Links Kicking Broadswords: January 2005

Kicking Broadswords

Rants from two Pro-gun, pro-Constitution, anti-liberal, anti-government spouses who also discuss Lutheran doctrine and probably a lot about survival and guns from the other spouse- my husband. If you hate commies, the blue states, and love the Constitution, read this blog.

Monday, January 31, 2005


I finally have the time to blog. I started back to work last week and was there 6 days in a row (I normally only work 4 10 hr days). I'm a cook at a university and the beginning of the new semester is always busy. I'm also taking classes and am struck at how deep the liberal mindset is in the minds of even "conservative" college students and professors (I attend a "christian" university).
My history professor rants about Hitler being the "face of evil" and that Germany caused two world wars. We'll be spending 4 classes on the Holocaust and only one on all of Germany's history up until the Reformation. I fear to wonder what will happen if I mention I have doubts about the Holocaust. I want answers, not ad hominem attacks. One of our textbooks discusses a "holocaust denier" but spends more time mentioning the picture of Hitler on his desk than his arguments.
My Biblical class is fine- no complaints. My history class focuses on primary documents thankfully- so we'll be reading the Republic, not merely reading about it. There are some problems- we've had to watch a horrible movie Supersize Me. The point of watching the movie was to make us see how easy it is to select and manipulate facts while ignoring the other point of view, which was fine. The problem was that the students agreed with the movie. They agree that McDonalds is to blame for obesity- not the poor choices of consumers. They gave me blank stares when I mentioned supply and demand. The average student in a university, whether they graduated from a private or public school, has a Marxist mindset- a deterministic view of the world coupled with a disregard for personal responsibility. Most wanted the government to step in and fix the problem.
My final class should be interesting. I hope to make people think. The subject is the American presidency and the teacher is the one of the only democrats on the staff. The president of college republicans is in the class. Students think they're so different from the professor but they only vary in degree and honesty. The prof will admit he wants big government. The students will say they love small government but have no idea what that means. We rated Bush and he got an A from the Republican pres but this man also says he loves Reagan. Bush stands for MORE government while Reagan stood for less. He wasn't perfect but he was sure better than Bush. Too many republicans vote for party members but not for traditional party values. One of the class members doesn't think Ahnold is a RINO!
Mention eliminating Social Security, making full-autos easier to buy, eliminating the FAA (or drastically reducing it), burning the Patriot Act, not funding the NEA, federal art programs, Pell grants, and most other government programs and see the looks you'll get.
John Dewey got what he wanted when he changed public education- he got a flock of socialist sheep, ready and willing to head the call of "big government".

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Little to no blogging...

As blogger keeps dumping my essays..

Monday, January 24, 2005

The Iraq conundrum

I wrote out this blog earlier but then the stupid computer quit working and deleted my post. Here's try number two.

The War of Terror has two likely outcomes and one fantasy ending (meaning it'll never happen).

1)The first possibility is that Americans keep fighting in Iraq and then possibly move on the other countries in an attempt to force Western democracy on people. Many will be very grateful but not most. Most will in fact resent us. Iran didn't become a fundamentalist regime until AFTER American business and aid had pulled the country out of dire poverty. People can't rise up until they have the means and motive to do so. The motive is simple: Islam. We are infidels to them and deserve to die. Allah commands that they slaughter infidels. There are some verses that sound nice but far too many that make it apparent that Islam is not a religion of peace. In this scenario more Americans are killed, although fortunately most of the fighting will be over there, not in America. However, Bush's dream of ending tyranny will not happen.

2) In four years American's will prove once again how cowardly our culture has become and will elect a man weak in foreign policy who's main message is that maybe (hopefully) they won't attack us if we just bend over backwards and give them what they want. Iran wants nuclear material? No problem- we don't want to offend anyone. When they realize they can kill Americans without fear of retribution they will. Civil liberties will be thrown out. Remember, it was Lincoln who suspended the Constitution and he was not particularly conservative. The uproar by liberals is very dishonest as they like civil liberties about as much as Feinstein likes guns in the hands of "commoners"

3) This final "possibility" is my dream scenario because Americans wouldn't try and do the impossible (a world free of tyranny) but won't look like cowards. Just like Switzerland, America would issue good rifles and provide military training (once a month or so) to every male of suitable age in the country. States, not the federal government, would run this. If Muslims did try to do something stupid they'd have half the American population to deal with (and more if women decided to learn at least rudimentary marksmenship). Muslim can then live in their own squalor and self-destruct and all those who would have been grateful to America for liberation can come right on over. Kick all those illegals out who don't want to be americans but rather desire to be rich mexicans. Any who wish to come to America and be Americans would be welcomed.

There may be another solution but I don't see it. Possibly establishing some sort of relative democracy (or at least not a violently anti-American government) in Iraq but not expecting too much might help but wouldn't be nearly as effecting.

To cut and run now would make us look like cowards and would make us more supseptible to attacks. To stay and try to bring about world freedom will backfire and make them resent us and thus try to kill the soldiers (and civilians if they can). Hence

Saturday, January 22, 2005

A new toy :) :)

Some weeks ago I ordered a Hawken flintlock rifle kit from Cabelas. Over the past two weeks I have been rust browning the barrel. Last night, I did the final finishing and put it together.

