Category: 2nd Amendment


Consider this story out of Oregon

Woman Holds Burglar at Gun Point for 23 minutes until Police Arrive

Many gun control proponents are against laws that are commonly referred to as “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand Your Ground”.  Indeed, some would argue that in situations like this you either escape the house, or hide, and call for police.  After all, the police are trained for stopping bad guys, people are not.

However please notice how long it took for police to arrive.  It is a simple fact of logistics that police cannot be everywhere at every second of the day.  Most municipalities have only so many Law Enforcement Officers who can respond to a call at any given time.  In small communities, sometimes there is only 1 or 2 officers on duty at some hours of the day.  If they already are on a call(s), there may be a long wait for help to arrive.

This is one of the bedrock reasons that I believe every “responsible” family, should have a firearm in the house for protection (Please note I said responsible, if you want me to parse that out for you I will but I hope the people reading this are intelligent enough to know what I am meaning).  Telling a people to hide in their homes, and hope that help arrives in time is not a decent way to live.  A free society includes the freedom to protect oneself, your loved ones, and yes even your property.

It does not take much to ponder as to what would have happened if this woman was not armed.  We see it in the news all the time.  At best, the burglar thought the house was empty and runs when he hears someone.  More likely, this woman would have been physically (and maybe even sexually) assaulted.  A lot can happen in 23 minutes.  Thank goodness this woman had the ability to protect herself.  Thank goodness for firearms in the home.

Advertisements

Consider this recent story.

Gun Control Proponent Arrested for Carrying Concealed Weapon on School Property

I carry a weapon nearly everywhere I go.  The only time I do not carry a weapon on my person is when I enter church, or when have to go onto campus.  Every other time I leave my apartment, I am armed.  I have three firearms that I carry on a regular basis, usually dependent on what I am wearing (i.e. light clothes I carry my smaller Ruger LCP w/an IWB (Inside the Waist Belt holster), heavy clothes my larger Ruger SR1911, if I need to tuck in a shirt I wear my Glock 26 with a tuckable IWB.  I have and carry pretty much the largest and smallest styles of firearms that 95% of CCW holders usually carry (there are always outliers who like to carry a small .22 double shot pistol or a large .50 cal Desert Eagle).

So when I say that I ALWAYS know when I am carrying I hope you understand that I speak form true experience.  For a person to say they did not know they were carrying, they are simply put, a liar.  Leaving a firearm in your bag, ok that may happen.  Putting on your gun, leaving the home, and them remembering you are actually going someplace you can’t carry it?  Happens to me all the time.  Putting on my firearm when I leave is as second nature as putting on socks, shoes, and underwear!  But to say you “forgot” you had a gun on is just down right false.  It does not happen, HE IS A LIAR!  I cannot think of a single style of holstering a weapon on your body in which this could even be plausible.

Hey clearly is lying to try and excuse his own hypocrisy.  To advocate so strongly in favor of totalitarian gun control laws such as the SAFE Act in New York, and to be caught carrying a firearm into a school when he does not have the legal right to do so, is nothing else but hypocrisy.  Apparently the law is good enough for everyone else, BUT for him.  I believe he thinks this to be true, because again, his excuse “I forgot” just is not possible.

Unfortunately, many on the left, especially those who have no hands on knowledge of firearms (including but not limited to actually firing and carrying these weapons) will tend to want to excuse this man’s actions.  The media will either run many stories on how he really is a “great” pillar and leader of the community and this should be forgiven, OR they will bury this story trying to avoid it every seeing the light of day.

I know not everyone who might read this is a “fan” of firearms or concealed carry.  But I hope at least you are intelligent enough not to believe this bogus excuse.  At least then we might be able to have a rational conversation.

The current owner/CEO of Beretta, Ugo Gussalli Beretta, wrote this letter about his companies move to expand its United States operations to Tennessee.

Beretta: Maryland Disrespects Us and Gun Owners, so We Expand in Tennessee 

This letter is strong and powerful.  It is one part funny, nine parts sad that someone who is not an American citizen, gets the principles of this country better than citizens and elected officials of a state of this union.  If only Americans got and understood what is at stake.  If only Americans realized that “gun control” proponents are not as noble hearted as they seem to appear.

I was and am a huge Ruger fan, but my next firearm may have to be a Beretta.

California and Washington DC both have laws requiring firearms to have “microstamping” technology.  Recently, more and more firearms manufacturers are deciding to stop selling in California (WashDC does not allow gun sales in the city).

