HB1237 In Senate Judiciary Committee

HB1237, the bill to remove churches from the list of prohibited places under Arkansas' concealed handgun licensing law, has passed the House and is now sitting in the Senate Judiciary committee. I read somewhere that Governor Beebe has stated that he will sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. Unfortunately, I'm now coming up with a blank as to where I saw that bit of info.

Additionally, Robb as Sharp as a Marble has a nice rebuttal to some of the uninformed hysteria that has arisen concerning this bill. The only thing that I would add to his reply is to the "ministers" who are making the local media with their opposition to this bill. From what I have seen, every one of you represents a denomination that holds as one of its beliefs that the church is the people, not the building. It's the people who gather together that are holy, not the place where they sometimes gather together. Yet all I'm seeing is talk of "preserving the sanctity of the church" and "the church is a place of peace". If it's wrong in God's sight for a Christian to carry a gun into "church", then it's wrong for them to carry at all, seeing as how they are an integral part of the church!

Y'know, it really makes me wonder if you've put any thought or study into this subject at all or are just reacting at a gut level. I'd suggest you take a look at 2 Samuel, particularly the story of Uzzah, as to how God responds to his people reacting at a gut level without thinking things through.

I Just Don't Understand. And Neither Do They, I Think.

"For someone who carries a gun, you sure are awful concerned about not breaking the law."

This (or something reasonably close to it) was said to me today by a co-worker. The only thing that I can think in regards to why he should say this is that he believes that if I were caught breaking a law, I could shoot my way out of the situation. This is not the first time that others have implied that they think I should have a more cavalier attitude toward certain things simply because I carry a pistol. I believe it's not likely it'll be the last time I hear that opinion, either.

What puzzles me is why someone would think that carrying a pistol entitles a person to behave more recklessly. At best, such behavior would be punished by a fine or imprisonment and the loss of the right to own a firearm. At worst, it would result in someone's needless death.

I can only assume that most people who offer these opinions are either joking or simply haven't thought things all the way through. Whichever the case, it's really rather unnerving to hear people talk like that.

* * *

Coworker: "You don't have a rebel bone in your body."

Me: "I've got a pretty good idea under what circumstances I would be willing to break a law."

Coworker: "I'd like to see that!"

Me: "No. You wouldn't."

This is another example of things I don't understand. As stated above, I have a respect for the law that some others find to be a little on the extreme side. As such, I would think it obvious that I am also fervently opposed to anyone attempting to circumvent or corrupt the law. I have absolutely no qualms about ignoring or breaking an illegal law. This does not mean that I will flagrantly flout the law. So long as I find such a law bearable, I will tolerate it. However, once it becomes unbearable, it becomes of no concern to me.

The reason that I told my coworker that he would not want to see me break a law is because I am usually an easy-going fellow. It takes quite a bit before I decide that something is unbearable. And, usually, once I get to that point, things have already gotten rough for everyone involved.

Norton Security Scan

Recently, I've noticed a new program that popped up in the background on my computer. Norton Security Scan had initiated itself and began scanning my computer. I stopped the process, uninstalled NSS (as I hadn't intentionally installed it to begin with) and figured that was that.

The next day, the NSS shortcut was back on my desktop.

Long story short, I uninstalled this program several times and it continued to install itself. After a little Google-fu, I found that Symantec had begun bundling their software into the latest update of Adobe's Shockwave (v. 11) and if you simply updated rather than manually installing, you did not get the option to decline the installation of NSS. Further, there is an issue with a scheduled task stub being left behind that causes Windows to attempt a scheduled scan, recognize that NSS is not installed, and automatically install it!

I have removed the NSS program and stub from my computer using the technique detailed in the last post in that thread. Additionally, because I find their bundling programs without the benefit of an opt-out feature to be unacceptable, Shockwave has been removed from my computer and will not be reinstalled until they apologize and rectify the issue.

What is Libertarianism?

I've had several people ask me recently, "What exactly is libertarianism, anyway?" I've attempted to answer these rather succinctly, as these folks weren't looking for a dissertation, with the phrase, "We should be allowed to do whatever we want so long as we don't interfere with the rights of others." I wasn't really satisfied with that answer and so I've plunged into the Wikipedia entry on Libertarianism. What I've come up with are a couple of quotes from that page that I believe to hit the high points of the libertarian philosophy (at least as I see it):

"...individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, peace, and reliance on the institutions of civil society and the free market for social order and economic prosperity..."

"Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty."

Heller: Reservedly Optimistic

Well, I'm assuming that everyone has seen the SCOTUS decision on DC v. Heller that was given today. Personally, I'm really not all that surprised by the decision (based solely on other's interpretations thus far) nor the slim margin of the decision.