I need to figure this picture thing, as I think the new flintlock looks like the real thing from a gunsmith back in the day - unstained wood, oiled stock and browned barrel. :)

The sights are modern, but they'll stay until I have the money and inclination to change that. :)

So, a crappy week at work, but, fun with a great wife and a gun at home.

And to all a good night.

"I didn't buy a gun-really I didn't"

I have a husband who's obsessed with guns and there's one sentence I've learned to dread. "Honey, I didn't buy a gun. Really, I didn't". Yeah, right. When he says that, I'm already running through his wish list of guns figuring out which one he bought- the K31, the enfield, the 10-22......My brother was trying to keep a secret from my dad once and told him he could guess what his present was but he couldn't guess a saw. Guess what the present was. Kids do the same thing when they do something wrong. "Mommy, I didn't do hit my sister". Two seconds later, the sister comes in crying.

When I read smallestminority's blog about the new anti-racist math, I couldn't help but compare it with my husband's dreaded sentence. They're telling these kids over and over "there's no difference, all are equal, we're the same, racism is bad, racism is horrible". Why do you have to repeat something over and over again unless you don't believe it? I went to a school in North Idaho that was rather old-fashioned- we learned reading and writing and were spared most of the politically correct garbage. It was a mostly white school but there were a few hispanics and blacks. I never heard them called a racist name- short of the word "nigger" (learned from T.V.) I didn't know a single racial slur. It wasn't until I went to a politically correct college in southern california that I learned what a "spic" was.

My husband told me about a kid named 'elliot' he knew growing up who was black. No one thougth anything of him- he was just one of them. No big deal until there was an assembly about blacks at his school and elliot was pointed out. From that day on, he was never treated the same.

People often ignore differences until they're pointed out. The world is suddenly "us" vs. "them". Cramming anti-racism down kids throats won't do anything except make them wonder why it's being crammed down their throats. These are the same kids who go home and say "mommy, I didn't hit my sister". Could it be that the school has to continually tell them blacks are equal because deep down the school believes they're not?

One thing that strikes me about liberals is how incredibly racist they are. They're patronizing towards blacks and assume they can't make it without help from whites. Blacks are the "white man's burden". which is why they rush to give more welfare to blacks. Conservatives realize that blacks and whites are equal and trust that a black man or woman can get ahead through hard work. Christianity itself is the greatest anti-racist force- God died for ALL people, for all the sins of the world whether done by blacks or whites.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Evolution and the Constitution

I'm in the middle of writing a research paper for my class about Social Darwinism and how it's not such an absurd idea to an evolutionist- the only reason he doesn't accept that facet of Darwinism is because he doesn't like the consequences. In my research I discovered a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a justice of the Supreme Court. He writes that the justification for any law is "not that it represents an eternal principle," such as justice for example, "but that it helps bring about a social end which we desire".

When reading the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade one will find an interesting statement that says abortion must be considered in relation to "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial" issues.

Funny me- I thought the Constitution wasn't malleable. I thought it was the supreme law of the land, not subject to the whims of personal opinion.

Stop me if you've heard this one before..

Supervisor Smith invites Worker Wilson into the office. Supervisor asks that hated question,

"Worker Wilson, do you like your job here at Acme Widget Co?"

Worker gives the expected answer of

"Why, yes, sir. I love my job selling widgets. I love the interaction with all kinds of people and the challenges I can overcome. I look forward to my work day. In fact, were I to be offered a million dollars, my own caribbean island and a thousand young nubile concubines, I would not even consider leaving my job here at Acme Widget.'

Worker thinks in his head

"Oh, Lord, NOOO!!! Why do you have to ask such a stupid question?! I wake up every morning in dread fear of the work day, I go to bed at night wondering what awful sh*t is waiting for me the next day. I work with and for lying jackasses. We're always told to do the impossible for the ungrateful and have to pull success out my rear end. If food, rent and web were free I'd quit yesterday! I hate my job with a consuming passion! AAARRGGHH!!'

What a week. Thank God it is nearly over, and Sabbath rest shall soon be upon us. In a couple months, hopefully, I'll be able to relate the story.

God be with us, even those of us at Acme Widget.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

God help us

God has called Neal Knox home, our most stalwart defender of our first freedom.

Please join me in making a salutary and thankful gift to the Firearms Coalition Neal Knox Memorial Fund.

May God raise another in his place.

Monday, January 17, 2005

Quid custodit ipsos custodes

"Who shall guard the guardians?"

First, please read and .

One paragraph from the second article runs as follows;
"Earlier investigations revealed that Klobukowski had no training in the use of the Survivair Quick2000 Escape Hood Respirator, which is designed to filter potentially contaminated air in the event of a nuclear, chemical or a biological attack. He put the hood over Sheridan’s head after the 20-year-old, according to police reports, became belligerent after being taken into custody."

The first question one may ask, what on earth is this mask supposed to do as a restraining device? Second, what was this dip of an officer thinking when he used this mask? If you don't know how to use a gun, find out how before you do something really bad, like killing someone. The same with driving a car, or cutting with a tablesaw. The officer, I think, must have known that the mask somehow inhibits or restrains by restricting the airflow. After all, it's a mask, and Klobukowski used it as a restraining device.

Personally, either Klobukowski is shockingly, unbelievably, stupifyingly 'cannot breathe and walk at the same time', 'just plain dumb' stupid beyond our wildest dreams,
He's lying.

