Allow me to Introduce Myself…

I am a married Medical Assistant, parent of nine children (six sons, three daughters) and a currently serving Medic in the National Guard. I currently reside in a metropolitan city in the Midwest, though I’m a native Texan.

In case any are wondering, EngMed is short for Engineer Medic. I’m currently serving as a Platoon Medic in a Combat Engineer Company, so that seemed a fitting name, wouldn’t y’all think?

My interests vary between religion, politics, art, literature, hunting, camping, fishing, hiking, music, writing and serving the Lord. Yes, I am an evangelical Christian and I won’t ever shy away from the subject. I invite any to ask questions, debate and will gladly pray for any who ask.

In terms of politics, I’m a Conservative Constitutionalist. No, I’m not a Republican. I’m actually very disaffected with them, given that their commitment to conservative values tend to disappear faster than water on the surface of the sun.

I’m pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, and pro-limited government. I believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, not social whim.

I’m anti-Islam (a topic I will expand upon in the future), against virtually all forms of gun control, and I’m totally OK with the idea of legalizing marijuana, though I personally detest the stuff.

Well, I think that’s about all I have at this time. If y’all wanna know more, feel free to ask. I’ll just end with this quote:

“Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.” “It is sweet and fitting to die for your country.”

Hijacked Language

During her confirmation hearings, there was a point when Ketanji Brown-Jackson was asked to define what a woman is. Rather than answer the question, she said, “I’m not a biologist.” This is not unusual. We may laugh about it, or make a documentary about the central question of “What is a Woman?”, but this is truly serious business. The response from many people has been to duck and dodge around the question, because they are very much aware that this is a major weak point in their ideology.

For years now, we have been involved in a war of words. This war has had such a tremendous impact on our language that I was forced to stop using Merriam-Webster in my work because they have imbibed deeply of the identity politics kool-aid, while Oxford seems to be holding the line. I cannot trust a dictionary if its usage panels are willing to change the language based on political pressure, and not the normal changes that come about through time.

This war of words has caused so much subconscious damage to the national psyche that words either no longer mean what they once meant, have been outright invented out of thin air, and/or have been twisted into something that sits just to the side of its original meaning. They have even gone so far as to take nouns and adjectives and turn them into “neopronouns”, thereby altering the grammatical structure of our language to suit their purposes and desires. In all, they have hijacked our language and weaponized it against those of us who refuse to bow down to them. It is time we took back that ground.

In the last eight years I have seen the definitions of many words altered in minor ways to change the meaning entirely. One example is the definition of “racism”. Here are the definitions according to Oxford,

1. “the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race; violent behaviour towards them”

2. “the belief that some races of people are better than others, or a general belief about a whole group of people based only on their race”

The second definition is the meaning of the word I grew up with. I would also note that the second definition leads naturally to the first, so there is a strong correlation. It also implies that anyone could be racist. However, according to the Left, this is not what racism means. We will use the Merriam-Webster definition to illustrate,

1. “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”

2. (a) “the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.” (b) “a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles.”

Note that the first definition provided is consistent with the second definition found in Oxford. However, where things change is when you examine the second definitions provided by Merriam-Webster and see that they make it impossible for any but white people to be racist in this country. This is an example of using language to move the goalposts, a tactic that would not be necessary for people who are intellectually honest.

More than once I have been told that it is impossible for black people to be racist in this country due to the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster, and other dictionaries who have chosen to follow the same trajectory. Their reasoning is that black people are a minority, and therefore lack the power and authority necessary to be racist. They will readily admit that black people can be prejudiced, and bigoted, but not racist. That is reserved solely for white people, males especially.

This also applies to the issue of gender dysphoria and gender identity. Ask just about any Leftist, and they will say that defining terms like “woman”, “man”, “boy”, and “girl” are complicated and subjective. Their contention is that these terms are malleable, and treat it as such. Naturally, this forms a major weak point in their ideology, as the dictionary definitions of these words clarify and simplify what truly is not complicated.

Returning to the Merriam-Webster vs Oxford topic, this is one point where Merriam-Webster did not imbibe from the Leftist kool-aid too deeply, as they define “woman” as “an adult female person”, which is consistent with the definition given by Oxford, “an adult female human”.

When you examine the definitions of the word “female” for clarification, things become a little bit complicated. While the Oxford definition is pretty straightforward, “being a woman or a girl”, Merriam-Webster turns their definitions into a flying circus, “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs” vs “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male”. They list both definitions, and that is a problem!

That is more than a little contradictory considering the definition of gender identity offered up by MW, “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female”. How is it that one word can have two entirely different meanings, especially considering that English is a language given to high levels of precision? Either female correlates with biological reality, in which case a woman is a female adult human, or it correlates with a person’s internal sense of being, at which point it becomes possible for a female to be anything, including the shoes on my feet. This violates the Law of Non-contradiction, which renders it objectively false.

They are aware of this but are unwilling to concede the point, and instead seek to move the goalposts by turning the definition of terms into a word game where people get to basically invent their own definitions and intruding on this with logic, reason, and/or a dictionary becomes an act of violence and erasure. Suddenly, you are “shutting down the conversation”, or “blaming the victim”, rather than poking holes in a logically fallacious argument that lacks any basis in reality.

This would be the height of comedy were it not for the fact that these people genuinely believe what they are saying, and are willing to ruin lives over it. There is no telling how many people have been driven out of jobs, homes, and even entire communities for daring to speak out against these ideological positions.

What we are facing is something known as confirmation bias. Psychology Today says of confirmation bias, “Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices. Thus, we may become prisoners of our assumptions.” (

Bear in mind, no one is safe from this tendency, not me, you, your neighbor, no one. If you are a human being then you are inherently prone to confirmation bias. This is one of the most important factors we must keep in mind if we are to avoid falling into its trap. The first step in avoiding a trap is being aware of its existence, and this is one of the most dangerous traps to fall into. This is the trap that leads a person to cling to bad ideas like a barnacle on a ship’s hull.

Where this becomes truly unfortunate is that the majority of the people you meet will be too entrenched to have their minds changed. However, you should not allow this to dissuade you from speaking out the truth. Even if they never accept that their position is untenable and objectively false, they will never have ignorance as an excuse.

Furthermore, there is the possibility that a bystander may hear your arguments and either change their mind or move from a neutral position to our side. In either case, when you stand before the Lord in judgement, He will not be asking how many people you argued with, He will be asking, “Did you tell people about Me? Did you show your love for Me by standing for Truth?” We can do no less after all He has done for us, and yes, I do regard the gender issue to be a Gospel issue because sure and certain knowledge that the Lord is who and what He says is vital to choosing to follow Him no matter the cost. Gender dysphoria makes God a liar and capable of making mistakes, neither of which are even remotely close to true.

I will finish up with this. Language is important because without it, we lose the ability to communicate essential details and ideas. This is why our opposition has worked so hard to take that advantage from us. We initially failed to see this coming, and it has rocked our world ever since. It is time to counter with logic, reason, and objective truth so that we may mitigate their ability to cause damage to our world. I will finish with the definition of truth, as provided by Oxford,

“the true facts about something, rather than the things that have been invented or guessed”

Another Preventable Shooting

By now, we are all aware of the mass shooting in the Chicago area. Word has already come out that this kid was known to local police. He was known for making terroristic threats, and showing all manner of behavior that should not have been ignored for one second. It certainly seems as if no one is willing to learn that lesson.

Words cannot express how frustrated and angry it makes me to learn of this. Far too many people have been sitting on their hands, refusing to act on evidence that someone is a credible danger to others, and for some odd reason no one seems inclined to learn from the mistakes of others.