I'm reserving my full decision on this matter until I can read the majority decision. No, I'm not going to read the minority decision. I scream at my computer too often as it is. I was working up a not-so-small rant on the comments by the dissenting justices and the petty tyrants mayors of D.C. and Chicago. But I decided it was not worth the upset stomach it was most certainly going to give me.

But so far, I'm going to say that I'm both "somewhat placated" and "cautiously optimistic" with regards to the ruling. The decision appears to be almost exactly what I thought it would be, what with the ban overturned but provisions for "sensible restrictions" being allowed.

P.S. In looking at some more of the dissenting opinions, I realize I may have to read the minority decision. It's more than a bit unnerving to realize that some of the reasons you have for thinking the court didn't go far enough are being used to back the thinking that the court went too far.

Habeas Corpus Upheld by SCOTUS

Well, score one for habeas corpus. Richard sent me this link along with this comment:

"Honestly, I thought Justice Thomas was a bit more of a Constitutional scholar than that. I'm thoroughly disappointed.
At least the majority understands."

To which a mutual friend (who will remain anonymous until he gives permission to use his name on my blog) replied:

"those *expletive* repubs in the supreme court don't give a *expletive* about the constitution.

Live to regret the day when tyranny was defeated? I doubt it."

He is referring to Justice Scalia's comment that "Today the Court warps our Constitution ... The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

The sad thing is that I do not think that this is a defeat for the dissenting Justices. I think that they view this as a minor set-back. We have to remember that people such as these do not think of themselves as tyrannical oppressors. They honestly believe that methods such as the suspension of habeas corpus in question are necessary to the continued well-being of this nation.

They think that they are heroes for pushing such measures. They think it's for our own good.

This line of thinking has made me recall the words of C. S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

(As an aside, I found a quote site when looking for this particular Lewis quote. It has a random quote generator that I'm going to add to the sidebar. Let me know what you think.)

Wal-Mart Signs "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership"

I know, this is actually old news. But I wanted to make sure I documented it. Personally, I've defended Wal-Mart on a lot of issues over the years due to the fact that they gave me the best job I had during college. But this has crossed the line. I've not purchased a single item from Wal-Mart since hearing about this.

See these links for details.

What really irks me about this is the fact that they are agreeing to "develop a computerized system that participating retailers will implement over time to log crime gun traces relating to the retailer." The issue I have with this is, how do they expect to get the data that a gun that they sold has been used in a crime? From discussions I've seen on THR (although I can't seem to find the thread I had in mind, that one has a good discussion going), there's only one database that contains such information and access to it is restricted to LEOs investigating active cases only.

The only thing I can think is that Bloomberg intends to set up a LEO to provide the information to his "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" group. Which is probably illegal itself.

Fact or Speculation?

It occurred to me while watching the History channel today that they seem to have a propensity to present as scientific fact subject matter that, to my admittedly uncertain knowledge, is as yet unproven and still quite speculative.

Has anyone else gotten this impression or am I just being paranoid?

These People Make My Teeth Itch

I listened to the last 30 or so minutes of the Heller arguments this evening. I was honestly quite perturbed by the general acceptance of "reasonable regulation" by all sides of this case. I just don't get how people cannot recognize that "reasonable regulations" only apply to persons who already are law-abiding. And that no number of laws passed will keep firearms (or any inanimate object for that matter) out of the hands of people who are willing to break the law. And obviously they've already decided to break the law, otherwise we wouldn't be worried about them having firearms.

These restrictions simply tie the law-abiding's hands behind their backs in the face of unrestrained evil people.

You can't prevent evil people from doing evil things. The best you can hope for is stopping them once they start. And the more good folks on scene, with the best tools and training to do so, the better.

The other thing that struck me is the number of comments that basically state "The more guns there are, the more violence there will be."

Once again, I'm confused. We trust people to operate 1.5 tons of machinery travelling at 80.67 feet per second every day with minimal training. For the year 2000, there were 43,354 deaths due to motor vehicles. That same year, there were a total of 28,163 firearms related deaths (this includes suicides, murders, and accidents).

Where are the calls for "reasonable restrictions" on automobiles? Where are the cries of "Ban cars! It's for the children"? The calls for only professionally-trained government-approved drivers to be allowed to own cars? After all, there is no Constitutionally recognized right to operate an automobile. It should be relatively easy.

Oh, but cars offer more to make life better than to make life worse? Well, take a look at this. It is estimated that guns are used in self-defense 2.5 million times each year. That's around 6850 times per day. So for 2000, the ratio of good to ill for guns is essentially 88.8 to 1. That seems to be resoundingly more good than ill to me. (See here for the source of these figures.)

I know the answer of course. It's the simple fact that, unlike vehicles, people have stopped utilizing firearms as a matter of course in their everyday lives, mostly out of a false sense of safety and security provided by the extremely thin veneer of civilization that we humans have taken to hiding behind. And because people don't use firearms, they don't understand them. And what they do not understand, they fear.

