Don't catch you slippin' now

Coram Deo asked a good question about why people riot. In general, I presume there are many different reasons. I offered a brief response in the post, but I'm sure it could be expanded and improved.

However, in the case of George Floyd, much of it is due to perceived racism. The kind of thing epitomized in Childish Gambino's "This Is America". George Floyd is coming on the heels of Ahmaud Audrey and Breanna Taylor too.

Yet, perception isn't necessarily reality. Is it only black folks and other minorities targeted by the police? Consider the tragic case of Daniel Shaver only a few years ago. The officer who killed Shaver was found not guilty.

Anyway, there's a lot of pent-up frustration against authorities in general, especially the police, police brutality, the blue wall of silence. A lot of it justified, in my view. There are a lot of corrupt cops. Cops who don't serve and protect. Of course, I'm not suggesting riots are the answer. Not at all. I don't defend the riots.

That said, I want to come to my main point: I think the left is fomenting a lot of the riots. Leftist agitators. Take arguments like this which attempt to justify violent protests. Likewise take how some argue "black rage" is a "spiritual virtue". Take the house that Obama built (e.g. Obama arguably inciting blacks against authorities). Take the fact that "Biden's staff is donating to a group that funds the release of rioters" (source).

It's as if leftists are using Floyd's death as a pretext to push their agenda. It's as if leftists want a second civil war. A revolution.

If so, I suppose that'd be in line with what socialists and communists have always wanted. To build a new world atop the ash heaps of the old world, the world of their fathers. They don't honor their parents, but wish to commit patricide and matricide. They're not their grandfathers' sons, but their grandfathers' slayers. Destroy Amerikkka, arise Utopia.

I don't think the US today can be defeated by external forces (e.g. China), but I think we could defeat ourselves by tearing ourselves apart. Many on the left are like a fifth column in the US.

Update. Andy Ngo, who himself was a victim of Antifa, makes good observations which overlap with mine.

The violence tonight is not about George Floyd.Growing numbers of young Americans have been taught to think of US as an evil empire—a white-supremacist, patriarchal hellscape.The part about the US being the best hope for humankind—a deeply flawed but noble democracy—not taught.

— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) June 1, 2020

Beto didn't see that coming

So Beto O'Rourke has dropped out.

His campaign was already running on fumes, but I take it what utterly tanked his campaign was when he started talking about confiscating people's guns by using police to go door to door on no-knock raids. It conjured images of Gestapo going door to door to take away guns from Americans. Many police would have flat-out refused to do this. And that's something which many Democrats would have resisted too (e.g. libertarian-leaning Democrats). It's about as un-American as anyone can get, i.e., to forcibly keep Americans from exercising their constitutional right and violate the second amendment.

Not to mention his idea about taxing churches probably wasn't very popular even among Democrats in his own state of Texas.

By the way, I guess this means Beto won't have much of a political future. At least not in Texas. Not after going after guns and churches so hard. At best, maybe Austin will take him.

I presume Beto's supporters will move to either Warren or Sanders. Sure, Beto had the drunken frat boy demographic cornered, but I'm not sure if that will make much of a difference to either Warren or Sanders. It's not like Beto had a lot of support overall. I think he was polling maybe 4% at the national level.

Anyway this narrows the Democratic field. I might conclude this is a bad thing from a Republican perspective, but again Beto wasn't making many waves, so maybe all it amounts to is a collective shrug.

The right to self-defense

Alyssa Milano asks:

Can someone cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a god-given right to own a gun? This guy is unbelievable and is clearly owned by the gun lobby. #NoRA https://t.co/PxVV1RoV2Z

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 1, 2019

Ted Cruz answers:

An excellent Q, worth considering carefully w/o the snark of Twitter. It is of course not the right to a modern-day firearm that is God-give but rather the right to Life & the right to Liberty. Essential to that right to life is the right to DEFEND your life & your family. 1/x https://t.co/8pjstMGrGB

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 1, 2019

3/x The Declaration of Independence acknowledges our rights thusly: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

5/x Stephen Willeford exercised that fundamental right when he risked his own life to stop the Sutherland Springs murderer, saving countless others as a result.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

7/x “...in most govts it has been the study of rulers to confine this right w/in the narrowest limits possible. Wherever...the right...to keep & bear arms is, under any...pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