An internet commentor writes this;
"If I advanced the idea that, oh, let's say, Enron, should conduct their own investigation, I would be considered retarded. Why then do police do their own internal investigations? It's a situation with an obvious propensity for corruption--and corrupt it is. Without the risk of real punishment for abuse of authority, the police have become almost unimpeachable. "

My thanks to contrarianistic for this note, as it sums up what I've been thinking. If the officer who killed this kid, and the one above him who did the drunken hit and run, go unpunished, what does this tell us about our 'guardians'? What does this say about us who do not insist on defrocking those who are obviously too stupid or too criminal to wield the authority of the State? May I remind the blogosphere that Lon Horiuchi, the murderer of Vickie Weaver, is still drawing a hefty Federal paycheck? Are we in control of the policemen, or, are they in charge of us? Why do the defenders of such incometence and vility always say, 'well, look at it from the policeman's perspective, and you will understand'. It seems the reverse is never true to these defenders: look at it not from the point of view of the State but from the citizens? Who is in charge in a Republic? The State or the Citizen?

We all have 'bad cop' stories, and there is often more than one side to them. I think Rodney King was a criminal and got himself in trouble. I also think the cops may have gone too far. I oft think the cops go way, way too far. And we trust them to police themselves? Ever notice they always get off? Two months of paid vacation is not punishment, it's a reward. And Lon Horiuchi was never even wrist-slapped for his repeated perjury, murder and attempted murder.

We Christians talk of accountability. Accountability is a good thing.

Martin Luther wrote that Christians do not need policemen, as we are willing to shoulder responsibility ourselves, and serve and protect others. He did write also that the police need Christians, as the Ten Commandments are more necessary for those in authority than others. Constabularies need Christian ethics. Or they are no constabularies, but public mafias.

Which brings me to a question that I need answered. St. Paul wrote, famously, that evildoers must fear the civil government, and that the civil authority does not bear the sword in vain. What about when good men must fear the civil government, for it propegates and protects evildoers? What about when the civil authority does bear the sword in vain, not to protect order but to protect itself? When it serves not the law, not society, but it's own, greedy, power-hungry self?

My one quibble with all that Luther wrote was that I think he placed too much faith in the civil authority. I don't think he understood that the guardians need to be guarded.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Lessons Learned

First, I learned that it is brutally cold out there - -12F. :( Brr brrrrr brrrr

And second, if I had any affection for the M16 before, it's gone now. All weekend, from Friday afternoon till Saturday night, they simply would not work. We used CLP, LAW and LSA, and nothing made them work. The bolts wouldn't go back, they'd lock back, they'd go forward partway. I carried a SAW all weekend and it never, ever malfunctioned despite the bitter cold, rough use and lack of care. The poor riflemen were cleaning and lubing at every chance, and the darn 16s still wouldnt work. I would far rather hump miles and run across a field at high ready with a SAW that works than any M16 clone that doesn't.

If there are any fans of the finicky M16, and I'm sure their are, just note that in my 13 years, they have given me and everyone I know nothing but trouble. There is a reason I jump on the SAW or M14 given the slightest chance.

M16s are nothing but garbage. And I hate them more now than ever.

Friday, January 14, 2005

Unsurprising bad news

A report I read today by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America should have angered me more than it did. Instead, I'm almost numb. They've been debating for years how to deal with gay pastor and same-sex couples. They formed a committee which gave its report on the 13th. They've decided to take the worst course possible- to do nothing. They will "agree to disagree" and keep their old standards but not necessarily disipline people should they choose to break those rules. They've decided that the Word of God is second to the appeasement of men.

I have several problems with their approach besides the fact that it goes against God's Law. For one, they're blinding themselves to the fact that they ALREADY HAVE ordained pastors that are openly gay. See, ELCA has pulpit exchanges with the United Church of Christ. A pastor from that church is free to preach in an ELCA church and vice versa. We have to make a public testimony of our faith and they are telling the world that homosexuality is fine and not a problem.

Where leftists often go wrong is in assigning malicious motives to Christian's seemingly harsh laws. I don't have a blind rage against gays and I'm not trying to be mean- I'm trying to be loving. I want them to turn from their ways but they will not turn unless they know it's wrong. ELCA is showing by their actions that they care more about not hurting someone's feelings then where they'll spend eternity. That's not loving- that is the cruelest thing a person could do. Imagine a mother who didn't stop her child from touching a hot iron or crossing the street without looking. This is why the Lutheran church historically focused on Law and Gospel- to bring people down to the point where they see they have no hope save one- Christ. The Gospel would not be sweet without a knowledge of sin.

ELCA is trying to do nothing, to just avoid the issue but they have made their stand. Those who stand for nothing necessarily stand for something- and not necessarily something good. "Better hot or cold than lukewarm". I hope and pray ELCA will turn from their ways but I'm not holding my breath- the line has been drawn.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

gone but not forgotten

There shall be no blogging for a few days from me, I'll be out of town 'on business'.

God's Peace and mercy to all.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005


Boring anecdote time.

When I was in the Army, close to getting out, I bought a used, battered, beaten Inglis Mark I* hi-power in 9m/m. All my friends, big 1911 fans, taunted me about this. I shot the heck out of that already well-worn pistol. I like the way it felt, though the sights were tiny, the manual safety hard to use and barrel nearly a smoothbore, the blueing quite gone, and rust spots in places.

