Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Vic Biorseth, http://www.CatholicAmericanThinker.com
Prepping the citizenry for herding via unconstitutional Gun Control legislation.
Criminals, by definition, disobey laws. That’s what makes them criminals. They disobey existing laws, and they may reasonably be expected to disobey new laws, because they are criminals.
Law abiding citizens, by definition, obey laws. That’s what makes them law abiding citizens. They obey existing laws, and they may reasonably be expected to obey new laws, because they are law abiding citizens.
Therefore, gun control laws that restrict citizen gun ownership may reasonably be expected to increase the ratio of gun ownership among the criminal element, and to decrease it among the law abiding.
What, then, is the true motivation of those who continually seek to disarm the sovereign American citizen via gun control laws? With remarkable consistency, statistics show higher incidents of crime where gun control laws are the strongest, and lower wherever gun control laws are the weakest, or non-existent. Is there an ulterior motive here? Let’s look a little closer.
Amendment II; Constitution of the United States of America:
That’s pretty clear. The right is granted to The People, not to the State. In fact, the State is prohibited from infringing the right. What did it mean to be a “well regulated Militia”? Well, the Militia consisted of every able bodied man between the ages of 15 and 60 not inclusive. So, what did well regulated mean?
To regulate was to make regular, meaning, orderly, disciplined and quite predictable, as in, to regulate a clock. In the context of human beings, to regulate them is to bring a person or body of persons to order; in military terms, it would mean to become well trained and “regular” in the military and martial arts.
In the pre-Revolutionary period, in military parlance, regulation was near synonymous with training and drilling, with the goal of regulating or making regular. To this day, the term regular soldier is a military term that means, precisely, professional soldier. Not a conscript or draftee; not a militiaman; not a part-time soldier. All of these might become more regulated, but they could never or seldom hope to achieve the level of professionalism of the regular soldier unless and until they lived the life of a soldier full-time.
In pre-Revolutionary times, the most awesome and feared soldier on any potential field of battle was the red-coated British Regular; he was referred to as a Regular because of his utter predictability. He would not only exhibit good order in his marching, uniform and equipment, but he could be absolutely counted upon to not break ranks under fire. Any unit of Regulars that would be put into the field by the British could be expected to be a virtual killing machine, because of their extreme regulation. They would be referred to as a well regulated military unit.
So, in the language of the day, the authors of Amendment II intended the citizen-soldier – meaning, able bodied men aged between 16 and 59 to be well regulated, meaning, precisely, well trained in the use of military arms. I submit that one cannot become well trained in the use of military arms in the absence of military arms.
Today’s gun control nuts never cracked open any dictionary from circa 1760s or 1770s, and they would have us believe that what the authors of Amendment II meant by the word regulated was ruled or controlled by the very State that was prohibited from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that militia no longer meant all able bodied men, but meant instead the various State National Guard units (which may be Federalized at any time by the stroke of a pen,) or Federal Reserve units. Thus, in their interpretation, regulated means under the command of the State or nation, and militia means members of National Guard or Reserve military units.
We know from their own writings that that was not the intent of the authors. The concept of the citizen soldier involved the possibility of long periods of time when a large standing army would not be needed or could not be maintained. Our current National Guard and national Reserve military units represent only a tiny fraction of the able bodied men in America. The whole notion of the citizen soldier involves the ability to mobilize all able bodied men quickly, with a minimum of training required. Today, in America, I submit that that cannot be done.
The reason may have less to do with gun control laws than with a gun control mindset. Generations of Americans have been raised with a gun control laws are always good, lack of gun control laws is always bad sense inculcated into them over a lifetime of preconditioning. The perceived social need for rigid gun control prevails in education, among leading academics and scholars, in the SLIMC1 , in the Democrat Party platform, and virtually in the very air we breath.
In a similar manner, these same forces demonize the military, the one institution in which citizen skill at arms matters the most. The same Lefties and others who champion gun control laws are our greatest military detractors. Making military service unpopular is a proper step toward eventual total gun control. Where once military service was broadly seen as a duty and an honor, today it is seen, as publicly projected, as an oddity, a negative, even an evil. Anti-military and pro-gun control programs go hand-in-hand. They have the same authors and the same champions.
Gun control nuts always seem to be anti-military nuts, and anti-military nuts always seem to be gun control nuts.
No matter how technical or how professional our standing armed forces become, no matter how good our National Guard and Reserve units become, they are collectively less of a deterrent to foreign aggressors than a small professional force, like them, that is backed up by a whole nation full of armed and trained able bodied men. That’s the concept of the citizen soldier, or the militiaman.
The concept is based on the Swiss model, where, theoretically, whatever else he might be, every man was also a soldier. Now, Switzerland is, militarily speaking, blessed with gigantic mountains, lots of caves and tunnels, and easily controllable very narrow passes and pathways through the mountains. Everywhere in Switzerland are opportune ambush points reminiscent of the pass of Thermopolae made famous by the heroic stand of a mere 300 Spartans against tens of thousands of Persians under Xerxes.
