27 Ways to Be a Modern Man (According to the NY Times)

The New York Times published an article detailing what they think makes a “modern” man.  Most of their “definitions” are benign, and some I even agree with (such as the bit about not cutting fat off your steak and eating the entire thing).  One in particular struck me…

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.

Wow.  That isn’t just a philosophical bungle, it is flat out a denial of man’s role as the defender of his family, and of the physically weak.  Luke 22:36 expressly records Jesus Christ instructing his closest disciples to sell their cloak, their most prized personal possession and their identification of status in Jewish society, and purchase a sword.  With Christ there are always multiple interpretations of what He said, but one cannot ignore the very literal words spoken in order to read into a statement what you want to see.  Sell your clothes… buy a weapon.  Not a spear, or a bow… a sword.  The sword was the equivalent of the modern firearm.

Jesus Christ instructed his followers to arm themselves so that they could defend themselves and each other.  There are other deeper meanings as well, but let’s just stick with the literal words spoken because it seems that the New York Times just said that Jesus was wrong because according to them, a real manly man doesn’t need to have the ability to defend themselves or someone else.  Considering the source I shouldn’t be surprised.  Don’t mind that, if not for someone with a [gatling] gun, that joke of a paper would have been burned to the ground by a riotous mob back in the 19th century.

I argue that the NYT is flat wrong and here is why…

“The Gun Is Civilization” By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

End the Insanity (Gun Free Zones)

Edmund, Oklahoma. Stockton, California. Killeen, Texas. Iowa City, Iowa. Olivehurst, California. San Francisco, California. Garden City, New York. Jonesboro, Arkansas. Columbine, Colorado. Fort Worth, Texas. Honolulu, Hawaii. Santee, California. Tucson, Arizona. Meridian, Mississippi. Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota. Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. Blacksburg, Virginia. Omaha, Nebraska. Dekalb, Illinois. Binghamton, New York. Fort Hood, Texas. Huntsville, Alabama. Seal Beach, California. Oakland, California.  Aurora, Colorado.  Oak Creek, Wisconsin.  Newtown, Connecticut. Santa Monica, California. Washington, D.C. Fort Hood, Texas (again). Isla Vista, California. Charleston, South Carolina. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

I’m sure you’ve heard of these places… they are all cities that played host to a mass shooting, an active shooter, or a Jihadi attack.  Hundreds dead and wounded when you sum them up.

Causation is hard to predict for each of these as motives differ as wildly as criminal insanity to Islamic extremism with a smattering of perceived revenge motives mixed in too.  There is one correlation that MUST be drawn from the proliferation of mass shootings.

In each case above, the lawful carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens were banned in such locations either by federal or state law (universities, schools, churches, military installations), or by prohibition by business owners (the ubiquitous “No Guns” sign).

There is no denying the simple truth that the overwhelming majority of these shootings are perpetrated specifically in locations where immediate armed self-defense is not available to the true first responders – the victims.

Any property owner or lawmaker that fails to account for this nearly universal correlating factor is being criminally negligent by prohibiting a fundamental human right – that of self-defense.

History Channel’s Sons of Liberty Miniseries

If you haven’t watched this series, I would highly recommend you give it a chance.  I will warn that it takes some dramatic license and condenses the time frame in order to present a tight, three 2-hour miniseries rather than a more drawn out season-long series centered on the men who became known as the Sons of Liberty.

The series is focused on the events leading up to the arrival of General Gates of the British and the formal Declaration of Independence.  Many of the men that would go on to become our nation’s Founding Fathers have prominent roles in this miniseries.  For all of the series’ faults, it does an excellent job conveying the tone and the overarching themes and threats of the time.  It showed the British soldiers more as an occupying army than anything else, but it also showed the patriots as drunks, thugs, and rioters.

During the lead up to the Boston Massacre on screen, you can understand the motivations of either side.  The British, outnumbered and in the midst of an unruly crowd on the verge of violence, had justification in defending themselves.  The Colonists were likewise shocked when they did just that despite their own provocations just moments before.