After I got out of the Army, I worked in a gas station for a bit (only a few months), the boss allowed me to carry, so I carried the only pistol I had (One of two guns, the other an ancient Lee Enfield). It was a comforting presence on my hip, under my shirt or coat.

One night, after closing (somewhere around 2 or 3 a.m.) a group of teens gathered outside the door and began hollering, and banging on the door, cursing, etc. I told them we were closed, they said they wanted alcohol. I told them I would call the police, they said they 'were not afraid no man'. I told them, again, I would call the police, and as I told them a second time, I reached around my hip and exposed the gun, putting my hand on it. It was still holstered, they were still outside. Their eyes bugged out of their heads. I wish I could show a picture, and I wish there was a stopwatch faste enough to record how fast they bugged out of the area.

I don't remember all the details of that night. How many of them. How long they pounded on the door. All that they said. I remember being very concerned. Not scared. And I remember the feeling of the grip of the Hi Power in my hand, and the wave of comfort, near serenity, that came over me, knowing. Just knowing. I don't remember all the rest of that night, or where my other hand was, what clothes I was wearing, exactly. I remember that feeling.

I carried that battered, rusted, reblued, resighted, rebarreled, retriggered, respringed thing until the gunsmith told me that the guide rails were going (they were getting rounded, he showed me). That gun rattled like heck when you shook it, even if you picked it up gently, it'd rattle.

I don't know how much I've shot the poor gun, tens of thousands, at least. It never did like hollowpoints, so I carried FMJs in it.

I took that gun to be consigned today, as I'm trying to afford a carry piece besides my battered old cz, such as a Glock.

I feel like I've turned traitor to an old and loyal friend.

I've spent a few hours crying.

God willing, I'm going to the gun shop tomorrow at noon and taking it back.

I might not shoot it much anymore, but it's been loyal and kind to me. The least I can do is to be loyal back. They'll charge a fee. I'll gladly pay it, to have my friend back.

anger, and a reader :)

Anger is a pet sin of mine. So is lust, but I think I get taken over by anger more often, and more passionately.

Recently, a pre-seminary student and coworker of mine lied on his time sheet, writing down that he had been working such and such an activity, for so and so long. When I asked him about it, he shrugged it off as if laziness, dishonesty and theft from an employer were no big deal.

I exploded at him. I still haven't forgiven him, nor has he asked for forgiveness. We are still marginally cordial, but a deep friendship is out.

When I sin, as I do often, too often I know I am sinning. I make no bones to say that lust is no sin. It is. I get very angry at unrepentant sin. Perhaps, too angry.

In my honorable and noble profession, I have much time to think about chaos, the breakdown of the world, the inexorable disordering of creation wrought by our sin, and I often feel a near-helpless rage at the evil in the world. How helpless we are to stop the effect of sin. Sin gave us life-destroying waves, life-taking murderers. How creation must groan under this awful weight.

.. On the other hand, I am more pleased than I can record that not only are there those who are reading this, but that I am not alone in my sentiments. I felt great anger when I posted at another sight and was repeatedly insulted by those who completely missed the point. That anger is abated now that I know that there are those who understand. You see, I am not a complete fool after all, or, at least, there are other fools like me.

So, my gracious thanks to a reader nicknamed after a fine, fine rifle, and a linker named after a fine, fine pistol.

Should no one here have read, please do so.

Thank you, and God's gracious Peace.

Monday, January 10, 2005

An excuse for the angry rant

Please excuse the rant- we all get angry and sometimes we go too far.
Try to go beyond the rude and angry attitude and get to the heart of the post. Many of us fear for the future of this country and there is good cause for concern. May God, our Helper and Redeemer, help us make our country the land it was meant to be and if that's not His will, may He teach us patience as we eagerly anticipate His return.

Self-sabatoging gunowners

I've recently become aware of the incredible ability people have to live in a dream world and ignore all evidence to the contrary. This lack of knowledge can lead to destruction, as it likely will in the case of gun owners. We don't want to be believe our cops are evil, our government tyrannous, and that Jefferson might have meant his statement about spilling the blood of patriots to be followed. We like our dream world. As long as we can have our government's permission to buy and carry guns and can keep our "assault" weapons (oh- wait we gave those up for 10 years), we will never have true tyranny. Every gun you buy from the store IS registered- stores have to keep the paperwork. Those instant background checks ARE invasions on your privacy (and faulty at that).

The controversy regarding FishOrMan is the same issue. We don't want that level of tyranny in our government- we don't want to know what government agents get away with. So we come up with excuses. The du Toits were once very much pro-FishOrMan. Maybe they didn't like where that would lead. They are big fans of saying we don't have a tyranny (yet)- no where close. The case of Jason would have been one more little hole in their argument. You would have thought Waco and Weaver but also have blown some holes in the theory but there's an excuse for those as well- they brought it on themselves! They should have surrendered...wait- Waco people TRIED to surrender. They wanted a guarantee they could go to hotel, not prison. The Feds wouldn't go for that. Some tried to surrender in the final stand. Many of those were shot running out of the burning building. Vicki got shot while carrying her baby. A BABY.

We don't have the gulags or re-education camps. Tyranny doesn't require those- it requires simply "oppressive power". By the time the gulags come, it will have been MUCH too late to do a thing about it. We all talk about fighting back if they take our guns.....don't you think that might be a little too late? (For all government pricks out there- here's my disclaimer- I am not writing to incite imminent and immediate violence- only in my dreams would I be that brave).