9/x I’m a Texan. What happened in Midland-Odessa—and El Paso, Santa Fe & Sutherland Springs—was sick, deranged & horrifying. We need to do MUCH more to stop violent criminals & those w/ dangerous mental illness BEFORE they murder & I’m leading the fight in the Senate to do so.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

10/x Playing politics w/ these deranged crimes—and trying to use them as an excuse to violate the constl rights of law-abiding citizens—won’t make anybody safer. Forcible gun confiscation (as some 2020 Dems urge) won’t prevent mass-murders. But it would weaken our self-defense.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

Mass shootings prevented by civilians carrying weapons

Following the recent shootings, a number of solutions have been proposed, but time and again, the one solution that really, really, really prevents, or limits the scope of “mass shootings”. is the one where another armed citizens literally come to the rescue and either shoot or otherwise restrain a potential “mass shooter”.

While it is hard to say “a mass shooting definitely was prevented here” (because it hasn’t yet occurred), the following compilation is a very fine summary of some of the more prominent instances:

Pre-crime gun division

1. What red flag laws remind me of:

2. On the one hand, progressives wish to disarm law-abiding American citizens, but apparently are fine with armed law enforcement. Of course, law enforcement agencies are often an extension of the state.

On the other hand, progressives disparage the police. They often tell us things like "the police are racist"!

I guess progressives don't see the irony in their position.

3. Gotta love Texas' response:

"After El Paso Walmart shooting, Texas to welcome guns in mosques, churches, and school grounds"

TL;DR. Bad people gonna be bad. Hence let's loosen gun restrictions so everyone else can be armed.

Welp! Might be high time to mosey on down to Texas for a spell. :)

Good guy with gun

We should ban all guns because all guns are dangerous! Oh, wait...

#BREAKING 20-year-old man with rifle,handgun & body armor arrested at Walmart on Republic.
SFD Police say he had 100+ rounds of ammunition. Off-duty firefighter with concealed carry gun held him at gunpoint until officers arrived about 3 minutes later:https://t.co/T4y26bLYuB

— Heather Lewis (@HeatherLewisTV) August 8, 2019

We need the 2nd amendment

1. The photo is from a recent protest in Hong Kong.

1. Sadly, it's too late for Hongkongers to have a 2nd amendment.

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own toady government, which was effectively handpicked by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own lackey police force.

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist the triads and other hired guns (not to mention communist spies across Hong Kong) who are in collusion with the CCP.

2. I'm not even necessarily suggesting Hongkongers should use firearms, though that's an option. Just possessing firearms may be a deterrence in and of itself. At least it'd make bullies think twice.

Armed academic

Tim Hsiao's new website focuses on gun rights.

No country for good men

The following post on Rod Dreher's website is from a homosexual man named Matt in VA who makes makes a number of insightful observations about homosexual culture: "The Wild West Of Male Sexual Desire".

Matt in VA's post is well worth reading in its own right. However, in my post here, I simply use it as a jumping off point to discuss different matters. Also, my thoughts don't have an entirely cohesive theme, just a loosely connected one at best.

We have a moral right to own guns

Hsiao, Timothy. (Oct 31, 2018). "Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms". Public Discourse: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute.

Less danger, more fear

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-did-america-end-up-raising-generation-paranoia/2018/11/13/5d294ec8-e78b-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?

The right to bear arms: resources

http://benrcrenshaw.com/gun-bibliography-resources/

Sticking to my guns

I got into an impromptu debate over banning guns in light of pro-gun advocate Jamie Gilt accidentally getting shot in the back by her 4 year old son while she was driving.

I'll post my side of the debate. I won't post people's names or the link to the thread itself since it may not be ideal to do so (e.g. some people may wish to protect their privacy which I'll honor here).

I've slightly edited some of it mostly for the sake of clarity as well as privacy. I've added a couple of arguments and evidences here and there. Nothing novel or new to what I've already said, I don't think, but mostly meant to better support what I've already said.

However, I did have to make one significant correction with the number of firearms in the US in the 1990s vs. 2010s. Originally I had said 80 million vs. 350 million, but I now think it's closer, though the difference still seems significant i.e. 200 million vs. 300 million. At any rate, those in the know seem to agree gun ownership is at a high today. Higher than in the 1990s.