But, as in many things, the blessing comes with a curse. Mountains are just as hard to get around in for the Swiss as for any invaders. So, to be ready, whoever is wherever he finds himself once an invasion begins must be prepared to fight at that moment, without waiting for any regulars or reserves to be called up. When the invader is in the pass is the time to act, not the time to communicate, or to plan, or to organize, or to train. Switzerland was forced by circumstance to become a nation of citizen soldiers. And they presented a good model for the rest of Western culture to emulate.
Hitler, with all his mighty forces, fully aware that his tanks could only enter these narrow mountain passes one or two at a time, and that a massive blitzkrieg across any broad front in Switzerland was quite impossible, and that all Swiss men were also soldiers, never even tried to take tiny little Switzerland.
The citizen-soldier concept, properly applied, is a military deterrent.
For centuries, English kings ordered all commoners and peasants to practice diligently with the longbow. There arose in England a veritable “class” of proud men highly skilled at archery and well respected by their peers. When a nobleman had cause to “raise an army” he had access to vast numbers of skilled archers in his domain, who could not only hit what they aimed at, but could rapid fire as many as six aimed arrows per minute. The very existence of such numbers of skilled archers gave pause to would-be invaders.
That kind of skill can only be developed over years of regular practice. That’s why we support such things as Boy Scouts of America, the National Rifle Association, various Trap and Skeet clubs, hunting, public ranges, private gun clubs, rifle, pistol and shotgun competitions, archery and so forth. Marksmanship of various kind is not only good for life-long development of individual self control and self discipline, but it also lays the most important piece of groundwork for possible future military training.
The English Declaration Of Rights of 1689 reinforced the standing right of “Protestants” to not be disarmed, particularly since “Papists” were armed, and employed, in violation of standing law. It defined among those defined as “true, ancient and indubitable rights”, that, “Subjects which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law.”
That precedent would be used and quoted among the September 1768 Boston resolutions presented to the (British) Governor. “ … that the Subjects being Protestants, may have arms for their Defense … for the necessary Defense of the Community.” “ … every listed Soldier and other Householder (except Troopers, who by Law are otherwise to be provided) shall always be provided with a well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accoutrements and Ammunition, as in said Law particularly mentioned, … ” The resolutions used the pending threat of war with France as an excuse to arm the citizenry, a ploy that fooled no one. The Governor, of course, rejected the resolutions out of hand, and three days later, British Regulars landed in Boston and took control of key strategic points, with no resistance.
In December of that year, the English Parliament responded to the Boston resolutions with some resolutions of their own, which called for a Military Force to protect the King’s Civil Magistrate and other Officers of his Majesty’s Revenue, since the Colonists were so upset over this taxation without representation business. They further resolved that the September resolutions from Boston were “ … illegal, unconstitutional, and calculated to execute Sedition and Insurrection in his Majesty’s Province of Massachusetts-Bay.”
Of course, things got worse. The Provincial Congress, John Hancock presiding, protested to Governor (and General) Gage about British Regulars invading private property, confiscating ammunition and leaving the Province in a state of defenselessness. Several tons of gun powder had been seized. Militiamen, under arms, began to gather in Boston, threatening to take the munitions back. There were multiple incidents of Regulars disarming Militiamen, but there were too many of them for it to be systematically done. There were cases of a group being disarmed by Regulars, who then encountered a larger group of Militiamen, who would take the arms back.
So we can see that the American Experiment began under the specter of an all-powerful and ever increasingly unrepresentative government seeking to enforce rigid gun control on the citizenry, by unrepresentative law, and by superior force of arms.When only the State has the right to bear arms, and the citizens are denied the right to bear arms, what you have is a Police State.
Gun control advocates, almost invariably, describe our Constitution as a “living, breathing, organic document” that may be changed, or whose meaning may be interpreted in new ways as new needs manifest themselves. Gun control opponents, almost invariably, describe our Constitution as a fixed legal document, written in English, which says very specific legal things. It is the foundational document in mind when we describe ourselves as a Nation of Laws.
Thanks largely to the devastating effect that the Democrat Party has had on nominees to our Supreme Court and to the lower courts, we have degenerated, and are degenerating more, into a Nation of Personal Interpretations. Public politocrats, mediacrats, celebricrats and even real live actual bureaucrats push gun control as a positive issue that “we the people” want. Perhaps “we” whispered in their ear or something.
Every single time the polls close, we are told how “we” have spoken, not on whatever we specifically voted on, but on whatever the public speaker interprets our votes to have really meant. Political victory for a candidate or a Party is publicly hailed and interpreted as a People’s Statement on a war, or on gun control, or on any other issue-of-the-moment, other than the actual candidate or Party that won the most votes in the specific election. It’s a form of what they call spin. The predominant spin you will see regarding gun control is that we the people want more gun control, rather than less gun control.
Note carefully how much gun control law is regulated rather than legislated. Note well how it is, or is not (or is selectively), enforced, and how cases involving gun control law are adjudicated. Note how many times some bureaucrat is able to make a personal judgment regarding whether an applicant, whether a dealer or a consumer, “needs” the variety or model of weapon applied for. Do we now have official Commissars Of Needs to determine for us what we really need? How nice.