The reason for my frustration and anger is easily identified. In the Spring of 2012 my youngest sister was murdered. She was shot five times and her body was dumped on the side of a highway like a bag of trash.

Imagine my shock and horror upon learning that the local police had enough evidence to ensure that he would have been in prison on the day she died rather than running free to take her life! That monster had no business breathing free air the day he decided to rob my family of someone we all loved dearly. Every time I see something like this and learn that people who ought to have said something chose to keep silent, I am reminded of what was taken from my family and it is beyond infuriating.

I say this with every fiber of my being. If you see or hear something that leads you to believe that someone may be a danger to themselves or others and you choose to keep silent, you are a garbage human. You are the lowest of the low, an accomplice to the murder of innocents. Your hands are soaked in innocent blood, and one day you will stand before the Lord and answer for your inaction.

There is no excuse for inaction. None. Standing by and doing nothing is not an option if you consider yourself any kind of a decent human being. For the life of me, I cannot wrap my head around why anyone would keep silent when faced with such a decision. Speak up! Sitting on your hands is the coward’s way out! Stop being cowards and act to save lives!

Why the Trans Ideology is Misogynistic

I was raised around feminism and was an adherent for a significant portion of my life. I was a staunch Democrat who believed in Classical Liberalism, I was pro-abortion, and I was taught to hate Republicans. By all measures, I was primed for a life as a Leftist, and would have become one were it not for my tendency to observe my surroundings, think critically, and ask questions.

While I am no longer a Democrat, I now advocate for the abolition of abortion, and I no longer identify as a feminist, there are a few things that have not changed because the conservative view of women is remarkably similar to how I was raised to view women. Not how it is presently displayed by the Liberal Left, which can only leave women feeling empty, bitter, and undervalued, but how I was taught. To respect them, and treat them as valuable human beings.

Women have equal rights under the law. Now, this is not a baseless assertion. A simple internet search for your state’s revised statutes will show language that is genderless and color blind. This means that it applies to everyone equally, regardless of their walk of life, and this is exactly as it should be.

In the eyes of God, all humans are equal. We are all equally sinful and in desperate need of a savior. On judgment day, He will not judge men differently from women. We will all be equally saved or equally damned, depending on our relationship with Him. Again, this is exactly as it should be.

When it comes to equal rights in American society, I would be willing to state that women are a bit more “equal” than men, though I know that will ruffle some feathers. Consider that women are not required to register for the draft, men usually come out on the losing end of child support and custody matters, men almost always come out on the losing end of domestic violence cases, even when they were not the aggressor, they are almost always given harsher sentences than women for the same crimes, and the list goes on.

Need I remind y’all of the whole “believe all women” crowd? They wanted men to be immediately prosecuted and convicted of rape based solely on the word of the victim, without evidence or contrary to it. The power imbalance between men and women is so pronounced that some men have decided that relationships are not worth the trouble. They even have an acronym for it, MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way.

These are men who have been in relationships, been burned by the women they loved, and decided to give up on the whole idea of having a normal relationship. They then choose to become dedicated bachelors, eschewing romantic connections at all costs because they see how our society treats women vs men, and they want no part of it. Honestly, I feel bad for them because they were not only wounded, but were also inclined to assume that every woman they care for will mistreat them. That being said, I understand why they have made this choice, even if I do not support them in it.

Women make up a little more than half of the US population, but continue to argue that they are oppressed by a patriarchal system designed to keep them down. They will point to wage gaps, the male dominance of certain job fields, the supposed rape culture on campuses, and the list goes on, as proof of their claims. Their argument is that the problem is not in the law itself, but in the fabric of society. This is why feminism has flourished in our society. To hear them tell it, men lurk around every corner, awaiting an opportunity to rob women of an opportunity and/or a right, nevermind that such things are illegal.

It is because of all this that I find myself perpetually shocked when I see a situation in which women are actively being oppressed, maligned, mistreated, and generally robbed by a class of men who have managed to create an unfair advantage for themselves. I mean, here are situations in which men are actually robbing women of opportunities due them and no one bats an eyelash?! It boggles the mind.

I am referring to so-called trans “women” who compete in women’s sports, among a whole host of other offenders. These are biological males who were mediocre at best in their fields, but who “transitioned” over and began destroying records on the women’s side. Someone less trusting might think that they made the “transition” so they could stop feeling like losers, but we are expected to accept it at face value and ask no questions for fear of being labeled a “transphobe”.

In combat sports, there was Fallon Fox, who dominated women’s MMA in a way that ended one woman’s career in the ring because the injuries he inflicted on her were so severe and extensive that she can no longer fight. There is Leah Thomas, a college level competitive swimmer who recently bested an Olympic silver medalist. As a man, he was not able to make it into the top 100 swimmers in the nation, but after “transitioning”, he is setting new and now unattainable records in women’s swimming. There is Laurel Hubbard, an Olympic weight lifter from New Zealand. The list goes on, and each of these men has stolen opportunities from deserving women at every turn. Yet, we are supposed to laud them for being beautiful and brave? No.

This trend began with feminists insisting that trans women are women, despite all evidence to the contrary. I want y’all to think about this very carefully. I, as a man, cannot ever fully know or understand what life is like for you women. Ladies, you cannot ever fully know or understand what life is like for us men. We each run into challenges unique to us, posses traits and abilities unique to us, and have perspectives that are unique to us. This is how the Lord intended us to be, and neither the twain shall meet, no matter what a man in a dress says.

I cannot and will not ever know what it feels like to have a child growing inside of me. It simply cannot happen. I lack the necessary organs and physical structures for that to happen. Even if someone found a way to implant an artificial uterus, or transplant one from a woman, into my body, it would not work. My pelvic girdle, like those of all biological males, is not structured for giving birth. This means that the ability to conceive, carry, and birth children is unique to women, and I marvel at that.

The Lord says that children are a reward and inheritance (Ps. 127:3). That He chose women to bear that reward and inheritance is a matter of stunning and humbling fact that fills my heart with joy. I think of my own children and I cannot express the gratitude I feel for their existence. Nor can I express my gratitude for the women who have given us all life.

There was a time when gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder, but that has gone by the wayside. It is a delusional state in which a person is convinced of something contrary to reality. Here is the definition,

Delusion: (noun) 1. a false belief or opinion about yourself or your situation. 2. the act of believing or making yourself believe something that is not true.

While gender dysphoria is still a medical diagnosis, our society has come to the erroneous conclusion that the best way to treat this delusional state is to go along with it. We are told that going along with their delusion will result in them being happy and fulfilled. Yet, is it not interesting that doing so has done nothing to reduce the suicide rates among trans individuals?

They are just as miserable living according to their own biology as they are living according to their own delusion. Why? Because the problem is spiritual, and mental, not physical. Dresses and surgery will not change how they feel. Declaring that trans women are women will do nothing to change the fact that it really is a man who has become convinced that wearing a dress, make-up, using an effeminate voice, and caricatured feminine behavior is enough to make him as much a woman as the one born with XX chromosomes.

I am 45 years young, I stand 5’6″ and weigh 190lbs. I can declare that I am really 21 years old, 6’5″, 250lbs, but this will run entirely counter to reality. One only needs to meet me in person to see the truth for what it is. I am a short, stocky dude who has been around the block so many times it was named after me. While I can gain or lose weight, what I cannot do is make myself taller or younger. It simply does not work that way.

Going along with me in that delusional state would be of zero benefit to me, and would require that you lie to me. See the problem? I can tell you that it would not change my emotional state regarding my height and build, I am quite content there, but I can guarantee that it might make you feel awkward, especially if you really are 21, 6’5″, 250lbs.