Here's my prediction- the government will keep gaining more and more power and will have ultimate control over our lives, controlling education, healthcare, and so on but don't worry- we'll get to keep our assault weapons- they'll know we're too cowardly to use them.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Should vs. Force

The American government will send, as we've all heard, $350 million (plus ships and personnel) to aid the Tsunami victims. It's hard to see anything wrong with this because it sounds like a "nice idea". However, the cliche "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from somewhere.

There are many things a person should do. We should help our neighbors and be a good samaritan. To not do so would be evil. However, there is a greater evil- the evil of forcing people to do good. When money is not given freely but rather doled out in our name, the government is forcing citizens to be "good". They are taking YOUR money. This is not the government's money- this is YOURS. My husband and I donated and were glad to. Tens of millions of others have done so as well because we are as a country caring and willing to help. That type of giving is the kind that's needed- the kind done from the heart.

Pres. Bush has good intentions but he is pursuing a dangerous and evil path. Whenever a government resorts to compulsion (and make no doubt- using your money without asking IS compulsion), a very slippery slope has been formed. What if the federal government wants to use your money to give everyone health insurance? New "multi-cultural" curriculums? More law enforcers to get rid of evil guns? All done in our name for the betterment of society...and all destroying our country even more.

We face a problem in America- the betrayal of our federalist roots. Originally, this country emphasized STATE'S RIGHTS. This meant a state could do what they wished; they weren't even bound to follow the Bill of Rights. Each state could operate the way the people wished. State X (blue) wants government healthcare, welfare, environmental rights, etc. State Y does not. Both sides would get their wish. Federalism would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because the Civil War would not have had to be fought. Don't like the idea of slaves? It was dying out anyway. Don't want to wait that long? Have rich abolitionists and states pay for the slave's freedom. Slavery ended, union perserved, no lives lost, and a government our Founders would be proud of.

The Civil Rights Act forced Southerners to follow Yankee expectations of what's right. Is it really right to force another to serve a certain person in a restaurant or sell them a house? Is that a "good idea" or an example of the government overstepping its bounds? Look where the basic idea has led- people afraid to criticize homosexuality, afraid to stick up for their faith, an army which will toss out all officers that don't tow the P.C. line. Ending segregation sounded like such a wonderful idea but it has led to the government thinking it's their job to force others to be "good". Here's where the democrats have it wrong- republicans don't want to force others to follow their standards of subjective morality- democrats do.

I love the truth, despite its ugliness. As a Christian, I prefer to know when someone hates me for my religion. I hate the false airs people put on. When government forces people to act a certain way, the truth will never get out and the foundations upon which our country was founded are destroyed.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

And personally

Yesterday was the big, important meeting. And all went well, I now have a complete reccomendation by all to go on for the Doctorate.
God's will be done, and we thank Him for it.

First, bash the preachers

Yay, I've been linked. :) :) And as soon as I figure out the linking thing, I'll put up a bunch of my own. :)
As I've been thinking about all the positive (a few) and negative (a whole bunch) experiences I' ve had with cops, I've also been thinking about it's corollary.
There are many people who seem to think that the uniform makes the man, or, in other words, that because a person is a policeman, that alone makes them worthy of deference. As if the vocation, or profession, makes the person 'holy'. This is an argument we Lutherans have long held against other sects. For instance, the Roman church believes that because a person is frocked, or belongs to an order, that this makes a person 'holy'. That some vocations are more holy than others.
See, wrapped up in the 'asshole' debate, and noted by 'addison', is the belief that some vocations are more holy than others. We Lutherans believe that the profession is not what makes a person above reproach, it is the level of our sanctification, or the state of our regeneration before God.
When we go to a church, we don't automatically confess all our sins and misdeeds to a pastor. We get to know the pastor first. Because we don't know whether he is trustworthy man of God, in the pains of second birth. Or, if he is a satanic jackass. The truth of this world is that their are many ordained people who are satanic jackasses, even the President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
And just because of the uniform of a pastor he is wearing, this does not mean he is a pastor. After 9/11, our secular President Bush was far more Biblical and Pastoral than most 'pastors'!!! Many people I've met in my theology and pastoral college courses were as pastoral as the Father of Lies himself. -This, by the way, ticks me off and got me in more trouble than my reaction to the hypocrites like the du Toits and many of their readers. For Christians of principle cannot be forgiven short of repentance for openly and defyingly disobeying the Two Tables. Those who do not know the law and do not live by principle can more easily tolerated when they vacillate, struggling to decide upon one morality or the other. Those who do know the law and deliberately violate it, even to the point of saying that stealing is right, are much worse off. One does not know of a moral paradigm to abide by. The other does.
So, the 'germinating essay' will have things such as to have us stop looking at things solely from the side of one we assume to be right. Pastors should be held to higher standards (as should cops) because of Who they represent.
In this, there is also a thought about about the civil government and it's role and the role of the agents of the civil government.