Where the series has it’s faults are in the details.  Phrases and quotes were spoken by the wrong person, and the series falls short of providing the full discourse and philosophical thoughts that the HBO John Adams’ series so perfectly nailed.  The History Channel’s production though succeeded in showing the events in total and how each side kept escalating the situation until violence between the two was inevitable.

What I want to mention though is that the miniseries did one amazing thing.  It showed that the rebellious Sons of Liberty would have been rounded up and hanged pretty soon after General Gates’ arrival if not for their willingness to fight and their ability to fight on equal terms of the British regulars who marched to Lexington and Concord.  The British had numbers and experience.  The farmers, millers, and minutemen assembled on Lexington Green and at Concord Bridge had neither, but they had weapons with which to oppose and turn away the British Army that day.

What is so often forgotten in the present age is how the colonists were as well armed as the British regulars with privately held muskets, pioneer long rifles, and cannons.  Yes, cannons.  The American colonists were able to defend their right to free speech, their right to assemble, and to be secure in their papers and property, etc etc etc BECAUSE they had arms.  They had weapons, modern military weapons including weapons of such destruction as heavy cannons, and they were equal to those of their oppressors, not weakened civilian grade versions or likenesses.

At one point George Washington at the Contintental Congress was asked what the Massachusetts men could do with General Gage pressing martial law in Boston.  He said to resist.  I don’t know if Ole George ever gave that advice, but if he did, he had to have known that the only means of resistance when your oppressor means to bring arms to bear against you is to take arms up in defense and for that one must OWN, KEEP, and HAVE those arms and ammunition at your immediate disposal.

That is the foundation principle behind the Second Amendment to the American Constitution.

Thank you History Channel for really highlighting that, whether you meant to do so or not, because without those privately held arms, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Joseph Warren, and the others would be only footnotes in history as traitors to the Crown and the troubles in Boston would have been quashed by the full might of the British Empire before they became full blown rebellion.

Too Bad

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Wannabe Dictator, NYC) – “Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights.”

Never mind that antiquated bill of rights.

Never mind the idea of legitimacy.

Bloomberg wants a dictatorship, pure and simple.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Government knows best?  Government apparently doesn’t know how to read.

According to Merriam-Webster, the last word of the second amendment means:

  1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
  2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

So government knows best and is seeking to break the terms of the contract between not only the states and the federal government, but should also seek to undermine the very rights promised to us by that contract.

How does any person promoting gun control not understand how much like a dictator they sound?

 

 

 

 

 

March

Send a message on May 25, 2013, that we will not be supplicant to tyrannical overreach and that the spirit of liberty burns brightly within this nation to this day.

 

 

Why We Have Guns

Why would politicians attempt to take away arms and surround themselves with armies of guards? To protect themselves against the crazy people, who have no fear for their lives and usually make it through, or to protect themselves against the sane people, who hope to keep their liberty and their lives? Image how much better our country would be if politicians still had to worry about getting shot, in addition to loosing elections, every time they consider a new flaming hoop for us to jump through; they might not make the hoop.”

Why We Have Guns.

 

 

Usurpation

“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty…”

Those words were penned by Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, nearly two-hundred and fifty years ago.

Today, according to The Hill, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) will introduce a new assault weapons ban bill.

I didn’t need to read much before I balked.

The bill will exempt firearms used for hunting and will grandfather in guns and magazines owned before the law’s potential enactment. However, the grandfathered weapons will be logged in a national registry.

Registration inevitably precedes confiscation.

Ready to cross that Rubicon Senator?

An Absolute Right

I know that some of you read what I write because I try to always bring things back to God, to those of you I apologize for my focus as of late has been on the works of men.  It’s not that I hate lost sight of God through all of this hyperbole and vitriolic hatred highlighted by the political left’s insistence on punishing all gun owners for the actions of evil men, but that I have recognized it for the threat that it is.  I do not say it lightly when I say that any attempt to ban, confiscate, or register any firearms will not be met kindly by myself or many others like me.  I will not hypothesize on what I will and won’t do in that event as we have not crossed that bridge yet, but I fear that there are short-sighted politicians who are flirting with the idea far too much.

So why do I consider it a threat?  If I believe that nothing man can do can hurt me as Scripture tells us, than why does it matter?