To me, using preferred pronouns and treating someone according to their chosen gender is tantamount to lying, and I refuse to lie to anyone. I value my fellow humans too much for that. I also love the Lord too much to willingly lie to someone’s face for such as this. As I am commanded to love the Lord and my neighbors, lying to them cannot ever be mistaken for loving them.

I say all of that to say this. Not only are trans women not women, but I would venture to argue that they are the true misogynists. I say this for several reasons, including the fact that their belief that a dress, make-up, effeminate voice, and caricatured feminine behavior is enough to make them women. How I get to misogyny from here lies in the definition of the term:

Misogyny: (noun) a feeling of hate or dislike towards women, or a feeling that women are not as good as men.

My example here will be Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner. When he came out as trans and chose to begin living as “Caitlyn”, one of the things that happened was that he was named “Woman of the Year”, beating out a whole host of natural women who had likely spent years advancing in their chosen fields and who were far more deserving of the award, if for no other reason than they were biological women. What he did was rob a whole host of women of an award they deserved more than he did by virtue of being women while he is a man in a dress.

How might this count as misogyny? In that one moment, the people giving him this award were announcing that being a woman is so easy that a man in a dress can not only do it, but do it better than all other women being considered for that award. Their declaration is that men are better than women at being women! That is entirely insane, to say nothing of being viciously unfair and unjust. Which brings us to the next two terms in the list:

Chauvinism: (male) the belief held by some men that men are more important, more intelligent or better than women.

Sexism: the unfair treatment of people, especially women, because of their sex; the attitude that causes this.

Not only is the idea that biological men can somehow be better than women at being women misogynistic, it is also chauvinistic and sexist. It fits all three of these definitions. Yet, I am a bigot for disagreeing with their assertions? Can we be real, if only for a few minutes?

I am angered at the insult being dealt to the women of this country. I am angered that I am expected to go along with this horrific and debasing treatment of women by agreeing that a man in a dress is something other than a man in a dress. This is an insult to my wife, my daughters, my late mother, and every other woman in my life. I cannot be a party to misogyny, chauvinism, or sexism. Not today, Satan.

Truth is objective, it is factual, and it is undeniable. It is not flexible, subjective, or malleable in any way, shape, fashion, or form. To assert otherwise is folly. This is not how I define it, this is how it is. Here is the definition,

Truth: (noun) 1. (singular) the true facts about something, rather than the things that have been invented or guessed. 2. (uncountable) the quality or state of being based on fact. 3. (countable) a fact that is believed by most people to be true. [Note: definition 3 also defines “universal truth”, and is therefore an objective definition]

We know this, they know this, everyone knows this deep down inside. This brings me to the next point. If truth is undeniable, then why are people denying the evidence of truth right before their eyes?

We have made a whole series of mistakes as a society, and one of the primary ones was complacency when it comes to educating our children. Let’s be honest, how many of you send your kids off to public schools and spare hardly a glance at what they are being taught? It is far beyond the worst you can imagine.

They are being educated by teachers according to the dictates of the Dept of Education. The Dept of Education determines what goes into their education, and they are feeding them manure. They are being taught that up is down, left is right, good is bad, and bad is good. They are graduating kids who can barely read, who know nothing of critical thinking, constructive criticism, logic, or reason. They only know emotions, and that selfcontrol is white supremacy. This is what we have allowed to spring up in our midst. Is it no wonder that we are in the position we are in?

The early acceptance of trans women by feminists has come back to bite them. Not too long ago, I had the misfortune to watch a video out of England that showed a feminist woman being assaulted by a black clad AntiFa person of questionable gender while at a feminist rally.

Some months ago, there were news stories out of Australia that told of feminist women being assaulted and shouted down at feminist rallies by trans women. We even have the situation where people are making so that the only ones who can be called “women” are trans women, while biological women are being relegated to “birthing people”. Again, we are back to misogyny, chauvinism, and sexism, as women are being systematically stripped of all that makes them unique and wonderful because men in dresses wish to supplant them.

My personal favorite is wild eyed men in dresses telling heterosexual men that they are transphobic for refusing to date them. Add this to the myriad of wild eyed people insisting that anything normative is bigoted in some way, and what you have is a tiny segment of the population taking control of the narrative and steadily dismantling everything until our society has been utterly destroyed, and the worst part of it is that the same women being disenfranchised by trans women are going to be the first ones to speak up in their defense! We have officially arrived at the point where the tail is wagging the dog, and I question how long it will take for people to wake up.

We have entire generations of children being taught that being inclusive means treating truth as if it is relative, and accepting the “truth” of others is truly loving. They are being trained to believe that truth has more to do with individual perception, and that logic and reason are part of the hegemonic hold that straight white males have on the whole of American society. They are literally being trained to hate this country and everything it stands for, and that is not even the craziest part!

Consider this. Where does the money for all of this come from? It comes from the American taxpayers. Know it or not, admit it or not, but we have been funding our own downfall for decades! We have been dutifully paying our taxes, funding the people who want to tear down our Constitutional Republic and replace it with an authoritarian monstrosity that will eat everyone alive and will do so unchecked because there is nowhere else left to go!

As I have said before, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We have been manipulated into accepting people who do not have our best interests at heart, and the trans issue is only one small part of the overall problem. At its core, the trans issue is sexist, chauvinistic, and highly destructive. It forces people to declare in one voice that the emperor does in fact have clothes on, and that dissent is racist, bigoted, transphobic, sexist, and all around evil.

One way that a person can be freed from gaslighting is for another person to confirm that their eyes are not fooling them. Let me then be that independent voice. You have been gaslit into believing something that runs entirely counter to reality. No, your eyes are not fooling you, the emperor is really parading naked through town, too afraid to admit that he is not wearing a stitch of clothing. Enjoy the imagery. Join me in fixing the problem by pushing back with logic, reason, and genuine love that looks nothing like blind acceptance.

FINALLY! It has happened! History has been made!

I am up way past my bedtime, but this is worth it. As of this morning, Roe vs Wade has been overturned. Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Lord! Hallelujah!

To those who are upset, all this means is that abortion has been kicked back to the states. It is now up to the states to decide if they will continue to allow abortion or not. If you have objections to the laws in your state, feel free to move to a state more friendly to your ideological beliefs.

To those of us who are celebrating, we have today to feel good. We have this weekend to celebrate. Beginning Monday, we must begin the fight to abolish and criminalize abortion in our individual states. We won the battle, but there is still a whole war to win. Let’s do it for the glory of the Lord, and let’s do it for the babies that we will save!

Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the blessing of renewed life. Lord, we thank you for your mercy and grace when we are undeserving. We ask Lord that you fortify us for the coming fight. Help us Lord to work as Your instruments, so that hearts and minds will be changed. Use us to accomplish Your will for us, Lord. Let this nation once again become a sanctuary for life, and let us renew ourselves in Your ways and Your Law. I ask it in the Name above all other names.

Humanity Lost

I have concluded that there are gigantic swathes of our population who have either taken leave of their senses, or have willingly surrendered their humanity altogether. I had hoped that I might be wrong, but this bit of news has certainly made me question things. If nothing else, I am leaning towards a total loss of humanity because not even insanity can adequately explain what is going on at this time.

In response to the SCOTUS leak, various pro-abortion groups have stepped up their campaign to continue their unending massacre of innocents. Not only are they protesting in the streets, screeching and screaming like wounded animals, but now they are also committing acts of vandalism that border on acts of domestic terrorism, not that anyone will hold them accountable. Given the last few years worth of history, people getting away with acts of violence and destruction of property have certainly become par for the course, have they not? Well, only if they are on the correct (ahem, Left) side of the political aisle, right?

