Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Site best viewed on a computer screen - not optimized for cell phones
50 most recent articles updated on this Web-Site: BLOG (Web-Log) Page
Note the military assault weapons of the American founding era.
Vic Biorseth, Friday, January 04, 2013
Everybody and his uncle is today calling for weapon bans, weapon restrictions, weapon lock-ups, weapon security, while ignoring the purposefully engineered looser restrictions on human behaviors. Getting dangerous people off the streets today ranges between difficult and impossible. Children are taught to question authority and to assume virtually unlimited "rights" even as adults are increasingly legally restricted from touching or even verbally correcting any child doing anything stupid. We have three and four and five time convicts, of quite serious crimes, again walking the streets, and we see lunatics yelling at passersby, screaming at traffic or arguing with shadows. And then, when innocents are killed in some terrible incident, the gun is attacked. And nobody sees that this, too, is just another small part of a purposefully engineered larger anti-Constitutional, which is to say anti-American agenda.
Civil War era military assault weapons.
The very purpose for the Constitution itself was to protect the free citizenry from its own government. America is the first nation in world history designed for that purpose. When we say we are a nation of laws and not just of men, that is what we mean: the Constitution - not the government - is the law. The law itself stands separate from the government. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the government, like the citizenry, is subject to that law.
Spanish American War Assault Weapons.
Now, if the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizenry from its own government, who would you logically conclude that the Second Amendment was intended to protect, and from whom? We went over the Second Amendment in detail in the Gun Control page, and I won't go into that detail again here. But this much needs to be said again here. Let's look at the actual wording.
As pointed out in the Gun Control page,
Very simple; nothing to it. It is very simple and very direct English; why does it even need to be explained? Why do the words need to be parsed? Again, go to the Gun Control page for the language of the day and the intent of the Framers. It is, after all, plain English.
World War 1 Assault Weapons
The Minute Men and the rest of the militia of the American pre-revolutionary period armed themselves as best they could with the best military weaponry available. That meant, for the most part, the Brown Bess musket, with bayonet. If they could manage to acquire one, the preferred weapon was the newer Pennsylvania rifle, which had a rifled bore and was therefore considerably more accurate. Those who, for whatever reason, did not have and could not acquire a weapon had one provided for them by the community. Virtually every town and hamlet had an armory, in which they kept a supply of hand and shoulder weapons, powder and shot, and crew-served weapons, meaning canons.
These were not military "regulars" or professional soldiers of any kind; they were farmers, shop keepers, indentured servants, hired-hands, free men of color and just ordinary citizens of every description. And they had, whenever and wherever possible, the latest and very best purely military weaponry that could be had at the time.
I submit that if the machine gun had existed at that time, the Minute Men and the local Militias would have acquired them and used them. The intent was to protect themselves, their kin and their land from their own government, which was, at that time, King George.
Once the revolution was complete, and the Framers had to design a government and write a Constitution, that little piece of history was fresh in their minds. And they were determined to design a government that not only would not, but could not interfere with the Divine rights and natural principles already concretized in the Declaration of Independence.
The new government was to be subject to the law.
This was an absolute novelty. It had never been done before. To write the law down on paper and put it up on the wall, point at it and tell the "rulers" that "that's the law, and you are subject to it, just like us" was to, essentially, eliminate the so-called ruling class. America was to become the first classless society, by design. No nobility; no hereditary monarchy; no special classes of men.
That's why the Constitution is so despised by the Marxist Party. (I mean Democrat.) Virtually everything the Democrats do opposes the Constitution in some way. From unauthorized spending, to un-legislated regulation, restricting speech, religious exercise, guns - you name it. Men of the Left, while publicly claiming, falsely, that they seek to eliminate classes, seek to make themselves into an elite ruling class above the law and answerable to no one. To "get things done" in the manner of Joseph Stalin. There are many different "levels" of these Leftists, who are all, essentially, Marxists. At one extreme we find the "Progressives" who want to achieve their ends through slow and steady "progress," and at the other, Revolutionaries and radicals, who will seize power the instant the opportunity presents itself. None of them love the Constitution, for obvious reasons.
A major "plum" goal of theirs is to take your guns away from you.
M1 Garand (top) M2 Carbine in two variations
I went through basic training with the M1 Garand, which tells you that I'm an old fart. I shot the best scores I ever shot with this rifle. It's chambered in .30-06, meaning, caliber 30 (.308 diameter) developed in 1906, for the Springfield-06, the main military rifle before the M1. The .30-06 became (and remains) my favorite caliber. It is supremely accurate way the heck out there. At my first duty station in Germany I was issued an M2 Carbine, and I didn't like it so much. The .30 Carbine cartridge holds the same .308 diameter bullet, but it's a smaller case with lower charge capacity, and accuracy is way off, for any rifleman. (It's a carbine; it's not supposed to be as accurate as a rifle.) It was OK out to 100 yards, but the groups really opened up at 200, and beyond that, forget it.