Friday, January 07, 2005

Quiet Night

As this is a nice, quiet night, the klutz is curled up a ball and reading Harry Potter. I've been working on wood. I have put several coats of Tru-Oil on a walking stick/staff for her, as well as the refinishing of a K-31 Schmidt-Rubin and a Hawken .54 kit. All of this promises to turn out very well indeed.
I'm germinating a 'hate the cops' essay in my head, not too far unlike my 'long comment' below. I am reviewing so many experiences from friends, family, myself, that are leading to something.
Another blogger wrote that "the plural of anecdotes is not data". This is only mostly true, for if enough people state 'I saw birds flying south for the winter' the accumulation of anecdotes can lead to general conclusions, such as 'There are birds who fly south for the winter', which is a fact, a piece of data.
I guess the idea that I am opposed to that many others support is this 'All policemen everywhere are at all times perfect human beings, and for this reason they may be trusted to be our overseers, and we are at all times to held in abeisance to them'. I also do not believe that simply because a man wears a clerical collar, that he is perfect. This outer piece of cloth, or the uniform he is wearing, does not confer holiness to the man.
To all the world, good night.
Especially to and .

Not Shooting

We're not going to the range for the next couple weeks - Not only am I working, but it is darn cold out there, and, well, I'm a pansy.
However, in February, we should be making noise and punching holes again. :)
Let us know if you live around Milwaukee and want to come along.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Worldviews and pre-conceived notions

Each and every person carries with him a worldview, a filter by which they discern truth from falsehood. The filters act very well. I've learned that when people say they have an open mind, thus no filter, there are generally two worldviews they themselves possess. Either they believe in nothing (if your mind is truly open, all information would flood in and then promptly leave) or, as is the general case, the open minded will be open minded to everything....except every opinion they disagree with. The trick is figuring out a balance of the two, meaning one would be open enough to be able to question his previous beliefs but still believe in something and know how to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Along with this framework comes "preconceived notions". Question those and people can easily become rude, nasty, and even violent. See some of the responses to my husband's comment on kim du toit. They don't refute his claims- they either think it's a rambling mess (a very small percentage of those who have heard his ideas) or denigrate his writing ability (one of his greatest talents) and grammar, despite that other posts also have errors in grammar and that has nothing to do with the ideas expressed in the essay. In other words, they either CAN'T see it- their filter is too strong and won't let them or they will do everything possible to question his credibility without actually having to think about the ideas he expressed. It's much easier to attack someone's spelling then a view you see as wrong but can't prove why. People see what they want to see. The reason the outcome of the Waco and Randy Weaver shootings/burning didn't produce more outrage than they did is that people didn't WANT to see their government as tyranous and so they didn't. They instead blamed the victims themselves. There are two types of "conservatives"- those that essentially wish to maintain the status quo and those that realize the very status quo that is so comforting is the problem.

Over the course of 4 years I've changed from a gun-fearing, Marxist, non-Christian poorly educated youth to the opposite (I'm still working on the education part, but I'm learning). When my husband would make me question the Holocaust's killing of 6 million or showed me the Southern perspective on the Civil War, I would lash out in anger. There were times I would break down into tears at having my world fall apart- my views of God, science, history, and more. "Things fall apart; the center does not hold". Everything I "knew" was true and wouldn't even have thought to question were squashed.

To live without challenging yourself and your views would be an easy life but also a cowardly one. The devil is the Father of Lies and I for one want the Truth. I may have lost my former foundation built on sand, but I gained a far deeper one- my life is built on the solid Rock of Christ and I will strive (and frequently fail and always be forgiven) to mold my worldview to be more like the Creator's. We are made in his image, after all.

Someone agrees with us :)

"Gun Owners As Ambassadors Or Assholes?"

The Epiphany of Our Lord

On this high feast day we celebrate the giving of the frankincense, myrrh and gold to the Christchild. In this house, this is when we give gifts to each other. On Christmas Day, God gave us the single most important gift in the history of man. On Epiphany, men gave gifts to a fellow human. It is with this knowledge and this habit that helps keep Christmas centered (in our little corner of the world) on Christ and the Gift our Father gives.
May His Word dwell among us richly and brightly. Joyous Epiphany to all.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Long Comment