As a for instance, take the now-defunct Assault Weapons Ban (a misnomer in and of itself). The FBI's statistics found that, not only did the ban have no discernible effect on the number of crimes committed with the targeted weapons, these weapons were statistically insignificant in comparison to other weapons used in crimes. So much for the claimed "weapons of choice for criminals."

But I digress. I was speaking of the "More guns, more crime," chant that is so often heard by those who wish to ban or restrict firearms. The fact of the matter is, there have been numerous studies that show that the implementation of right to carry laws almost universally result in lowered crime rates per capita. Professor John Lott, Jr. has written a book on this very subject. It's called More Guns, Less Crime.

And finally, in closing and on a personal note, these reasons have absolutely nothing to do with my decision to carry a firearm. My decision is hinged on this: If someone attempts to harm me or mine, I will stop him. Whatever it takes, I will stop him or I will die trying. And since I'd much rather it be him doing the bleeding and/or dying, I'm going to use the most effective tool available to accomplish that end. No matter what other people may think or believe, I know that self-defense is a human right. A right that is inherent to all people simply by virtue of being born. And it is also a responsibility. A responsibility laid upon the shoulders of all people by their creator.

It is a right that I claim as my own. It is a responsibility that I willingly accept.

Brady Campaign's 2007 Scorecard

Well, it seems that the Brady Bunch has published their list of scores on state gun laws. Arkansas is tied for fourth lowest (best?) with five other states at 6 out of a possible 100. Go Arkansas! California ranked first with 79.

Frankly, some of these rankings defy logic. Vermont, Texas, and Florida all had higher scores than Arkansas despite laws such as permit-less carry, open carry, and castle doctrine that Arkansas lacks.

Anyways...

From the linked article: "Our gun laws are so weak that, in most states, there are few or no laws to prevent gun violence," says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Thank God! Otherwise, the only ones to utilize gun violence would be those who willingly break the law, aka criminals. You know, those people that these laws are aimed at.

I swear, some people. Makes you wonder what happened to basic reasoning skills as a prerequisite for holding positions of authority/influence.

Christianity and self-defense: The soapbox

Maybe I've got a different version of the Bible than other folks do. That's the only reason that I can think why people believe that, as a Christian, any taking of human life is wrong. Because in the version that I have, there were many instances in which God not only said that the taking of life was permissible but a command directly from Him!

Take the example of Deuteronomy 19 which goes into the requirements for cities of refuge within the new nation of Israel and how they are to be utilized in cases of manslaughter or murder.

“Now this is the case of the manslayer who may flee there and live: when he kills his friend unintentionally, not hating him previously ... he may flee to one of these cities and live; otherwise the avenger of blood might pursue the manslayer in the heat of his anger, and overtake him, because the way is long, and take his life, though he was not deserving of death, since he had not hated him previously.”

“But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.”

Here we see that the “avenger of blood” was the proper one to whom a murderer should be delivered for execution.

Then there is the case that I am sure most of us have heard (Exodus 21:3) of the thief who is killed in the course of his thievery. The Bible declares that “...there shall no blood be shed for him.”

Now these are examples pulled from the Old Testament. Most folks seem to think for some reason that God was different back in Old Testament times, that he was bloodthirsty. I'm here to tell you that God is no different today than he was at any other point in the history of the world. Let's take a look at a New Testament example.

In Luke 22, Jesus has just told Peter that he would deny knowing Jesus. He then turns to the rest of his disciples and says, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” His disciples replied, “No, nothing.” Jesus then says, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.”

Why would Jesus, a man who preaches peace, tell his followers “If you don't have a sword, sell some of your clothes and get one!” Well, first of all, while Jesus taught peace, he also said that he would not bring peace. “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” As for why he told his followers to buy a sword, the answer is that he knew that the time of his betrayal was near and that the disciples were going to be scattered for a while. In the time that Jesus was referring to in the beginning of the quote, what has been called the limited commission, God had protected them as a way of showing his power, also providing food and shelter for the same reason. Now that God has proved his point, he will no longer be actively protecting and providing for them and they will need a means to protect themselves while out on their own. And the best tool for defending oneself from other men at that time was the sword.

You'll also notice that Jesus did not advocate his disciples disarming themselves and relying on Roman soldiers. The Romans were some tough cookies when it came to punishing lawbreakers but there were still plenty of people willing to risk that punishment for the quick payoff of crime. (Take Barrabas for instance.) On the flip side of that coin, he never advocated breaking of the Roman law either except when it flatly contradicted God's will.

Today, God still does not take an active role in providing for and protecting us. He has given most of us the ability to do these things for ourselves as well as commanded his followers to aid those who cannot do these things for themselves. And the best tool for defending ourselves today is the firearm.

And finally, note Romans 12:18: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” The implied and unfortunate part of this is that there are some men who will not let you be at peace with them.