It is already illegal for convicted felons and mental incompetents to possess firearms, but that is not enough for the gun control nuts. They want gun control to address the kind of gun possessed, to launch international gun control efforts, and, eventually, for nobody anywhere to possess any firearms. Right. (Well, in their thinking, Utopia is possible.)
Note, in the 1768 Boston resolutions mentioned above, that the “ … well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accoutrements and Ammunition … ” referred to what were considered to be the purely military assault rifles of the era. And the American Militiamen, the Minute-Men included, equipped themselves with the most modern military arms available at the time. From Brown Bess muskets to the newer “rifles” with actual rifled bores, with bayonets whenever possible. Modern military assault weapons all. Their use was intended to be military. The purpose of a militia is to be trained and fully prepared to serve as a military force on short notice.
The only reason any of this should be surprising to you is if you might possibly have been miss-informed and mal-educated about it all your life.
”The founders never intended for private citizens to possess fully automatic weapons!” is most likely what you’ve heard most frequently, from many quarters.
If fully automatic weapons had been available, they would have been acquired and used by the militia, at the insistence of the founders. The only reason they weren’t mentioned is that they didn’t exist yet. Everyone involved, founders included, bent every effort to get hold of the very latest, best and most modern military weaponry available at the time.
Saturday Night Special is a concocted myth alleging that, when someone has a fight with his wife, he goes out in a fit of anger on Saturday night to purchase a gun, with which to go home and murder his wife. Or someone else he’s miffed at. There are no statistics to back it up. It’s a dream. I have been unable to find a good description of one, as a weapon type. It’s a gun control tool of opportunity, pure and simple. You can’t even properly define exactly what a Saturday Night Special is, so, how, exactly, are we to legally restrict them? The answer is that the hidden intent of such a law is to be vague enough for opinionated and highly selective interpretation, enforcement and adjudication.
If you define it as cheap, then, you do a disservice to the poor, in restricting them only, while those better off can still afford more expensive guns. No matter how poor it may operate or how cheap it may be, and even no matter how ineffective, it may still be more effective than an old, arthritic fist attached to a poor elderly person who couldn’t afford a better gun. Saturday Night Special gun control laws expressly operate against the poorest among us.
For whatever reasons, the Left seems to despise the very notion of self defense, let alone national defense.
Maybe there isn’t one. America now has an overwhelming majority of young and middle-aged men who have never touched a gun and never experienced anything remotely similar to military discipline in their entire lives. And a high percentage, perhaps a majority, among them believe all the public gun control myths, and have no interest in guns or in marksmanship, or even in civil defense.
I have written elsewhere in this site about how I would favor establishment of a permanent military draft, but not for the usual reasons. I think all young men should go into military service on their eighteenth birthday, for a period of two years, to be served somewhere as near as possible to their homes. This draft should be the easiest thing in the world to avoid. No one who does not want to serve should be required to serve.
Only those who passed a real, rigid, rigorous 12th grade level educational exam, by international standards, would qualify for service in the first place. Right off the bat, that one requirement would disqualify the vast majority of 18 year old American young men. Over time, people would pay attention to where and by whom qualified service members had been educated, since they obviously did a better job than everyone else. It might put pressure on the entire American educational system for improvement.
Hopefully over time those who refused service would become the minority, those who qualified physically and mentally might eventually become a majority, and service to country would again become a social norm in America.
All veterans know that when you enter a military unit, you are assigned a weapon from that unit’s arsenal. It becomes your weapon. You sight it in, remember your sight-settings, and “own” the weapon while you are a member of the unit. If you get transferred, you turn in your weapon to the unit armorer, and get issued another one in your new unit. And you start all over again, sighting it in, setting your zero and so forth. All rifles shoot just a little differently.
I would propose following the Swiss model. The first rifle issued becomes your property, forever, so long as you serve honorably. If and when you transfer to another unit, you take it with you. When you are discharged or retired, you take it home with you. With a supply of ammunition for it.
Once a year, in the manner of the Swiss Schuttzenfest, or great annual shooting festival, you take your rifle to the local (and/or county, and/or State, and/or National) shooting competition, where you use up all your old, last-year’s ammunition in competitive shooting matches. Then you get issued a new batch of ammo and go home, hopefully with some kind of trophy.
Will it ever happen? Pretty doubtful; but I can dream. Once upon a time, American men were, in general, all recognized as potential fearsome civil defenders. Today we are dependent entirely too much on all together far too few. The problem is that most of us don’t see any need to defend what we have here, or even recognize any threat to it all. Gun control myths have done that to us, and so has the silly, almost suicidal notion that nothing is ever worth fighting for. We have multiple generations of untested and un-conditioned men who don’t even know if they would qualify for service today, let alone if they could get through the rigors of military training.