It matters because of the long-term results of those efforts.  That violent crime rates go up following such actions each and every time – rape, armed robbery, gun crime, assault, home invasions, murder – across the board in every instance in history.

It matters because of the actions of democratically elected governments that move to ban the last protection of the minority in the face of oppression and tyranny – the ability to use adequate force in defense of liberty and freedom.

Wait, what?

Let’s play a quick hypothetical: let’s say that the United States passes a law either by legislation or executive order (Don’t get me started on how egregious this idea would be, but can you say casus belli?) that bans further purchase of certain semiautomatic firearms and then requires those that are permitted by a grandfathering clause to be registered with the federal government.  What is to prevent the next mass shooting from causing the same politicians from deciding to now confiscate all of those registered firearms?

You see, without registration, confiscation is exceptionally difficult and dangerous.  There aren’t enough law enforcement officers and agents and every level of the government combined to confiscate the firearms of 100 million gun owners (and let’s not mistake ourselves, every modern semiautomatic handgun and rifle would be part of this round up since they can accept magazines of whatever capacity the manufacturer wants to build and distribute).  With registration, the politicians would be able to “target” the population for confiscation more effectively and eliminate unnecessary searches, etc.

Once a significant amount of the population is disarmed, there is not enough manpower to offer significant resistance against oppression or tyranny.  This isn’t me just speculating, it is documented history.  Just in the last hundred years we have the following instances.

Turkey (1915-1917). 1-1.5 million Armenian Christians killed.  Turkey required permits to own firearms at all and total registration (which led to targeted confiscation from the Armenian population).  Gun control laws were passed in 1866, 1911, and 1915.

USSR (1929-1945). 20 million political prisoners. Total registration and confiscation laws passed in 1918, 1920, and 1926.

Nationalist China (1927-1949). 10 million communist sympathizers and political opponents. Total registration and confiscation laws passed in 1914 and 1935.

Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe (1933-1945). 20 million political opponents (communists, anti-fascists), gays, Jews, Gypsies, and others. Total registration laws passed in 1928. Confiscation laws passed in 1938.

The People’s Republic of China (1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976). 20-35 million political opponents and “enemies of the state.” Total registration laws and ban on private ownership laws passed in 1951 and 1957.

Guatemala (1960-1981). 100,000-200,000 Mayans, indigenous peoples, and political enemies. Registration laws passed in 1932. Prohibition on bearing arms laws passed in 1947. Total ban and confiscation laws passed in 1964.

Uganda (1971-1979). 300,000 Christians and political enemies. Registration law passed in 1955. Confiscation law passed in 1970.

Cambodia (1975-1979). 2 million educated people and political enemies. Total registration law passed in 1938.

Rwanda (1994). 800,000 Tutsi people. Registration and confiscation laws passed in 1979.

Other notable government-sanctioned murders are as follows:

Japan (5,964,000 noncombatants during WWII), Vietnam (1,678,000), North Korea (1,633,000), Pakistan (1,503,000), Mexico (1,417,000), Yugoslavia (1,072,000 from 1944 to 1987), Czarist Russia (1,066,000 from 1900 to 1917).

Grand total, not counting other genocides such as those in Bosnia during the 1990s, or Darfur in this past decade, stands at 88,533,000 killed by their GOVERNMENT.  88 million is a conservative estimate, the grand total is surely higher.

That is why I fight so hard about this issue.  The very people put into power to protect your freedoms and liberties can turn around and use their authority to kill you, your family, and everyone you love.   With just one exception, the gun control laws passed “to save just one life” were turned around and used by future regimes to target minorities and political enemies.  In that one case, the SAME regime used those laws to target their internal enemies.

Semiautomatic firearms of military pattern in the hands of the people of America defend every single person in this country from the same fate now and decades in the future, because any attempt to push this country in that direction will and can be met with equal force of arms.  THAT is what the Second Amendment enshrines.  THAT is what is what George Washington and the other founders meant when they wrote or spoke the following.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people

Tench Coxe

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Samuel Adams

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Patrick Henry

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.

George Washington

Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.

Aristotle, quoted by John Trenchard & Water Moyle

For further reading, I highly encourage you to read Daniel Polsby’s Of Holocausts and Gun Control.