First, go read "Policing Our Own",
When I was in college I worked at the security office, "Campus Safety" it was called. It really involved nothing more than locking doors at night. However, we did have cameras installed just about everywhere. At the end of the semester, there was a "Minority Dance" at the gym. At this dance, local hoodlums augmented the college ones and one door was broken, two tables, at least one window, and a whole bunch of fights broke out. The alcohol freely and rather openly flowed. The Campus Safety line was ringing off the hook and we spent the whole night in nervousness (‘hmm, fifty of them, two of us.. Hmm’) at the gym.
The head of our shift is a former cop, I’m given to understand, and so is the head of the security office. The priority of the school is to look good, as is the priority of most people, places and things. Part of looking good is saying how safe and clean and secure your neighborhood, city, campus... etc, etc... is.
At the end of that nervous, vandal-ridden night, not a thing was written up. The ex-cop said he was not going to write anything, because his chain of command didn’t want to hear about bad things like fighting, gun-waving, alcoholism, vandalism, you name it. The ex-cops gave the university the "safe" atmosphere it wanted, not by making things safe, but by lying about how safe the place was.
That door? How did that get broken? We don’t know. And those large, folding, broken tables? Don’t know either. Window? Dunno.
Nothing bad happened, we’re nice and safe. (cough, cough)
I was talking with a hung over guy where I work, who is studying to become a cop. I got on his good side, and he spoke something about things only being wrong if you get caught doing them. Like beating people up - it’s fine as long as you can get away with it. That’s why he wanted to be a police officer, to legally beat up random people. He was a big boy, too.
Even more years ago, in high school, I used to walk to school and got kind of wet one rainy day. I put my wet hat and gloves on a heater by my locker, whereupon some bully and some of his bully entourage took them and made fun of me. I remember that goatee, and how it stretched across his fat chin when he smirked. His theft was secure, as he was with friends, a senior, and big. I, short, skinny, glasses, alone. Years after that unhappy incident, but years before now, I ran across him at a local community college. He was accepted by the local police department, finished with most of his training and degree, and taking to the streets.
Back to the present, where I work, there are two or three, at least, coprophiliacs. One of them is in the program at a school to become a LEO. This copro not only enjoys smearing it on himself, but on everything else as well, and reportedly smears it on things just so he can enjoy the thought of the cleaning lady in misery on her knees scrubbing it up. What a great, honest, gentlemanly, reasonable, "Officer Friendly".
There are those who say that if we have a negative reaction to a "blue shirt and badge", that there is something wrong with us. I say that my negative reaction is not to that badge, it is to the corruptible nature of man and to the corrupting nature of power. As well as that, the negative reaction is the nature of one who is attracted to a position of power over others.
I do not hate badges. I hate the fact that too many let that authority get to their heads. I hate that sinful mankind wills itself to become petty tyrants if allowed. Theodore Dalrymple correctly writes that men will commit the evil they are capable of. If men are allowed to lie, to murder women holding their infant children, they will do so.
Part B of my disagreement with Mrs. du Toit is when she writes that if approached by a policeman, we should prove that we are good and honorable people. This I most heartily disagree with. It is not the duty of a citizen, gun-owner or not, to prove his honor or innocence to the agents of the state. It is the duty of that LEO to assume my innocence until proven guilty. Our system of liberty is based on the state's assumption of a citizen's innocence, leaving the state with the onus of proving guilt. If the state assumes guilt, and we must prove our innocence to it's agents, then we are no longer in liberty.
The most controversial of my opinions here, and, please respond to them, is that the policemen involved with FishOrMan were abject cowards, as are most cops. Recently, a cop was running around on a rooftop in NYC, spotted a guy and shot him for no reason. The LEO had his gun unholstered and reacted to the potential threat. In other words, rather than face risk or danger to himself, this cop would willingly murder an innocent man. This is not valour. It is not heroism to avoid danger at all costs, even to the extent of taking innocent life. This is cowardice. Most cops will go to long lengths to avoid putting themselves in harms way. The postulate given to us in cop classes was this:
Suppose a police officer were to hear of a call on the dispatch to go to a store in response to what may be a robbery. The officer enters the store, sees a commotion, spots a shiny object in a man’s hand and opens fire, killing the man and possibly wounding others. It turns out the shiny object was a pen, and someone had complained the store’s prices "amounted to robbery". Did this officer do anything wrong? I was the only member of that class to argue that the cop was wrong to shoot. We call cops ‘heroes’. We honor them for ‘facing danger’, for manning a ‘thin blue line’ between citizens and evildoers. In this example, that officer faced no danger, not because the poor shot man held a pen, not a gun, but because he refused to face the possibility that he might be endangered. He would rather shoot without knowing what was going on than possibly get hurt.
Remember all those photos from Fallujah showing the terrorrists shooting at Americans from behind cars, behind women who were in front of the cars? I do. Those cowards would do anything to avoid being shot, preferring to endanger civilians than face bullets. Many cops are the same - they will endanger citizens than face bullets. They that put you at risk to avoid it themselves are not ‘heroes’. They are not standing between you and danger, the citizen and the criminal. They are cowering simps, terrorrists themselves.
There are brave men, in uniforms, and not. These men establish their honor by putting themselves in harms way to protect the innocent, even if it costs them all. A male who would allow his family to be harmed to avoid harm himself is no male but a worm, and we rightly judge him so. Those get in between the evildoer and the innocent, endangering himself in the process, we rightly judge a brave man.
FishOrMan, as I have read him, when I have read him, is a brave man, willing to protect his family from evil, imposing himself between the two.
Perhaps those cops were jealous, inwardly knowing his courage and their lack of it. Perhaps they use that knowledge of his courage to enable their lies. Perhaps they need no such enabler, as some will say that if a person is assertive to an agent of the state, that agent is justified in lying. The dishonest cop, these dishonest cops, will not need to apologize for their lies. Mrs. du Toit defends it for them.
May God grant that I am too harsh on the honorable and enjoyed Mrs. May God protect us from evil men.