That the founders opposed gun control is clear and obvious. Ben Franklin once said that any government that cannot trust its people with guns cannot be trusted by its people. Yet here we are, with layers and layers of local, county, state and federal gun control laws, in direct violation of Amendment II of the Constitution. Thousands of them. The very concept of gun control is, to me, un-American.
So, I have officially registered my determined opposition to gun control and related restrictions on us. The fact that more children are killed by lightning than by home gun accidents does not faze the media or the educators or the Dems. The fact that so many crimes are prevented in America on a regular basis just because of the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is censored by them. Women and minorities should take very careful note of attempts to disarm them.
I don’t know where all of this will take us. We’ll see.
Say an extra prayer tonight for those few who are out there somewhere defending us all.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sat Mar 14 22:31:17 2009
How do you square the Christian principles of turn the other cheek and do unto to others as you would have done to you with owning a gun? What is the real purpose of a gun if not only to kill? If you say it is for defense are you prepared to take a life? Do you believe Christ would support this?
Date: Sun Mar 15 14:22:13 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Quite often, indeed, most often, crime is thwarted by the mere presence of a deadly weapon in the hands of a victim without a single shot being fired, and without any blood being spilled. This is affirmed both by statistics regarding gun related incidents in America and by Christian Scripture – the Word of God. Yes, I believe our Lord would support this.
The fact that our Lord quite voluntarily died for our redemption does not mean that we should allow ourselves or our household to be murdered for lesser causes, for mere worldly things. I believe you are referring to Matthew, as below:
Matt 5:39-45 - But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Putting it into the proper historical-cultural context, our Lord was talking about the relationship between the normal citizen of conquered Palestine and the typical Roman soldier. Palestine had been made subject to Rome, and the authority of Rome was made manifest by the Roman soldier, who was a potentially very dangerous fellow; some of them were absolute brutes. They were the ones who would quite legally, after some legal process, execute you, and some few of them, if they thought they could get away with it, just might murder you for some trivial reason.
The Roman law, imposed everywhere throughout the Empire, allowed the Roman soldier to press any non-Roman citizen in sight into his service, for one mile only, to carry his necessary equipment. This would include his heavier armor and weaponry, and his loot, taken in battle, which formed a sort of bonus addition to his regular pay. Often there might be one or more animals and even carts involved to carry it all, but usually not. If he was to march a very long distance, eventually he might have to sell much of what he had or convert it into something he could more easily carry through vast unpopulated areas; or, he might offer to feed and pay someone, as an employee, to go farther than one mile. But so long as people were around, he could press one or more of them into service each mile along the way.
Now, if he slapped you, and you smiled and offered the other cheek, this astonishing thing might be taken by him as insolence. It would certainly be a surprise. If he pressed you to go one mile with him, and you happily went two, it would be a form of peaceful resistance, or editorial/rhetorical opposition, in the form of sarcastic over compliance. The soldier’s jaw would certainly drop, and he might be made to think about the injustice of the situation, and the calm bravery of this person.
There was nothing wimpy about this quotation of our Lord in Matthew’s Gospel. To stand up and fight the soldiers of Rome was futile, and could only end in defeat and death. But a form of more peaceful résistance might mean eventual victory in hearts and minds, rather than in blood. He died for the Roman soldier, too.It must be remembered that the actual words that came down the mountain with Moses, directly interpreted, were not Thou shalt not kill, but rather, Thou shalt not do murder. Murder was interpreted by the ancient Hebrews, by the early Christians, and is interpreted by the Church today, to mean the unwarranted taking of innocent human life. David set his foot upon the field of honor to do battle with Goliath with what any modern American jurist would call premeditation and malice aforethought. Yet, in the Jewish and the Christian ethos, David did not do murder when he killed goliath, for although Goliath was human, he most certainly was not innocent.
Scripture nowhere prohibits, and indeed it reinforces the right of the sitting government to apply lethal punishment, and the right of the police officer to apply whatever force necessary, including lethal force, to keep the larger peace.
As I have said before, the right to private property is validated by the Commandment to not steal, and Scripture reinforces the right to defend property. Furthermore, the long history of honorable soldiery reported in the Old Testament is strongly supported by our Lord and His Apostles in the New Testament. Here are some of my evidences:
And, I define “the real purpose of a gun if not only to kill” as a useful implement with which to defend myself, my household and everyone in it, and my property. It poses a valid and very real threat to the life and well-being of anyone who would violate our rights to life, limb, liberty and property.
Finally, in the most extreme case, yes, I am prepared to take a life in the prevention of a serious crime. I believe our Lord Jesus Christ would support this position. I pray that it never comes to that, but I have trained, meditated, prayed and prepared myself for it ahead of time. I see being armed as the same as possessing an insurance policy. One never, ever hopes for the worst, but a wise man stands prepared to face it.
The opposite approach would be to put a sign on your front door saying “there are no guns in this house” and to not be prepared to defend it, and in fact, to be fully prepared ahead of time to surrender property, self, wife, children and pets to whichever criminal intruder(s) take the invitation and just walk in or break in first.
