitable. We are confident that we will over-ride the inevitable veto by anti-freedom Governor Roy Cooper. Very soon, we will release more details of the vicious floor fight waged by Democrats to stop the bill, and the well-managed efforts Republican leadership used to stop it.”

Here’s another report.

And veto it [s]he will.  Roy Cooper (to whom I customarily refer to as “Goober Cooper”) is this administration’s boy toy.  After all, what would it look like to follow in Biden’s footsteps, only to get clocked in the head with repeal of permits for pistol purchases?

If you’ll recall, we’ve followed this for a while now, and while it was always going to pass, there was a question whether it could pass with a veto-proof majority.  According to Paul Valone, we’ve got a veto-proof majority.  So there, goober.  I’m glad to see the end of this ridiculous scheme.

One pistol, the other shotgun.

The Defender CCW is made from 7075 aluminum. “We did a lot of different material selection tests to find the optimal material. We found 7075 has some better impact characteristics than 6061,” Morell says …

I immediately proceeded to bash the front of the optic against the bench a dozen times. I loaded the gun and rechecked zero—it held. At 500 rounds, I once again bashed the front of the optic a dozen times and checked zero. At 1,000 rounds, I went back to hitting the front of the optic, but I didn’t go straight to checking zero this time.

I dropped the unloaded M&P 2.0 All Metal, weighing 30 ounces, optic down onto a concrete paver from chest height. I picked up the gun, checked for damage, and then checked zero at 15 yards. Not only did the CCW have no damage, it also held zero.

[ … ]

“I bet we have over 100,000 rounds of effective recoil testing on these. So, in addition to the drop durability, we have a lot of confidence in the entire electronics and mechanical design. We have some folks that we’ve given these out to for extended testing, and they have north of 40,000 rounds on them and they’re still running strong,” Morell says.

It appears to be rugged and it’s aesthetically relatively pleasing.

Here’s the catch.

The Defender CCW is made in China. Whether it’s American manufacturing pride, improved quality control, or avoiding supply chain issues, there are advantages to making a product on home soil. Of course, that would also come with a significant price increase.

It sells for $250.

Here’s an interesting idea for a shotgun optic if your gun isn’t designed for an optics attachment (most aren’t, although that’s changing).

If you’ve ever wanted to mount a red dot on your vent-ribbed shotgun but didn’t want to take the time to get it milled for a red dot, Burris has a new DIY solution for you. The new Burris SpeedBead Vent Rib Mount is an affordable solution for adapting your favorite shotgun for use with the Burris FastFire series of red dot sights without the need to permanently modify your shotgun.

It just attaches right to the rib.  The attachment device sells for $60 (no, not the Buris optic itself).  At Optics Planet that optic pictures sells for $380.

As one might expect, here’s another article on the destructiveness of feral hogs.  Homes, golf courses, farms, graveyards, you name it.  They destroy everything in their path.  Here’s the money quote for me.

Jamie Sugg, the Texas A&M Agrilife extension agent in Walker County told Houston Media last week: “It’s not a case of if you have a hog problem, but when. They are everywhere.”

I suspect this was referring to Texas, but it could just as well have been America.  It’s not a matter of if, but when you start suffering hog problems.