Were we meant to be shocked or shaken by such obvious acts of retaliation aimed at coercion? Are those of us dedicated to the abolition and criminalization of abortion somehow intended to experience fear and trepidation here? We have been fighting this fight for decades and victory is within sight, theirs or ours has yet to be determined. However, the way they are acting makes me think at least some of them are genuinely afraid. They are afraid that they will lose the “right” to continue murdering their children, sacrificed on the altar of convenience, in honor of Molech.

Theirs is quite the Catch-22, is it not? For decades they have fought desperately to continue slaughtering children, while those of us with a conscience have sought to protect and preserve the weakest of our species from harm. Now that it is beginning to look like they will lose, they have come under the impression that childish acts of vandalism will somehow turn the tide? The only aspect of this I am the slightest bit impressed by is the profound lack of creativity and maturity they have displayed.

What can they do? If they continue to attack and vandalize pregnancy crisis centers, they continue to look like the bad guys that they are. If they choose the high road, then their side derides them for “internalized misogyny” and they are kicked out of their camp. It would seem that they have painted themselves into quite the corner. My hope is that there will come a point where someone will stop and say, “Are we the baddies?”

While I am not a cruel person, I find their fear encouraging. If they are this afraid of what might happen, then we may well be headed in the right direction. My fervent prayer to the Lord is that this nation turn away from its satanic, immoral ways and return to a road consistent with His Law.

My hope is that the people tied up in these Leftist pro-abortion groups will be brought to repentance and brought to kneel at the foot of the Cross. My hope is that the river of innocent blood flowing from sea to shining sea be allowed to run dry. My hope is that we once again remember that this is a Christian nation, and that all humans have value regardless of level of development, size, or any other defining characteristics people wish to use to justify their unending massacre of innocent babies. May we reclaim our lost humanity before the Lord shows us what Sodom and Gomorrah saw in their last moments.

Illegal Immigration and the Bible

There is something I have noted recently. In many of the discussions I have seen and heard relating to the topic of illegal immigration, the idea that opposition to the presence of illegal aliens is unbiblical has begun to show up often enough that I felt the need to weigh in on the topic. The idea centers around the following,

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 19:33-34)

According to proponents of this idea, these two verses serve as a sort of gotcha argument for Christians who oppose things like open borders, and who push for the strict enforcement of our immigration laws. Their intent seems to be to force believers to change their position by convincing them that their position is a violation of the Law of God. The main problem with this idea is that this is not the case. Far from supporting things like open borders, this passage, and many like it, do not support the argument being presented. What we will do is examine elements of this and many other biblical references to come to a reasoned conclusion.

We will begin with the word I placed in bold print, “stranger”. The word translated as stranger in the King James is גֵּר (gare). This word can be alternately translated as alien, sojourner, a guest, or foreigner. This is one of three words used to denote this concept, but this word is different because it is the word used to denote a foreigner or guest who is in a territory legally. This means that a gare, in this case, is a Gentile who has chosen to join with the people of Israel as a proselyte, which makes them the equivalent of a legal immigrant in our modern parlance. What we have then is a command against mistreating new converts by making their lives difficult. Instead, they are to be treated as if they were native born Israelites. This is analogous to naturalized American citizens, or as I call them, Americans-by-choice.

Upon raising their right hand and swearing the Oath of Citizenship, they not only become American citizens, but they essentially become the same as any natural born American, with all the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated. No different because of where they were born, but the same as anyone else. This is the type of foreigner that is being referenced here.

This command is necessary because many of the surrounding nations were prone to oppressing any foreigners in their midst. The intent is to make their lands welcoming to Gentiles so that they may ultimately become a part of the commonwealth of Israel. As YHWH is God of both Jews and Gentiles, it makes sense that they would want to bring Gentiles into covenant with Adonai Elohim. In a world where everyone else mistreats outsiders as a rule, being known for kindness to strangers would be cause for greater attention. This goes a long way towards showing people the loving kindness and mercy of the Lord, which is one of the commands believers are bound to follow.

The main premise behind their argument is that setting and enforcing national boundary lines is somehow immoral and unbiblical. According to their logic, requiring people to immigrate legally not only equates to being anti-immigration, an idea so convoluted that the mental gymnastics are akin to a three-ring circus, but that it also equates to being unloving towards foreigners. If this were the case, why then is it that the ancient world considered strong borders essential to survival? To hear them tell it, people just wandered at will wherever they wished, and this idea has no basis.

Modern archeological evidence shows that nations like ancient Egypt had established border forces and issued permits like modern visas to travelers passing through the region. This was intended to ensure the safety and security of these nations, just as they are today. This is supportive of the biblical accounts that show the same. For example, when the Hebrews were moving from Canaan to Egypt because of the famine that Joseph prophesied, they formally asked permission of the Pharaoh to occupy the land of Goshen,

Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen. And he took some of his brethren, even five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers. They said moreover unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen. And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.” (Gen. 47:1-6)

If this were against the Law of God, i.e., unjust, or immoral, why did they give respect and honor to Pharaoh in that manner rather than just move right in? For anyone who claims to be a Christian to argue that this passage says anything other than what it really says, they would have to tell a lie about the Lord and make Him seem inconsistent. For anyone else to make the same claim would indicate that they are either dishonest or ignorant, neither of which speaks well for them.

Looking at some of the other biblical evidence, we see that the Sinai Peninsula was essentially no-man’s land, which allowed the Hebrews to wander for 40 years without interference from any other nation. However, when they began to move towards the land of promise, one of the things they did was to send messengers to the rulers of the lands that they needed to pass through to get to the land of promise and request permission to pass through. In one of the incidents, they asked for permission to pass through Edom and were denied,

And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us: How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers: And when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the king’s high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders.
And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword. And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet. And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.” (Numbers 20:14-21)

What is most telling about this situation is that the king of Edom not only said no, but eventually sent out a force of troops to ensure that the Israelites honored his word on the matter. He denied them despite their assurances that they would cause no harm, and that was within his rights to do as king. If this were immoral or unjust, then why did the Israelites submit to his decision rather than just walk through and do as they saw fit?

One of the things we must not forget is that we are commanded to submit to governmental authority that is just and godly. This includes traveling through nations not our own. I would not expect to remain subject to the laws of the US while driving through Mexico, nor would I expect a Mexican national to be exempt from the laws of the US if they were to do the same.

Along those lines, I was once planning a trip to Alaska by way of driving through Canada. Of course, this was pre-COVID, so it was not as complicated as it would be now. One of the steps I took was to contact Canadian authorities and ensure that I knew the proper procedures for traveling through Canada with a firearm, including any and all restrictions relating to proper storage and security. Why? Because I am subject to their laws once I cross that international boundary and do not welcome the idea of being sent to prison for something entirely avoidable. I should note that the person I dealt with at the RCMP was very polite, very professional, and very knowledgeable.

We must also remind those who make these arguments that every nation on earth not only has borders, and the forces necessary to prevent illegal immigration, but it is generally regarded as reasonable, rational, and essential to the survival of their nation. If it is wrong for us to do the same, but acceptable for them, then this makes their argument inconsistent and it would behoove us to then determine why they are comfortable with such an inconsistency. This is a point where the law of non-contradiction definitely applies.

Arguing that the Bible somehow decries the idea of strong borders, well protected by border agents, is clearly fallacious. Arguing that it is immoral and unjust to require people to meet specific requirements before being granted entry is similarly fallacious, especially when you consider what Jesus had to say about gaining entry into His Kingdom. All one needs to do is examine the Word carefully to see what I mean.

In Matthew 7:21, Jesus says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

The requirement presented here is to simply do the will of the Father. He states that many will call out to Him, people who thought they were true believers, but He states clearly that it will only be those who did the will of the Father who gain entry into the Kingdom. Does that sound like Jesus would support open borders? No.