In my opinion, men who are adamantly opposed to defending their own country from any potential tyrant or invader should leave the company of men, and join the ranks of the cowards who sit in the corner and suck their thumbs while awaiting their turn at real victim-hood, while the pitifully few real men put their lives on the line to defend their very right to be. Of course, that’s just my own opinion, and everybody is free to have one and express it.
May the Lord bless and keep those pitifully few brave warriors who are out there somewhere this moment protecting all the rest of us.
Date: Wed Jun 24 19:55:34 2009
VIc, Wow I'm amazed at how you've twisted "Thou shalt not kill " into thou shalt not commit murder! Killing is OK if it's warranted? Who on this earth gets to decide who warrants murdering? Is there really some thing material on this earth worth dyeing or killing for? I don't have anything such as that. Preparing yourself to kill is awful. It is not "insurance." In the history of man I do not believe there has been a warranted war, how can dyeing for one's country, AKA, a defined piece of this earth, be reasonable? I believe you could use religion to justify anything if you can use it to justify killing.
Your evidence above ... Mark 3:27 - But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house - is simply a statement not a justification. It is like saying no man shall cross a river dry unless he has a boat or a bridge - true but so what?
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for. -Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Date: Thu Jun 25 06:41:25 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
I have twisted nothing. Thou shalt not do murder is thousands of years old, and certainly not any invention of mine. Consult a Jewish Hebrew scholar for exact translations into English. Refer to the many Scriptural death penalties for an explanation of “warranted” killing on a non-innocent person. You might begin (or end) with the story of David and Goliath.
If you ever find anywhere in Scripture, or anywhere else in world history, any nation not fully prepared to recognize and fight a “warranted war” then you will have found a nation that had an exceedingly short history. Let me know if you even find one; I always enjoy a good short story.
Bringing it down a level, you will never find in all of world history any nation or population that did not have a criminal element in it. That’s just the way it is. The common criminal, like the marauding king, will do whatever he perceives that he can get away with. You’re right; you cannot cross a deep river dry without using a bridge or a boat; otherwise, you would get wet. Similarly, you cannot rob a strong man without first binding him, because otherwise, he might beat the snot out of you and have you thrown into prison, at the very least.
I do not use my religion to “justify anything.” I use it as a path to my own final judgment and as a moral standard by which to guide my life. It calls me to evangelize, to speak the truth, and to exercise my own judgment, as a responsible adult, which includes the effort to discern between those around me who live by a similar moral standard and those who do not, and to act accordingly.
You are free to stand aside and allow invaders to rape, pillage, plunder and burn their way through your household if that is your desire. But this is America, and around here, although there are exceptions to every rule, we generally don’t stand idly around and allow that sort of thing to happen unopposed.
Gandhi was a wonderful man and a great example, who achieved much, and lost much. His story is quite inspirational; however, note well the fact that India was split, and that Moslems and Hindus are still killing each other on the Indian sub-continent to this very day.
There just ain’t no such thing as worldly utopia, now, or ever. Perfection is not of this world, but the next. Give it up. This world is never going to be perfect. You are called to do your very best, in your own unique way, while you are here.
(Note: See the Death Penalty argument page for more Church teaching on the topic.)
Date: Wed Sep 02 21:59:58 2009
Wow, I've re-visited you again after a "cooling off" period and you statements are disturbing as ever. You twist your religious belief to justify killing and arming your self to intimidation. That I can not forgive, but I am not THE forgiver. How can you feel that your judgment is so superior as to make the life & death decision for another man?
Date: Thu Sep 03 06:33:51 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
I mean, like, wow.
Ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again.
This is just plain blithering. If you don’t even have the beginnings of any sort of coherent argument, why do you just keep embarrassing yourself by commenting here?
Until and unless you submit something that may reasonably be responded to in an intelligent way, I’m not even going to publish your future comments. Regards,
Date: Tue Dec 01 13:29:29 2009
Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, and Luke 11:21 all refer to Jesus expelling the devil (or evil) out of people. They do not refer the use of weapons. If you are honestly using scripture to support your beliefs, why take these words out of context?
Date: Tue Dec 01 18:36:40 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
I submit that I have taken no more from these three Scriptures out of context than you have. In the larger context, what they are all talking about is the at-handedness of the Kingdom, a daring challenge to the Pharisees, and a strong hint at just Who this healing Jesus might be.
These quotes are taken from three different versions of the exact same story by three different inspired authors in the three synoptic gospels. Each one paraphrased the actual words of our Lord slightly differently. Each one told of a healing or a “casting out,” each one told of a false charge against our Lord, and each one told of a direct, bold and frighteningly authoritative response to the false charge, i.e., the Kingdom is upon you!
And, each one contained an analogy, understood by all, of how no one in his right mind attempts to rob an armed or strong man who is prepared to defend his property. Everyone understood the analogy then, and it is still crystal clear today.
Date: Mon Nov 22 16:56:02 2010
"Is there really some thing material on this earth worth dyeing or killing for?"
Someone else, perhaps? Did you even give this any thought before commenting? American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan give their lives and take Iraqi and Afghan lives to save countless lives in America. In my opinion, giving or taking one life to save many innocent lives is perfectly acceptable.