[The Founding Fathers] rejected the concept of a state monopoly of armed power–“the most dangerous of all monopolies,” according to Madison–in favor of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

Daniel Polsby

*Statistics regarding genocide from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership & Marmatt.com.

III

Nuts

Senator Dianne Feinstein.  To you, your crusade against the guarantors of your freedom and liberty, and all that think you can ban a God-given right…. all I have is one word…

Nuts.

Guess what?  There’s nothing you can truly do about it either.  You see, I’m a free man… free not by your grace, or by the powers imbued in some magic document, free not by the blood of patriots spilled on this continent 237 years ago or spilled hence, free not by the diktats of government nor the benevolence of bureaucrats.  You see, I understand and know personally the source of my freedom and He knows a whole heck of a lot more than you.  He is infinitely more powerful than you and your associates in the Senate, the House or sitting in that leather chair in the White House.  He was here long before you, me, or anyone else who has ever lived.  He will be here long after we have all died and turned back to dust.

I am your greatest foe.  I cannot be bought.  I cannot be broken.  I cannot be stopped.  You see, my freedom is indestructible because it was not forged by man.  My freedom was poured out by The Holy God Incarnate through love and mercy upon two wooden beams made my man into a cross.  That cross bore the weight of my sin, my guilt, my regrets, and my chains and didn’t just lift the weight from my shoulders, but tore it off in one motion and didn’t just toss it in a corner, but rather took it as far away from me as God was able to do.

Don’t you see the fallacy of your opinions?  You can’t ban evil.  Evil can only be banned by the One more powerful than it.

Don’t blame me or those like me, those currently law-abiding citizens who happen to exercise their God-given and man-codified right of life (and the means which to defend it, from criminals, from government gone tyrannical, or from evil personified) and liberty, for the actions of a lone madman hell-bent on exacting vengeance on his own mother by attacking what he thought she loved the most.  Don’t blame my rifle, because my rifle is incapable of doing anything without me or someone else to manipulate it – just like a sword, a spear, a knife, a baseball bat, a rock, a fuel can, an automobile, a chainsaw, or a sledge hammer.   It is an object – mostly metal… some plastic… that ultimately makes a really small object go really fast (so does a cross bow and a bow and arrow).

So when I say “Nuts” I fully want you to understand that I don’t say that as a hit on your sanity, although that is questionable considering your “everything looks like a nail” response to any shooting and your crusade to ban the very rifles that keep you and your kind alive.  When I say “Nuts” I want you to think of General Anthony McAuliffe, Commander – 1o1st Airborne troops – Bastogne. One of his Colonels, Joseph Harper, further elicited “Go to Hell” in response to the German surrender demand.

So Senator, you may proceed with your attempt to ban so-called assault weapons.  It will fail, just like your own credibility does when you decry the “weapons of war on our streets” when you carry a concealed handgun, for your personal defense, that is itself a “weapon of war.”

Nuts.

LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar - OH!

Coffee? Tea? Whisky! - Aspirin anyone?

Stately McDaniel Manor

Culture, Politics, Firearms, Education, Literature, Philosophy, Music, And Other Musings

High Heels and Handguns

This princess is armed- The prince can't always be there to rescue you

Sheeple: People unable to think for themselves

Here to help educate the Sheeple before the slaughter

Fellowship of the Minds

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Reality Check

American Patriot's Reality Check

The Firewall

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

Evil of indifference

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. " from Boondock Saints

The Radio Patriot

Because I have so many words...

Eatgrueldog

Where misinformation stops and you are force fed the truth III

Reality Of Christ

Christian, End Time, and Conspiracy News!

DAYLIGHT DISINFECTANT

DAN SANDINI'S NEWS OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM

WR2A: The Line In The Sand

We Are the Second Amendment, and you cannot stop that.

The Longwood Institute

A site dedicated to the appreciation of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness along with the responsibilities these God-given unalienable rights invoke.

Ten Smiths Blog

What does the Declaration of Independence really say?

Short Little Rebel

Because loving Christ is the most rebellious thing you can do

Deaconmatson's Blog

observations from America

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.