Finally, the debate isn't in chronological order. Instead, I'll arrange it by topic and interlocutor.

Here it is:

Armed citizen

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Gun control for dummies

Armed defense

"John Piper, Guns, and Civic Responsibility" by Steven Wedgeworth.

"Why I Disagree with John Piper on Christians and Concealed Weapons" by Bob Thune.

"Ban Democrats from owning guns"?

#IAmAChristian

(Source)

Death by guns

Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.

In terms of both raw numbers and population rates, gun suicides have been on the rise in recent years, even as gun homicides have fallen. In 2010, the gun suicide rate was 6.3 per 100,000 people, compared with 3.6 per 100,000 for gun homicides.

At 87%, males are the vast majority of gun suicides. By age group, people 65 and older have the highest firearm suicide rate: 10.6 per 100,000 people.

(Source)

"Assault rifles"

I just saw a debate between Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

 Shapiro handily won the debate, despite the fact that he was arguing at a disadvantage inasmuch as Morgan artificially restricted the discussion to “assault rifles.” In addition, Shapiro is handicapped by a poor speaking voice. But he can think on his feet. He won on points, not presentation.

Shapiro defended the right to own semiautomatic “assault rifles” on Constitutional grounds. According to him (and he’s a Harvard Law grad), the original intent of the 2^nd amendment was to furnish a deterrent against tyrannical gov’t. I’d like to briefly discuss that.

In the interests of full disclosure, I don’t own an “assault rifle,” so I don’t have a stake in this particular debate. Likewise, I’m not a member of the NRA.

i) People like Morgan think the deterrent argument is delusional. The stuff of tinfoil fanatics.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that that’s a wildly unrealistic scenario. Suppose that rationale is obsolete.

Even in that case, it’s not unreasonable for Shapiro to defend the 2^nd amendment on those terms. Even if (ex hypothesi) the 2^nd amendment has outlived its utility, that doesn’t mean the state has the right to set it aside. The reason conservatives defend the Constitution is not out of blind allegiance to a bunch of dead men who wrote a piece of paper in the 18C. Rather, conservatives defend the Constitution because the Constitutional rule of law protects us from tyrannical gov’t. We uphold the Constitution as a matter of self-interest. Self-defense. By defending the Constitution, we defend our liberty. Even assuming the 2^nd amendment is obsolete, that’s a judgment to be made by voters and their elective representatives through the process of Constitutional amendment.

ii) In addition, I think many gun-owners oppose a ban on “assault rifles” because they regard that as an incrementalist strategy. You start by banning and confiscating “assault rifles.” But that’s just the first step. That’s a wedge issue. That becomes legal or judicial leverage to extend the ban. A fatal precedent.

iii) But let’s revisit the original rationale. Is that delusional? If gov’t were moving in a totalitarian direction, wouldn’t disarming the general public, so that only the military, police, or secret police, had guns, make it much easier to control the populace? Wouldn’t that be a logical and practical preliminary? It’s a lot easier to police a defenseless population. Where one side has all the firepower.

iv) There’s also a distinction between the deterrent value of the 2^nd amendment, and the effectiveness of an armed citizenry to actively repel gov’t tyranny– if that were to transpire. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that armed citizens would be no match for the US military if it came down to an all-out fight. That doesn’t mean the 2^nd amendment would have no deterrent value in preventing the situation from escalating to that point. Gov’t officials who might be otherwise inclined to impose totalitarian gov’t on the masses would also have to consider whether that’s worth the risk of civil war. Even if, after the dust settles, the military won, that might be far too destructive to the physical and economic infrastructure of the country to justify the ruinous cost. If you take a city by destroying the city, you win by losing what made the city valuable in the first place.

v) Whether or not the military would win depends on the scale of the insurrection, and how far a dictator would be prepared to go. What’s the ratio of soldiers to insurgents in our hypothetical scenario? Is the dictator prepared to bomb cities?

vi) In addition, American soldiers usually have American parents, siblings, spouses, and friends. There’s a limit to how far the US military would go. Mutiny (or worse) would be a danger if the dictator gave extreme orders.

Obviously I’m discussing a very extreme scenario. But since that’s how the debate has been framed, it’s useful to consider the worst-case scenario. To take the alternatives to their logical extremes.