In John 10:1, Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

To be sure, He is addressing gaining entry into the Kingdom of heaven, as He was in Matthew, but you can see a certain amount of consistency in the logic and reason He is applying. The Kingdom does not have wide open borders, one must meet the predetermined requirements before they can cross that border. Coming by any other way is dishonest and treacherous. As Jesus proclaimed that He did not come to do away with the Law, it is clear that we must abide by the Law, and that Law places requirements on those subject to it, including submission to human authority that is consistent with the Law of God. I ask again, does it seem like Jesus would support the idea of open borders? I think not.

The final example is, I think, the most important one. In John 3:16-21, Jesus says,

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In this passage, Jesus very clearly presents the entire Gospel Message. He states that it is the natural state of Men to love darkness, or Sin. He states that God chose to send His Son to bring Men to the Light. He even presents the requirement for entry into the Kingdom, to trust in Name of the Son and choose to follow Him. Again, we see language that sets boundaries and limitations akin to that which is used to establish international borders.

In this clear Gospel presentation we see that Salvation is available for all who would submit to His authority and follow His commands. We also see that those who choose to defy His authority and His commands will face condemnation. It becomes all the more clear that Jesus would abhor open borders, not support them!

What of the believers who would use Scripture to push us in the direction of supporting open borders? Far be it for me to pronounce condemnation on my brothers and sisters, but it is clear to me that they are ignorant of Scripture at best, and twisting Scripture to suit their desires and purposes at worst. I have little doubt that the Lord will have much to say about such a thing, and I pray that they will repent before that day.

Gun Control, Part 2

In my last post, I went over some of the reasons why I am opposed to most forms of gun control. It is ineffective, borderline unconstitutional (if not outright unconstitutional), and would do more harm than good. From a practical standpoint, that should be enough to end just about any argument. Unfortunately, y’all know as well as I that is not going to be the case. The opposition certainly likes to ignore the obvious and press on from there.

The list of reasons I oppose most forms of gun control is too long for a single post, so I felt it necessary to write a part two. I feel that it is important to fully articulate why I hold this position. My hope is that you, the reader, will better understand my reasoning, even if you disagree.

To recap, in the last post I covered the federal statute defining the militia and why the argument that the Second Amendment applies solely to the milita is really an argument for less gun control, not more. I covered the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that members of the militia are expected to supply their own weapons if called upon to act in defense of community, state, or nation. I also covered the fact that the same ruling states that the weapons supplied by the militia must be of the type in common use and listed the weapons issued to a regular Infantry squad as an example of what constitutes the type in common use.

Another point that bears consideration is that “well regulated” does not mean what proponents for gun control think it means. According to dictionaries from the time period, well regulated meant well trained, well designed, and well managed. In other words, something akin to “efficient”, “effective”, and “fully functioning”. It does not imply that it must be heavily regulated by the government as it was meant to ensure that the people had recourse against a government that had become tyrannical, to say nothing of common defense.

Moving on to the next point, banning firearms of any type, especially with the intent of confiscating or “buying back”, constitutes theft on the part of the government. According to the Constitution, we are guaranteed the right to due process, the right to a speedy trial, etc. Among those rights is the right to retain our property unless we have committed a crime, at which point property can be removed through due process.

What they are proposing is tantamount to forcibly removing property from people who have committed no crimes in response to the criminal acts of others. Under other circumstances, we would call this extrotion, coercion, and strongarm robbery. Yet, we are expected to regard it as normal “for the sake of the children”, to quote Nancy Pelosi.

One of the most interesting things they have insisted upon is the ubiquitous gun buyback program. Even the name of this program is presumptuous and arrogant, as it assumes that those firearms were the property of the US government before being purchased by private citizens, and they have decided that they can buy them back from the people at will. In so doing, they also assume that they are the ones who get to decide for everyone else who gets to keep and bear arms, which types of arms they can bear, and for which reasons.

While this is typical for many in Congress, as they have also decided that they get to be arbiters of morality, biology, climate science, and the very basic concept of truth, this is yet another item on the list of usurpations by government that the founding fathers tried to anticipate when writing the Constitution. They embody the sentiment that government is the natural enemy of liberty and is to be regarded solely as a necessary evil.

In this case, we have absolutely no one to blame but ourselves. Rather than be watchful and ever vigilant of the actions of our elected officials, we chose to assume that they truly had our best interests at heart and acted accordingly. Rather than hold them accountable for their decisions and actions, we chose to look the other way. This is our fault, and it falls to us to fix the resulting mess. We allowed ourselves to become lazy and complacent. It is time to roll up our sleeves and fix the problem.

My final point for this post centers around a fact of life that I feel is not mentioned often enough. When it comes to capable, able-bodied adults in our country, there is only one person responsible for your safety and security, and if you want to know who that person is, proceed over to the nearest mirror and look at who is looking back at you.

The good people of Law Enforcement are not your personal body guards. Their job description does not include serving as part of the individual’s security detail. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Law Enforcement officers are not required to protect the average citizen. They can stand by, bear witness to a crime being committed, and be solely responsible for investigating the crime and arresting the perpetrator(s), all without violating the victim’s civil rights. That is it.

Some of the examples are:

DeShaney vs. Winnebago

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”

Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales

“Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”

Warren v. District of Columbia

“well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.”

In all of these cases, the Supreme Court has consistently declared that we are solely responsible for the provision of our own safety and security. It stands to reason that doing so should include keeping and bearing arms comparable to those being illegally used by the criminal element. As there is no way, in any possible universe, that criminals are going to feel compelled to obey laws, let alone laws pertaining to firearms, then this means we ought to be similarly armed and capable of defense of self and others, which has the added benefit of being a moral imperative.

As I have recently stated to someone while discussing this topic, while I am trained in hand-to-hand combat and the use of various hand-held weapons, I am getting to be too old to take a beating and this makes it all the more imperative for me to be able to possess the tools necessary to defend myself, my wife, my children, and my neighbors if necessary. Assuming otherwise will end with people getting killed.

Note that one of the cases I have listed involved a woman whose ex-husband had violated a protective order, kidnapped their three children, and murdered them, all while she was frantically pleading with the police to go to where he was and arrest him. This brings me to the exceptions to the rule, the circumstances under which the police are required to act.

In all of those cases, it is clear that the police are required to act in the following times:

1. “Imminent Danger,”
2. After police accept a duty to do something,
3. When police deny you police protection based upon your race or some related civil rights violation.

If you read my posts relating to Christian civil disobedience, then you know the term I am about to use. Top of the list shows that they are required to protect you in extremis, which is to say if they have good reason to believe that doing nothing will result in permanent harm or death.

The second item on the list would apply if they offered you protective custody for one reason or another. The instant they find a need to assign a protective detail to you, you are their responsibility 100%. However, once they decide that there is no longer a need, responsibility for your safety and security reverts back to you.

Finally, if you find yourself in a situation whereupon you are due protection under the previous exceptions, but are denied due to some legally protected status, then your rights were violated. You were due protection and someone denied it because they bore some prejudice against you.

At some point, not only did the government forget that they are our employees, but they came under the mistaken idea that we are their servants. Beginning later this year, we should take it upon ourselves to remind them of who holds the true political power in this country, and this ought to be the first step in returning them to their proper place. It begins with the voting booth. Vote out the career politicians, replace the ones behaving in an openly criminal fashion, call for their prosecution, and replace them with people who have some kind of rational and moral character.

This brings us to the crux of the matter, what I like to think of as the Catch-22 of gun control. On the one hand, the Supreme Court says that we are solely responsible for our own safety and security. However, on the other hand, the government says that we should rely on law enforcement and give up our right to defense of self and others.