A**holes and open carry

This is the Klutz writing-
There was a case recently where a man legally open carried in his car. The gun was unloaded, as dictacted by Washington State law. He was pulled over because of a warrant issued after an incident with a cop in his hometown regarding (legal) open carry- he wrote a letter to the cop explaining his rights and it ended with a warrant out. When we was pulled over, the police arrested him, accused him of being a "Constitutionalist" (the horror), talked to his wife in not the kindest of manners, and threatened to lie, saying he had threatened the police. Instead of being appalled/agast/scared/etc many "pro-gun" blogs are now blaming him, saying he should have been kinder, been less of an a**hole, in their own words. I wonder how being "nice" would have saved someone in Stalin's gulags? "Geez, Stalin- I'm so sorry. Please don't torture me." Imagine them calmly, nicely explaining their rights. I'm willing to bet you're thinking the same thing as me- that wouldn't work. Policemen are often power-hungry and do not wish to be proven wrong. Jason (the gunowner's name) wasn't as nice as he could have been, but it wouldn't have made a difference. More so than that, even if it would have made a difference, it DOESN'T MATTER. Being a gentleman is a good and noble thing but it is gentlemanly to call evil evil. It is noble to fight for the rights guaranteed in this Constitution. Being a gentleman does not mean being "nice"- it stands for valor, honor, integrity, and plain and simple guts.
It doesn't seem to me that Jason was being an a**hole, but even if he was, that also wouldn't matter. Policemen must know the law- must know the rights they are supposed to protect. If they don't, they cease being public servants and become tools for oppression. It was the police that denied blacks in the South their licenses to carry. It is police now in New York and Chicago (and S. Africa) that judge whether or not a gun is "needed" for protection. This is tyranny. We shy away from that word but there is no other word for it. Agents of the government are determining what people can protect themselves and what people will have to live in perpetual fear for their lives. Remember- the shot heard 'round the world world was first shot because people's gun were going to be seized by the English government. They considered that and high taxes to be tyranny. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it......

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Hello from Smelly

This may come as a shock to all, but the last two posts were not written by me. No, they were written by an impostor, someone who knows my habits and shamelessly copied them, falsely attributing them to me. ... my very own klutz... how could she do this? :)
What I want to do, as I am engaged in a noble and respected profession, is keep a running tally of what I have to deal with, so the world can feel sympathy. Does anyone know how to do this? Such folk as Smallest Minority have a tally of those he has taken to the range, so the tally is possible.
By the way, if you have never read the Smallest Minority, shame on you. Go and read him at
I hope to establish a blogroll shortly, composed of the likes of Powerline, CaptainsQuarters and Kim du Toit.
And before I go for the night, here's a thought. Christianity is the most science-oriented religion in the world. First, because of it's assumption of an ordered and reasoned universe; God created the world in six days in an ordered and rational fashion. Second, that there is a "Natural Light" or reason that is a gift of God that is a remant of the image of God preserved from the Fall; we have a token, or shadow, of the reasoning (sentient) ability that God has. Third, that since we are indeed made in His image, His rationality and our rationality are not totally dissimilar; our reason is clouded, and we cannot understand the Creation perfectly, but we can understand it in part.
That's my controversial postulation for tonight. What do y'all think?

Monday, January 03, 2005

Was it worth it?

I have spent many hours pondering one question in particular- was the Revolutionary War worth the cost in blood? If the Founders had known how our country would turn out, would they have even bothered? I won't claim to know the answer. They planned a great country with unprecidented freedoms but above all, they intended a small federal government. The Constitution is sort of job description for the Federal government. They have failed disastrously. The Congress controls whatever they wish under the name of interstate commerce and the Supreme Court lets them get away with it. Even worse, citizens don't know and don't care. Look at the public outcry to fix, not eliminate, goverment-funded and controlled public education. Where's that in the Constitution? The Republicans and Democrats alike are competing to see who make the government's public education system the biggest. Modern public education was founded by a "lovely" man named John Dewey- a socialist who knew socialism doesn't work on individuals- we must have a corporate view.
Here's incomplete list of government activities you will find NO WHERE in the ORIGINAL Constitution but most Americans, even "conservative" ones never question:
-Applying the Bill of Rights to the States- that's the point of SMALL governments- let people choose how to live. If states protect rights, wonderful, if they don't- the people can either elect new reps and governors or it's their sign to the other states that they don't WANT those rights.
-Farm subsidies and rules on how many crops to grow- didn't work during the Depression and doesn't work now
-Social Security- same reason. Only 3% of the elderly needed help from the Government (the rest had families to help them or savings) and they didn't get the help anyway- it took years. Now, all the elderly "need" their checks. What a kind, loving gov't we have- giving people their OWN MONEY BACK.
-Gun Control. The Founders intended ALL able-bodies men to have a good rifle- a war rifle. That was a flintlock, now it's a machine gun. They never intended a $500 tax stamp to be required to exercise a right.
-Abortion- the Constitution protects the right to kill a child? Am I missing something?
-Civil Rights legistlation- Forcing the Southern states to sign the 13th and 14th Amendment to reenter the Union. Wait- didn't the North declare they had never really left, hence calling it a CIVIL war? Later, Congress used the interstate commerce clause to justify civil rights leglislation forcing private citizens to ignore race in selling homes and operating stores. Should whites treat blacks equally (and vice versa)- of course. But it's a greated evil to force the unwilling to do something they despise and it's demeaning to both. I'd rather know who didn't like me so I could avoid them. I wouldn't want them to pretend they cared for me.
-Incredible tax rates which hurt the wealthy. Shouldn't we reward the wealthy? After all- they pay my salary! Robin Hood may be popular but he's no different from any other thief. Read Martin Luther's Small Catechism about the Commandments (especially the one regarding stealing)- we're supposed to help our neighbor defend and protect his property, not steal it- or covet it.
I could go on and on but I must go to class- History and Philosophy of Science. No work for 3 more weeks- then I'll be taking 9 or 12 credits plus working 40 hours a week cooking for right, ungrateful, mean college students.