Date: Mon Nov 22 17:41:37 2010
Location: NY, United Sates of America
I'm not seeing my post, why don't I see my post?
Date: Tue Nov 23 05:32:41 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Patience; patience. This isn’t really the giant, global Think Tank that the name implies, but a one-dog show, or a one-pony act. (Please don’t tell anyone.)I usually only get a couple of brief opportunities per day to work on this site and keep up with things. Experiments with automatic blogging products resulted in abandoning all of them, because they allowed vulgarity and crudeness typical of the Leftist mindset to get onto my site, and even links to unacceptable sites. I won’t have that, and so I insist on personal editorial control over whatever is published on this site. Until I personally approve it, it doesn’t get published here.
And, I still have to work, and I still have to sleep, and I still have to live a life.
Date: Mon Nov 22 17:51:54 2010
Location: NY, United Sates of America
Vic, while I completely agree with your arguments, in surfing around your site I noticed some discrepancies. In your first comment, you said that the words that came down the mountain with Moses were "Thou shalt not murder". This then is one of the Ten Commandments given by God. However, on your page about the death penalty, Opposing the Death Penalty, it states that the Fifth Commandment says "You shall not kill". You also said in your first comment that these were not the words, directly interpreted, brought down by Moses. I was wondering about this and hoping that you had an explanation.
Date: Tue Nov 23 05:45:09 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Just about every English translation Bible will have the words “Thou shalt not kill” for that Commandment, and that is the interpretation that most of the English speaking world have ingrained into their consciousness from childhood. However, when Moses actually recorded the words (or had them recorded by God) English was not invented yet. I believe a Hebrew scholar would tell us that the original words were “Thou shalt not do murder.”
Murder is interpreted to mean the unwarranted taking of innocent human life.
There is a huge difference in meaning. So long as you know the original intention, there is nothing wrong with quoting “Thou shalt not kill” in any conversation. Just make sure that your children or any younger people you talk to fully understand and know that such Biblical personages as David, Joshua, etc., were not murderers or violators of the Commandment.
They will look in the Bible and see the words “Thou shalt not kill.” So, teach them the principle behind the words.
Date: Sat May 07 22:12:32 2011
Location: Cleveland OH
All of us are just never going to agree on this. Some of us are never going to be able to be or become “good soldiers” and many soldiers are not soldiers for any noble reasons. Many Christians are just not going to be able to pick up a gun and reconcile that act with what they believe; many who are able to pick up a gun are not Christians at all. You may quote any verses you want and interpret them any way you want, but to me, the strongest teaching of Christ was toward peace and away from violence, especially considering his admonition “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” That’s my opinion, and that’s not going to change no matter how reasoned your arguments. I do recognize and appreciate that they are indeed reasoned arguments. I just disagree.
Date: Sun May 08 06:03:51 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
On the broad points, we are, I think, in total agreement. Because we are not all the same, and because we hope to enjoy personal liberty, and because – so long as we have liberty – we all practice free will in America, our life decisions are not ever going to be the same. That’s why I have always held that, while I think military service should be required of youth, it should be quite easily avoided by conscientious objectors.
You are quite correct in your assessment of the peaceful nature of Christ; however, it must be remembered that His Apostles and His closest disciples belonged to a group that was more akin to a religious order than a military order. They lived a different life than the rest of the population, and a life nearly opposite that of the military or police, who were lawfully authorized to use force.
The important point I would like to make is that our Lord and the Church He founded has never condemned self defense, defense of home and family, defense of property, defense of the innocent and helpless, defense of peace and order, defense of nation or defense of allies, against an aggressor or a conqueror. Somebody has to do all that defense. I’m sorry, but, the world being imperfect as it is, all of those armed defenders are not going to be perfect citizens or perfect soldiers or perfect police.
Even members of various religious orders will not all be perfect. Remember Judas Iscariot? Look around at some of the scandalous clergymen today.
Date: Sat Jul 21 01:11:42 2012
From: Elizabeth Sullivan
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Would you even recognize Jesus if you were to meet him on the street? Or would you just think that he was just another hippy preaching "peace and love"? I mean, Jesus had long hair and a beard and liked to dress comfortably. How would you react if this man told you that he hated guns and though they should be abolished?
Date: Sat Jul 21 06:23:42 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
That’s an odd question, seemingly defending the hippy life style. Let me reverse it.
Would you even recognize Jesus if He had short hair, was clean shaven and wore a suit, and you met Him on the street?
How would you react if He told you to sell your coat to buy a sword, as he did in Luke 22:36?
Date: Sat Jul 21 06:01:13 2012
Have you seen what just happened in the theater shootings in Aurora Colorado?
If they have concealed-carry in Colorado, why was no one there armed?
Also, why is it necessary for large capacity magazines to be so available? Lots of us have guns, but nobody needs a 30-round magazine for anything he owns.