Given that law enforcement is not obligated to protect you, then it falls to you to do everything in your power to provide for your own protection, as well as that of your loved ones and neighbors. However, the government is telling you the opposite, that you should place your safety and security in the hands of people who are not obligated to protect you. Quite the Catch-22 is it not? What do you do?

Why I Oppose Nearly all Forms of Gun Control

I once mentioned my pro-gun beliefs to a physician I worked under and his response was a disappointed, “You do know that people are dying out there, right?” Being the no-filter having person that I am, my response was, “Yes, Sir, and more gun control means more people will die, not fewer.” He did not understand what I meant by that and I never got the chance to elaborate.

If you are still interested in reading this, then let us delve into how and why I came to the conclusions I have, and examine the objective evidence for these conclusions. Trust and believe, you are likely to encounter a few surprises.

I want to point out that most of the arguments put forward by supporters of gun control center around emotional response and either a careful twisting of the facts or outright lies. Their intent is to place in your mind the idea that private firearms ownership is too dangerous, and something to be feared. They will do all they can to convince you that owning a firearm is a terrible idea. If you are wondering why I say that this is their intent, I will elaborate.

I will begin with the “Who”. Who is it that is pushing for gun control the most? That would be the mostly Leftist Democratic party. While there may be a scant precious few Republicans in Congress who support more gun control, the fact of the matter is that the majority of gun control proponents in Washington DC have a “D” behind their names, and little to no idea what life looks like at the street level.

They have worked closely with the mainstream media and Hollywood to push this gun control agenda forward. Certainly they have been far more subtle about it than most pro-gun people give them credit for. The more I examine the situation, the more convinced I am that the anti-gun politicians are the red herring, meant to keep people distracted, while the media and Hollywood implant in people’s minds the idea that owning and carrying a gun can only result in very bad things.

Think back on any number of crime dramas. I will use Law & Order as an example. Whenever the Detectives encounter a civilian who has purchased a firearm, what is their immediate response? Is it not shock and deep concern? I have noticed that their first response is to always ask, “Why?” The implication is that a civilian owning a firearm is a matter of deep worry and concern. If that is how you respond when you see those scenes, congratulations, you have been manipulated.

Bear in mind that many of the police dramas also condition people to believe that it is acceptable for the police to play fast and loose with people’s constitutional rights so long as the result is one bad guy dead or behind bars. They teach you that the ends justify the means, which means that more people are willing to sit back and sacrifice essential liberty for the sake of temporary safety, which is something I believe Benjamin Franklin once addressed.

Then, there is the mainstream media and their tendency to sensationalize events in such a way as to convince people that those exceedingly rare events, many of which took place because people who ought to have known better were sitting on their hands, can be fixed by passing newer, more restrictive laws. They also like to make those incidents seem as if they happen on a near daily basis, which is only partially true. That bit is needlessly complicated, and we will cover that as well.

The “what” is the idea they have implanted in people’s minds that owning or possessing a firearm is too dangerous for the average American. They have created the idea that the only people who ought to have guns are police and military, and if you are not one of those then you must be a criminal. There has been a deliberate effort to associate firearms ownership with criminality, and it is about time that idea came to an end.

This leads us to the “why”. For what reason would they be so intent on separating the people from their ability to bear arms? Would you believe that it is because they fear you and that this is a good thing? Whether you know it or not, the most powerful military force on this continent is the American firearms owners, and that scares them beyond words. More on that in a bit. There are some other details I wish to touch on, first.

Here are a few facts that I am going to surprise you with. Statistically speaking, the safest and most responsible segment of the U.S. population is firearms owners. In fact, you are safer standing next to an armed American citizen than you are driving on our roads or going to the doctor. This is due to the fact that less than a fraction of a percent of firearms owners will misuse their firearm in any way. Millions of firearms owners leave their homes carrying weapons every day, and most of our nation bears little to no resemblance to Mogadishu. (Note that the few places that do resemble dystopian nightmares have stringent gun control laws and regulations and have been under Democratic rule for decades)

We have also been lied to about firearms related deaths in this country, so much so that there appears to be some confusion over what must be done about the number of people who die from gunshot wounds every year. The truth is that the majority of firearms related deaths in this country are suicides, and the people killing themselves most often are white males. If you genuinely want to reduce the number of people dying from gunshot wounds, become an expert in suicide prevention and chase down every white male you see.

Now that I have laid out much of my argument, let us then address the evidence. I do not come to these conclusions lightly, or through ignorance, so it would behoove me to present you with the evidence that led me to this place.

The number of firearms in this country is estimated to be more than the US population, which is greater than 331 million people, along with countless billions of rounds of ammunition. These firearms are held by anywhere between 40% and 90% of the population, depending on the source you consult. That amounts to a lot of people owning and possessing firearms. For the purposes of this post, we will assume that the firearms ownership rate in the US is 50%, or 165.5 million people.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report, an annual report that compiles crime data from law enforcement agencies all over the US, shows that there are fewer than 20,000 homicides per year, with roughly 60% committed using a firearm. Bear in mind that these are just homicides, and do not fully reflect the true number of people who are victimized with a firearm.

For the sake of argument, I will go with 20,000 homicides per year, which means that there are approximately 12,000 homicides committed with firearms each year. This means that approximately one out of every 13,375 firearms owners will commit a murder with their firearm. In case you are trying to do the math, that comes out to 0.00833333333% of firearms owners, and I am only using conservative numbers here. That is an absurdly low number of people who will use their firearms to end someone’s life. Does that paint a slightly different picture than the media narrative?

To further drive the point home, the CDC says that there are an average of 32,000 people killed in motor vehicle crashes every year. That is 22,000 more than are killed by firearms! As for doctors, the website MyMedicalScore says that medical error will kill an average of 250,000 people per year, with another 7,000 to 9,000 killed by medication errors. As I mentioned early on, you are safer standing next to an armed American than you are driving on our roads or visiting a doctor. Truth be told, homicide, in and of itself, does not even make the CDCs top ten causes of death list.

This leads us to an obvious question. If the problem of people committing murder with firearms is such a small problem, why would the government care about it at all? The simple answer is control. An unarmed population is far easier to subdue than an armed one. Australia was recently nice enough to provide us with a shining example of this point. Their government was forcibly confining people to quarantine camps, which can only be described as wrong on a variety of levels.

For those of us in the US, this becomes a whole other matter when you consider something I mentioned earlier. The most powerful military force on this continent is a specific segment of the US population. According to 10 U.S. Code § 246, the militia in this nation is defined as,

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The next section says,

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

What does all of this mean? It means that all males between the ages of 17 and 45, who are either citizens or immigrants intending to become citizens, are automatically part of the unorganized militia system, unless they happen to already be serving in the armed forces. Consider carefully the sheer number of men who fit this description, and this does not take into account that female members of the National Guard are included in this definition. If you are part of a group seeking to take control of a nation, would it not make sense to weaken its defenses first?

For frame of reference, at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Armed Forces only boasted a little over 3 million members, including both Active and Reserve components. This number is massively dwarfed by the number of people covered by the federal statute I have provided above. Does that maybe put things into a different light? I would be willing to bet that this is one of the main reasons why people in government have been so interested in getting rid of AR-15s despite the fact that they are used with far less frequency to commit murder. Of course, there is more.

In US v Miller (1939), the SCOTUS majority opinion held that the militia must report furnishing their own weapons if called upon. It says, “that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”. Note the phrasing, “in common use”. This is important.

Do you know what the standard issue weapons are for the average Infantry Squad? They would be the M4 rifle, the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), the M240 Medium Machine Gun, and the M17 pistol. This is the bare minimum weapons, with other weapons issued according to mission set.