Smith & Wesson to Stop Selling Guns in California due to Microstamping Laws

What is microstamping you ask?  It is when the firing pin of a firearm, when striking the bullet, leaves a micro indentation of the gun’s serial number.  Now you might think, hey thats a good idea!  If you do, it only proves that you are an idiot when it comes to firearms.  Sorry was that harsh?  Too bad.  Lets go over what we actually know about firearms used in crimes.  Most (as in the vast majority) of those weapons are NOT purchased legally.  They are either stolen, or sold on the black market.  To hide the stolen, illegal nature of these firearms, the serial numbers already existing on every single firearm are filed off.  Sometimes poorly to where the number can still be retrieved, sometimes with a little effort to where the number can never be retrieved.  Do you think that a serial number in one more location will change anything?

Most firing pins with only a small amount of effort are able to be removed due to the nature of their use.  That is, the more a gun is used, the more a firing pin wears down to where after thousands of rounds making it so it does not properly strike the primer on the bullet.  They are designed to be replaced.  So, it stands to reason that at the very least, it would be easy to simply file those markings down.

“BUT THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!” Gun control proponents would argue!  Well, so is removing the existing serial numbers from firearms!  That has not exactly stopped criminals now has it?  There is NO possible way to make it impossible for someone to tamper with the firing pin.  NOT without making the firearm prohibitively expensive, and making it nearly completely useless when the firing pin breaks/wears out (and they do both).

But that is the entire idea and goal of these gun control folk.  They are not looking for realistic technology that could track criminally used guns, they are trying to legislate firearms out of existence.  They know outright bans/prohibitions on owning firearms is not going to work.  So they want to do the next best thing, make it so expensive to own a firearm, that no one would be able to do it.  Further, it is my contention that microstamping laws would NOT do anything to reduce/solve crime, as I have already demonstrated, criminals already bypass existing means of weapon identification.

I urge you not to fall for the trap that gun control proponents are setting.  You might “think” it is a “common sense” effort to reduce crime, but it is not.  Before anyone starts trying to restrict firearms use, I challenge you to actually learn something about firearms from someone who actually knows what they are and how to handle them.  Better yet, get someone to take you shooting.  You will learn a lot!  And you will learn that laws like microstamping, are a not so subtle effort to ban guns, not restrict crime.

A man is under threat of jail and fines for…possessing a single piece of ammunition.  Yes you read that correctly.

D.C. Trial for One Shotgun Shell but No Gun

The tyranny of liberals in this country is getting frightening.  A man might be going to jail simply for having a single 12 gauge shotgun shell in his home.  The demonization of firearms, and those who own them, is getting out of hand.  Further, there is a clear double standard at play here.  NBC’s David Gregory held a 30rd AR-15 magazine up on national television.  In DC, that was a crime.  But he was given a pass.  Now we have a man being charged with having one singular round of ammunition.  Please tell me how this is right?  The founders of this country are likely rolling over in their graves at this point.

Consider this case that apparently happened just before Christmas.

Abortion Abolitionist Assaulted

My question is have we as Christians miss interpreted Luke 6:27-29, “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever taks your cloak, do not withhold your shirt from him either.”  I know of Christians who advocate that if a man were to break into a home, and threaten to rape the wife and young daughters, they would say that even then you should not resist violently.  People in that situation should pray, to God and for the rapist.  Now granted, that is an extreme case, a minority view, and few true Christians would advocate such action.  Protecting one’s self in your own home is okay, but does it end there?

I have a Concealed Carry Weapons permit.  With the exception of Church, school, and a select few other locations (banks, ect) I carry everywhere I go.  Some Christians that I know personally, don’t like the fact that I do so.  These are people who I would consider theologically conservative.  Maybe they don’t understand or appreciate the fact that there are times when one must defend ourselves, even in places outside the home.  Or maybe they do subscribe to a type of mentality that argues defending yourself from an attacker is always wrong, per Matthew 5:39.  I honestly don’t know how they feel.

My question then is when, if at all, should we defend ourselves?

Does it make a difference in what we are doing at the time?  If I am going to the grocery store do I have more a right to defend myself, over if I am say walking the inner city streets sharing the gospel?  Can a Christian doing Christian ministry defend themselves from physical harm if they come under attack?  Would it have been permissible for this man in the story that I linked to, to defend himself?

To be sure it is not an exhaustive or scientific study, but in my experience I have seen more non-believers react negatively to Christians who won’t defend themselves in the case of physical attack, than those who react to those who do.  Should that be taken into account?