Date: Sat Jul 21 07:14:46 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Even if you have a CCW, there are all sorts of places, with posted signs, in which it is still illegal to carry concealed. I would almost bet that that is the case in Colorado theaters. The only people in a theater, probably throughout America, who would be legally carrying would be off duty police.
We citizens get to determine what we need, without any help from people like you who think they know better what we need. We can make that determination for ourselves. If you don’t want high capacity magazines, don’t buy them.
You cannot restrict the entire citizenry in order to prevent the exceedingly rare but truly unpreventable incident. CCW is extremely effective in deterring crime – that is, the more common and therefore more predictable incidents of robbery, mugging, burglary, attempted rape, terrorism, etc.
There is no defense, because there is no predictability, of an incident involving someone going off his rocker and doing something like this. You cannot restrict the actions of a whole population because of what one person in ten million might do some day, out of the clear blue. If you cannot predict it, you really cannot effectively defend against it.
You will find no place on earth where a wild incident like the shootings in Aurora Colorado has not happened, and cannot happen.
Regarding “No Handguns” signs in America – look around; they’re all over the place. There are more places where you cannot carry concealed, even if you have your CCW, than where you can.
Date: Wed Jul 25 01:59:22 2012
I just don’t think assault rifles are necessary, and I don’t think assault weapons were what the authors had in mind when they wrote the second amendment. The whole country would be better off if they were banned completely and unavailable.
Date: Thu Jul 26 06:43:02 2-12
From: Vic Biorseth
Military assault rifles and assault weapons of every sort were exactly and precisely what the authors had in mind. The first people the American citizen-soldier fought were British Regulars. If you look at what the minute-men and the Continental Army used, they were the earliest rifles and the older Brown Bess muskets with bayonets, and those were the military assault rifles of the era.
The idea of ridding the country, or the world, of assault weapons is just silly. Effective assault weaponry will always be available, and criminals will always have them, even if they have to make them. That’s the way it is. Why should only decent men be disarmed? The peace at all costs disarmament sentiment is promoted by Democrats and other Marxists who have devious, deceitful and malicious intentions toward an eventually voluntarily disarmed citizenry.
From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Sunday, September 02, 2012
Upgraded the page to reflect the new BB 2.0 SBI! 3.0 release. (LOVE this new release!)
Date: Sun Sep 02 01:59:34 2012
Location: Greenwood, SC, USA
First let me preface this comment by saying that I am not a Catholic, although I do have some friends who are, but I read the content on this site quite frequently. The reason I do is because I think it has a lot of good common sense content. This one on gun control was no disappointment. Thank you for a very good article on the subject.
As you know, or if you didn't you do now due to the comments you've received here, the subject of gun control is a very volatile subject. The easiest path for a writer would have been to simply avoid it. But you didn't and for that you've gained my respect. You are correct in saying the original translation of the 6th Commandment/Imperative on the Decalogue Stone was "Thou shalt not do murder". I have had this discussion with a Rabbi friend in the past and he confirmed that translation. You were also correct in your guess about the theater in Aurora, CO. It was a "Gun Free Zone". If you look at all the mass shootings almost every one of them took place in a "Gun Free Zone". The 1997 shooting at the school in Pearl MS was actually stopped before more people could be shot because the assistant-principle ran to his truck, retrieved his .45 caliber handgun and went back into the school and took control of the shooter.
Many people don't realize that gun control is a civil rights abuse/issue. People who oppose gun control need to look at the history of gun control in America. It was first used in the South (where I live actually) by the white populace to keep the newly freed slave population from revolting against unfair laws and race driven abuses practiced against them.
Therefore gun control is people control.
Nothing is lost when speaking of gun control if you replace the word "gun" with "people" or "citizens". It has never been nor will it ever be about citizen safety or crime. The safest societies in the world have historically been societies where most of the citizens owned weapons.
Today one of the, if not the, country with the lowest violent crime rate on the planet is Switzerland where not only does every citizen have a weapon (government issued) it's part of their civic duty to have one. They are expected to have the weapon close at hand and be proficient in it's use from the age of 18 on. They are required to take a marksmanship test every year until they reach a certain age. If you've ever visited there you can go into any coffee shop or cafe and there is a rack for people to place their rifles while they eat. The racks are usually right alongside the coat racks. It's common to see a young man or woman riding a bike through town with their rifle (fully automatic) slung across their back. Violent crimes are almost unheard of there.
As for Elizabeth's odd question about Jesus' appearance let me ask...Do you think you would know Jesus if you met Him on the street? I seriously doubt any one of us would. But if anyone is curious they should Google "The Real Face of Jesus". British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists, have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image of His face using forensic anthropology. His hair was most likely not long, he had dark complexion like most Middle Easterners.
To be honest he looks surprisingly similar to Osama Bin Laden and others of that region. He would probably be detained and questioned by the TSA before boarding a flight. He certainly could not have looked like the blue-eyed Western European depicted in the common pictures we see so often. Sorry if that disappoints.
Again, thank you for a very good article. Keep writing the good stuff and I will definitely keep coming here to read it.