Of these weapons, civilian ownership is legal, but only one of those weapons can be owned without the cumbersome expense of involving the BATFE, to say nothing of the insanely high price tags. For all intents and purposes, the M17 pistol is the only weapon on that list the average civilian can practically own, and this despite the Supreme Court ruling that these are the types of weapons required to ensure the existence and availability of a militia should one ever become necessary (God forbid). These are the weapons in common use for our armed forces, and it is clear that this is what the Supreme Court meant when giving their ruling.

One could make the argument that this alone is enough to remove most, if not all, gun control measures for anyone covered by the federal statute above. That is, if one wishes to hold to the argument that the Second Amendment only applies within the context of ensuring the existence of a militia to augment our armed forces for national defense. Is it not interesting that the most powerful military force on this continent is being systematically disarmed and pacified?

There are civilian versions of some of those weapons, though I would point out that they are hardly appropriate for national defense. The AR-15 is great for home defense, and maybe within your community. However, there is a reason why the AR-15 is not issued as the main battle rifle for any military force on this planet. It lacks the features necessary to make it a true main battle rifle, not the least of which is select fire with either full automatic or burst fire.

There is a civilian version of the M249 SAW, but it is semiautomatic only and the $10K price tag places it firmly out of the price range of most Americans. That makes two weapons entirely unavailable, with the fact that no one has made a civilian version of the M240 rounding out the list. Suffice it to say, the government has done a phenomenal job of weakening the militia in this country, and that just covers the weapons. Recall that I mentioned that government has teamed up with mass media to convince the average American that owning a firearm is undesirable.

This brings us to another point. Many like to argue that the Second Amendment applies solely to the militia, and that this does not include those who do not fit the law mentioned above. There is a major problem with that argument and the problem is that this idea is not supported by the language of the Second Amendment.

During the 1990s, there was a lot of debate over gun control and this debate led a man named J. Neal Schulman to contact a man named Roy Copperud, an expert in the usage of American English who had served on several usage panels for different dictionaries. What this means is, he not only qualifies as an expert, but has helped to write several of the dictionaries we make use of on a regular basis. Needless to say, his opinion on the language of the Second Amendment is essential to understanding the topic.

A transcript of their correspondence is available online for all to see. Here is the link:

I strongly recommend you check it out, read it carefully, and make up your own mind. Here is an excerpt of the conversation:

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

Their correspondence goes on from there, and goes into further detail, but you get the point. Based on the available evidence, it is clear that the idea of the Second Amendment being solely intended for use by a militia is clearly fallacious.

We will now return to something I mentioned at the beginning of this post, and that is the idea that fewer guns will equate to more deaths not fewer. This is not a point I make lightly. In my life, one of my sisters was murdered using a gun, and I have lost a sister and friends to suicide by gun. To say that I have skin in the game would be an understatement.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting President Obama commissioned a study into firearms related violence, specifically mass shootings. The results of that study are available online and hold some very surprising results. Here is the information:

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

According to this study, mass shootings are relatively rare when compared to other types of homicides. It also states that firearms are used to prevent more violent crimes than are committed. Finally, it states that people who fight back with firearms are less likely to be injured than those who choose to comply. Here are a few excerpts,

“These multiple-victim homicides, because of their shocking nature, have commanded the attention of the public, the media, and policy officials, even though they are relatively rare and account for a small proportion of all firearm-related injuries and deaths in the United States.”

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”

“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).”

When reading this study, bear in mind that it was being conducted by anti-gun people at the behest of an anti-gun President, which means that they will still place a negative connotation to the private ownership of firearms. Despite that obvious prejudice, they were still placed in the position of admitting that there is a net positive to private firearms ownership and that this net positive covers more than just guaranteeing the existence of a militia.

I would like to draw your attention to the second quote I provided, which says in part, “estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008”.

Even if we low-ball the estimates, there is still a significant disparity between between legal defensive uses of firearms and illegal uses of firearms. A difference of 200,000 uses is pretty significant all things considered! That is 200,000 more murders, rapes, assaults, home invasion robberies, and mass shootings prevented and far eclipses the number of people murdered by firearms! I would call that a check in the win column.

Thoughts on Uvalde

Uvalde, Texas is located in what used to be my own backyard. Being from Austin, and having lived previously in San Antonio, Uvalde had always been close enough that I did not give it much thought. Truth be told, this is not the way to fix that.

If you have followed my blog for a bit, you already know that I make a habit of holding off before addressing major tragedies like this one until more information becomes public knowledge. If you are new, there is a list of reasons why I do so, not the least of which is that doing otherwise often leads to jumping to conclusions, and I am not about that. I am not a fan of speaking out of turn with false or incomplete information.

I am careful about making judgement calls because Jesus commanded us to be so. Matthew 7:1-6 makes clear that we are to reserve judgement until we have as many of the facts as possible, and I take that seriously.

This brings us to Uvalde. Human language is not adequate to express the level of anguish and anger I feel when tragedies like this arise. The level of evil and hatred one must feel to decide that walking into an elementary school and executing small children is acceptable goes far beyond the pale. I say this, not only as a dad to small children, but as a man of God who takes the biblical command to protect and defend the weak and defenseless very seriously.

Mass shootings, though rare, oftentimes take on the air of the spectacular because of their rarity and the horrific nature of these events. In cases like these, people with vivid imaginations have scant need of pictures of the scene as we are fully capable of conjuring up images of our own, which is something that becomes its own special kind of hell when you are a parent to children close to that age, as it is impossible to not picture our own children in that situation. This is why mass shootings, especially those taking place in schools, are particularly heinous, and why there is such a tremendously visceral reaction to them.

I mean, what does one do in situations such as these? To use a Southernism, I would be fit to be tied in a situation like that. Were it my child dying in a classroom, with the gunman running loose and causing harm to others, people on the scene would have to either kill me or hogtie me to keep me out! It is clear that I can relate to the dad stuck outside that school, buried under a pile of police officers bent on keeping him from running into the school to protect his now dead child. They bear full responsibility for his decision, and I dare not call it rash, for their inaction demanded it! He sought to do what he was supposed to do because they refused to do the same!

This brings me to the police on the scene. How dare you? You will dedicate five or six officers to detain one man whose baby was being brutally murdered, but not a single officer to run into the building and put a stop to the slaughter?! How can any of you bear to look yourselves in the mirror, let alone sleep at night? Cowards!

I was instantly reminded of a similar scene in Florida, where the SRO of a high school chose to be a coward and waited outside the school while students were being murdered inside. Congratulations, you are now no better than him. You have now become him, too frightened to risk your lives while babies were being slaughtered inside. No honor, no integrity, and no courage. Just a bunch of swine crowding around for the safest place you can find while the people you swore to protect and preserve were led off to the slaughter. I pity you when it comes time to face the Lord in judgment and you must answer for allowing the spilling of innocent blood when you were in a position to stop it. I have very little sympathy for you, as you had a choice in the matter. Those babies and their parents had no choice in the matter, and it was up to you.

Psalm 72:12-14 says of the Lord, “For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.

13He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy.

14He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.

How can you do or be any less than this?

Psalm 82:3 says, “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

This direct command from the Lord is one I am sure that even the most ardent of Atheists would consider a given. This is Basic Human Decency 101, and every member of law enforcement on the scene at that school failed to abide by what can only be described as the bare minimum! How dare any of you call yourselves men or women and continue to serve in the capacity you do?! It is clear that you abandoned your posts when you were most needed, and to continue to demand the respect that your position entails is an affront to all that is good and decent! You are now the weakest link, goodbye!

I find little comfort in the admission after the fact that the decision to wait outside the school for over an hour was a bad one. I mean, that they acknowledge their cowardly mistake is a step in the right direction. However, I get the sense that the parents of those children are too busy planning funerals and trying to make sense of their shattered lives to much care about people admitting to what amounts to an act of pure cowardice.