I’ll be honest, this is one of the reasons why I am hesitant to do street evangelism.  Whether it is walking the streets sharing the gospel, or staining outside of a murder abortion center trying to save the lives of innocent children.  I seriously feel uneasy when I am not armed.  Maybe it is due to traumatic experiences of being regularly assaulted, on a near weekly basis during 7th and 8th grade, maybe I am just a bit paranoid, maybe I do see monsters under every rock and behind every door, maybe I need to repent for those fears.  However, I also believe that it is better to be armed and never be in a situation where I need to use my firearm, rather than be in such a situation without it.

Robert Stein in his Commentary on Luke presents the idea that what Luke is trying to imply is more insult not injury (i.e. “…that was a slap to my face…”) and that it should be understood as occurring “because of the Son of Man”, that is insulted/attacked due to the message we are giving.¹  Would this mean that if we are attacked just because we can defend ourselves, but we can’t defend ourselves if it is because we are Christian?  Taking this to the logical extreme, consider the case of that rapist.  Suppose he specifically targets a family because they are Christian, and they make that known in their attack?  Does the family then loose the right to defend themselves because, after all, they are being attacked because of their belief in Christ Jesus?  Does it matter if the victim is actively ministering vs just going about their ordinary life?  That is the family at home can defend themselves, but the man in the linked story cannot?

I honestly don’t know what the answers are.  Does anyone have any thoughts or advice?

—-

1. Robert Stein. Luke. The New American Commentary, vol. 24, (B&H Publishing: Nashville TN, 1992); 207.

A Well Stocked Gun Cabinet

Why do I need “so many” guns?

While this always has been a question that some try to ask me, given the recent tragedy  in Conn, and the by many liberal politicians to institute stronger gun control laws, it is an answer I wish to once again answer this question clearly and openly.

Currently I own 5 firearms, 3 handguns and 2 rifles, and yet for me that is not enough.  “Not enough!?!?!?” You might say.  Yes, and let me explain.

There is no such thing as a “jack-of-all-trades” firearm.  Anyone who would tell you that just does not know anything about firearms.  There are models and calibers that are good at doing multiple tasks, but none can do anything/everything that may be needed.  As such, one would require several firearms in order to be well prepared.

Lets start with rifles (and shotguns).  It is my opinion that a “well stocked” gun cabinet would include at least one of the following.  A long rifle with enough power to take down big game (deer); a small caliber rifle for small game (rabbits, squirrels); a tactical rifle for home/property defense (like an AR-15); a shotgun for birds and defense (like a Mossberg 500).  Currently I have two of these four.  I own a Marlin XL-7 in .308 which is an entry level rifle good for deer hunting.  Eventually I would wish to either replace this or supplement it with something like a Remington 700 which is a higher quality rifle.  I also now have my DPMS made AR-15.

With handguns, this is more an issue of personal preference.  Indeed, for me handgun types are like women and shoes, I want one to go with any “outfit” I have.  Not all handguns are the same, they come in different sizes and calibers.  Some models would be too bulky for light summer clothing for instance, while conversely smaller handguns would get “lost” in several layers of winter clothing.  Currently I have a Glock 26 (sub-compact 9mm); a Ruger LCP (ultra-compact .380); and a Walther PPK (.380, though this has a feeding problem right now so I don’t carry it).  I carry both the Glock and Ruger in IWB holsters (Inside-the-Waist Band). These work well for me right now, but eventually my next handgun will be a .45, most likely a compact 1911 model (probably a Kimber) which will most likely go with a shoulder harness.  I also will likely get a full sized .40 S&W (most likely either a Glock 22) which will go with a traditional belt holster..  I also plan on getting at least two revolvers, one small concealed carrying, and a large frame for camping/wilderness protection (ie stop DA bears if they attack).

Now all of these are what I would consider “bare minimum”.  There are other types/models which I would be interested in getting; carbine chambered in a handgun round (like the Beretta Cx4 Storm or an AR-15 conversion kit in 9mm); a lever-action rifle (like a Winchester Model 94); ect.

Now bear in mind that this list does not include “backup” weapons, incase the first one breaks.  It would not do me, or anyone else, any good if one breaks, and we are in a political situation where I would be in able to get replacement weapons/parts would need to keep the “well stocked” gun cabinet stocked.

I hope this shows that not all “gun enthusiasts” are crazy psycos who lost touch with reality.  Who have dozens of guns for no reason.  I hope I articulated why it is good to have enough to cover your bases.