Date: Sun Sep 02 09:30:25 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Thank you for you kind remarks; your comment reveals a profound understanding of the citizen-protection Constitutional principle involved here. I broke your comment into paragraphs to make your points a little more clear; I hope that’s all right with you.
The relationship of the Constitutional Principle to civil rights is vital, and I don’t think many people understand it as well as you. Once upon a time, before the Democrat Party morphed into the Party of Marxist ideology, it was the Party of Slavery; then, it was the Party of Segregation Forever, and the Party of the Klan, and the Party of the police dogs and the fire hoses. It had always been the anti-Republic – pro-pure Democracy Party. Pure Democracy reflects the organization of the lynch mob; our Republic seeks to protect the citizen from the tyranny of the majority. .
When the Klan had its heyday, and again when it had a resurgence under Woodrow Wilson, there was a close symbiotic relationship between Democrat politicians and racist terrorism. First, the local elected Sheriff or his representatives would come round and gather the personally owned firearms from the intended victim’s households. Then, the Klan would show up – perhaps, under those sheets, they were the same people – to burn crosses, lynch and terrorize citizens.
No minority American citizen should ever forget that. When they come to take our guns away, the last man standing, by all that is right and just, should be a black American. If anyone has historic cause to resist gun control, it is he.
The principle is this:
As to the face of Jesus, I strongly suspect that most of the artists depictions of Him are accurate, although not necessarily accurate of hair, skin or eye color. We know that He was a Semitic Jew; frankly, I can't tell the difference between a Semitic Jew and a Semitic Arab. All renderings seem to show the same split-beard and the longish hair. The first known icon was done, tradition tells us, by St. John on the Isle of Patmos where he wrote his Revelation, and although I think this painting is lost to antiquity, copies and recorded memories describe the same split-beard. The Shroud of Turin shows the same features. I think Veronica’s Veil is also lost; but artist renderings of it show the same features. All the Renaissance artists depicted the same general features, and – again, I think they are generally accurate.
It’s enough for me to know that he was human; but it is an interesting thing to wonder about. Those who saw Him were really blessed.
Thank you for your submission, and have a blessed Labor Day.
Date: Thu Oct 09 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Language and Tone Statement
Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our
standards of logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, back it up, keep it clean and keep it civil. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the New Liberals are what they are, and the internet is what it is.
If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elite Culturally Marxist Authoritarians will never tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their own pro-Marxist/anti-Christian/anti-American/Globalist/anti-Nation/immoral/anti-white/racist and bigoted point of view.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
Your email is perfectly secure here. We use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
These are the pages that explore the dichotomy between what Benjamin Franklin called "our American religion," which is General Christianity, and waging war.
Necessity of War pages
Whether man wants war or not, it is best to be prepared for war so long as evil exists, and evil will exist until Christ comes again. Even Heaven itself was not free of war.
Unavoidable existence of evil and the periodic Necessary War. So long as evil exists, necessary war will be fought, lest the Church and "Good" be extinguished on earth.
The Necessity of War: Is there such a thing? Do we ever need war? The Thinking Catholic looks at the seemingly perpetual argument over the very Necessity of War.
America's Limited War Doctrine: A Fatal Flaw. Since Korea, top-level American war strategy has been terribly flawed. (Note well that the Korean "war" is not even over with, and we are still there, at this late date.)
The Bush War Doctrine Revisited: a fresh look at our horrible situation. A reproduction of the "Bush War Doctrine Revisited" article and discussion points by David Yerushalmi; there is much food for thought here.
For God and Country – More Thoughts on America, and on National Existence. For God and Country: Comparisons of martyrdom and heroism, Sovereign Nationhood Vs. Internationalism, distinct people-hood Vs. the Global Village, and Godliness Vs. godlessness.
How Cronkite and the SLIMC lost the Vietnam War for America. With the whole SLIMC overwhelmingly Marxist, the Reds couldn't possibly loose politically and publicly that which they couldn't posssibly win militarily in the Vietnam war.
The End Game; Marxism & Islam join hands beneath the smoke of world chaos. This could be the end game, it could be the beginning of World War Three, or, just another global depression.
World Revolution returns with a vengeance: the rebirth of Marxism. Marxist world revolution returns, and faces far less opposition than in 1848 or the period between the Great Wars.
Again, it's Israel up against what appears to be the whole pea-picking world. Weak lip-service and pretty speeches aside, America is Israel's only real ally. And, as war is imposed upon her again, even many Americans are lukewarm in their support. Why?
The latest Israeli conflict is little different from all the previous ones. The first Israeli conflict with her neighbors, and every one since then, has been a simple matter of self defense.
From 1768 through 1776 the Brits vainly attempted gun control in the Colonies. The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.
American Military Assault Weapons originally intended in the 2nd Amendment. To miss the point of the 2nd Amendment is to miss the point of the whole Constitution.
CCW Entrapment discusses the legal dangers of legal carrying. George Zimmerman is a victim of CCW Entrapment and Sponsored Racial Polarization.
Thoughts in remembrance of 09/11/2001, five years later. The changing shape of the war, the changing shape of the enemy.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the