Y’all get to go home to your families. It is a heartbreaking fact that too many parents are now facing empty beds, blank spots at the dinner table, and too small caskets with little bodies in them, while those officers, and the incident commander calling the shots, do not suffer that problem. Life may not be fair, but there ought to be limits to how unfair it can be.

When I enlisted, I was 28 years old. I was married and had children. To say that I knew what I was about to embark on is an understatement. I made the decision to enlist during a war and knew I was going to be sent into an active warzone. I knew that there was a chance that I would not make it home alive. I was mentally and emotionally prepared to die for my country and hoped that I would be able to do well by my children. That has not changed, I am still prepared to fight and die for my wife, my children, my community, and my country. This is why I cannot wrap my mind around the images of a group of police officers huddling around, too scared to act while small children suffer and die.

I know some might argue that they were ordered to stand down. First, who is the Incident Commander to make such a call? What gives that person the right to declare the lives of those children forfeit? That is an immoral, unjust, and entirely cowardly decision. There were multiple departments and agencies from all levels of law enforcement on the ground, ready and able to move at a moment’s notice. The IC chose to sit on their hands which means that the person in that position was NOT qualified to occupy it. Move aside and allow better men than you to make the call if you are too risk averse to function, you spinless coward.

As for the officers themselves, who are you to follow such a command?! I would not have wasted even the few seconds it would have taken to tell the IC which parts of my body they could kiss, and in which order, before moving to stack up on a door, praying that I get to the monster inside before he has a chance to do more damage. If that was you, and you chose to follow orders, then shame on you. May as well turn in your badge and go home. You have proved yourselves useless. I am sure someone can find a better use for the money they were paying you, like hiring officers with the intestinal fortitude to actually do their jobs!

I have zero tolerance or patience for people who willingly occupy a position of public trust and then abuse it. I get that no one can be perfect all the time, but one of the hardest things I have had to keep in the forefront of my mind for 17 years is that my mistakes in the line of duty can fill BODY BAGS! It is an easily demonstrable fact that the military and law enforcement are fields of endeavor that are severely unforgiving when it comes to mistakes and bad decisions, which is why we must work twice as hard to avoid making mistakes and bad decisions.

That the law enforcement personnel on the ground likely still have careers is an affront to all that is good and decent. Y’all need to pack it up, go home, and find something else to do, because you have taken an action that I do not see your community forgiving any time soon. I mean, what is the point in wasting tax money to pay you if you are going to refuse to perform the task you were hired to do?! Cowards!

Moving on to the next point. News reports state that a teacher from the school went to retrieve an item from her car prior to the shooter’s arrival. For reasons that escape me, the reports show that she propped open the door on her way back in. What? Why? My first thought upon learning of this was, “Did the shooter have inside help?” If so, for what reason? Please, in the Name of all that is Holy, tell me that teacher’s entire life is being examined from every possible angle, and that she will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if it turns out that she helped the shooter.

Furthermore, history has shown that the deranged lunatics carrying out these horrific crimes are not silent about their intent. Thanks to social media, they will often brag and threaten online, telling the whole world about what is about to happen. In every case where that has happened, there were people in various industries, law enforcement included, who became privy to this and chose to do nothing!

Making terroristic threats counts as a crime in every single jurisdiction within these United States and no one is stopping these atrocities before they occur?! There are people out there walking free, hands dripping in innocent blood, and that needs to stop! Arrest them for their dereliction. Hold them accountable! If they knew something and chose not to speak up, they are just as guilty as the murdering scum they protected! Arrest them, charge them as accessories, and give them the maximum sentence allowed by law! Do not forget that God will be holding them to account, but do not make the mistake of assuming that this absolves you of your duty! Ezekiel 33:6 says,

But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

If you knew something and chose not to do or say anything about it, there will come a day when you will stand before the Almighty God of the universe, and answer for the damage caused by your inaction. I pray that you repent before that day because He takes a very dim view of people who allow His children to come to harm. Prisons built by human hands pale in comparison to what the Lord has planned for you if you refuse to repent.

Here is my final thought in all of this. More gun control will do exactly zero to prevent tragedies such as this. I will remind you, the reader, that the Columbine massacre took place at a time when the US was under a so-called Assault Weapons ban, and the shooters were still able to illegally acquire the tools they needed to rain chaos and destruction down on people who did not deserve it.

Consider that a SKS rifle has a ten round capacity and is fed by stripper clips. With enough practice, the most untrained individual can operate a SKS and fire hundreds of rounds in a short period of time. Limiting magazine capacity, restricting the available types of weapons, and/or otherwise structuring laws to make acquiring firearms more difficult will do absolutely nothing to prevent tragic events like this.

What will do something to prevent it is people doing their due diligence and prosecuting people making terroristic threats, especially when those threats involve shooting up their schools! Enforce the present laws to the fullest extent and remove the threats before they have the chance to do any damage, and there is no way to number the lives that will be saved. If you are serious about preventing such tragedies, this is a brilliant first step!

The point needs to be made

Since the SCOTUS draft decision was leaked, I have chosen to sit back, let things play out, and see what happens. Truth be told, I am not the slightest bit surprised by what I have seen out of the Right and Left in response to this news. Personally, I am both gladdened and horrified by this turn of events. I am gladdened to know that Roe vs Wade is most likely going to be overturned but horrified by the idea that a draft decision was leaked. It should not have happened, and whoever did it needs to be prosecuted, disbarred, or subjected to whichever punitive measure exist for such an egregious occurrence.

Throughout all of this, I have heard lies flying back and forth, with politicians and talking heads on the TV whipping pro-abortion elements into a frenzy by telling them that the overturning of Roe vs Wade will rob them of an essential right under the Constitution. I would like to challenge them to show me where the right to have an abortion is codified in the Constitution as a right reserved for The People. Good luck with that, as there is no such provision. Roe & Casey were both poorly decided cases using bad law and horrific logic. The men responsible for that decision will stand before the Lord in judgment and my prayer is that they repent(ed) for the horrific things that they had the chance to prevent.

Truth be told, overturning Roe v Wade (and Casey along with it) will not rob anyone of a single right. It will not lead to systematic oppression, quite the opposite in fact. It will lead to the end of it. It will lead to states banning and criminalizing abortion, and my fervent prayer is that it will eventually result in abortion being banned in all states and territories. Once that occurs, we will have brought an end to the worst examples of systematic oppression this nation has ever seen. The senseless slaughter of babies will have been brought to an end. In fact, the day after Roe is overturned, I can tell you what my day will look like. I will wake up, thank God for my continued existence, and start advocating for my state to ban and criminalize abortion. The fight is far from over, this is simply one of the battles.

If you have bought into the lie that Roe v Wade guarantees the right to an abortion, you are sadly mistaken. What it did was violate the Tenth Amendment by taking a matter that belongs within the purview of the states and turn it into a federal matter. It was wholly inappropriate, went completely counter to science, logic, and reason. It gave the green light to a mass slaughter of human beings that eclipses any atrocity committed against any ethnic group in the history of the Americas. Overturning Roe does nothing more than restore to the states something that ought to have remained within their purview.

Once Roe is overturned, everyone will have some choices to make. If you support abortion but live in a state you know for a fact will ban it, you can either move away or stay and deal with it. Those of us who oppose abortion have been faced with this exact same decision ever since Roe and Casey, so welcome to the club. I cannot say that I feel bad for you, as that would be a lie, but I can say that I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with you in a calm, respectful, dignified manner.

If the idea of moving bothers you, I hear that California has a beautiful climate and has indicated that abortion will remain legal. It will either be a great move for you, or will prove the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.” I leave it up to you to decide for yourself.