The M14 Assault Weapon
While I was still in Germany, the 2nd Armored Cavalry changed to the M14 rifle, and I was happy again, although I still preferred the old M1 Garand. The M14 was chambered in 7.62 Nato (exact match of the .308 Winchester) which was, essentially, a .30-06 with a slightly shorter cartridge case, and slightly lower charge capacity. On paper, it was less capable at all ranges than the .30-06, but only by an insignificant fractional amount. It was a good rifle; certainly better than any carbine, and I was happy again. I never shot as good scores with the M14 as I had with the M1, but I shot it pretty well, and I appreciated the larger capacity box magazine.
In Vietnam, I had the M14, and I was glad I did. The first time we saw, held and fired the M16, when we encountered some guys from another unit, we couldn't believe what we were looking at. It was like a toy gun. All plastic; light as a feather; no kick. No kidding. You could hold it out with one hand like a pistol and shoot it, and not hardly feel any kick. It shot a pipsqueak little .22 caliber bullet (out of a fat little .223 cartridge) that did not inspire confidence. This caliber would be illegal for deer hunting in most states. The joke lines flew. "You can tell it's Mattel; it's swell" after the then popular toy commercial. It was "Popiel's Pocket Assault Rifle" after the popular pocket fishing rod of the day.
Now, don't get me wrong, the M16 has proved itself worthy many times over as a viable weapon. However, I personally still rank it in there with the carbine as a less desirable choice than a real rifle. That little bullet does well out to 200, maybe 250 yards, but that's it. The .308 is still good out to 1,000 yards. And it has more penetration, it's a bigger bullet and has more stopping power. I never really understood why the top brass ever decided to go to any .22 caliber main issue weapon.
Many moons later in civilian life, two of my shooting buddies shot and reloaded, one, a .222, and the other, a .223 (which was for an AR15, the civilian version of the M16.) Reloading the .223 had a bit of a problem because the neck of the cartridge was so short; if the seating and crimping die was not adjusted just right, the bullet could be seated microscopically cocked at an angle instead of straight up and down. This was particularly true of boat tailed spitzer type bullets. Even when seated properly, they were delicate; bump them the right way, and the seated bullets might move. But, when loaded properly, I have to say that both of these rifles were capable of really awesome accuracy out to 300 yards. Yessir. That little .222 took out a whole lot of groundhogs at some surprising ranges. Still, for a .22 center fire, I would always prefer the .222 over the .223.
The .458 SOCOM
The .458 SOCOM is a newer version of a carbine with a whopping big .45 caliber bullet. It's that big bullet, not the fact that it's a carbine rather than a rifle, that attracts me to it. It shoots a huge 300 grain bullet that makes it serious big bear medicine, as well as a high penetration, high stopping power close up assault weapon. There is a lot to be said about a sub-sonic, big fat bullet that can shoot into one inch groups at 100 yards. (A good rifle should shoot into .25 inch groups at that range.) Trajectory wise, it's all done in at about 150 yards, at which point the bullet begins to drop like a brick. But, in thick woods or brush, or any place that ranges are limited anyway, it would make an excellent deer getter or varmint gun.
Here's the really neat thing about it: it's built on a sort of M16 frame and design, and it takes all the M16 magazines. A .458 SOCOM cartridge loads into any M16 / AR15 magazine as is, without modification, and feeds into the weapon appropriately. You can't get nearly as many of these big boogers in there as you can the little .223 rounds, but then, you shouldn't need as many either.
If you're the type of guy that likes to take things to the limit, the ballistics of the .458 SOCOM are quite similar to the old .45-70 buffalo gun. Those old buffalo hunters who decimated the buffalo herds sometimes dropped buffalo at 1,000 yards with the .45-70. It's hard to imagine how high that rear sight must have been for a shot like that. If it got any steeper, you might want to switch to a mortar. But the point is, they did it; it can be done.
DPMS Sporter in 7.62 NATO (.308 Win)
DPMS Panther in 7.62 NATO (.308 Win)
I like the design, but not the caliber, of the old M16, and now there are a plethora of good rifles and carbines out there, built on that frame, but chambered in .308 Winchester. Put a bi-pod on one, and shooting from a bench or from a good prone position can make even an old guy like me competitive again at the longer ranges.
I once was next to a guy shooting something with a suppressor (silencer) on it, and was quite impressed. You still knew a gun was going off, but it was quiet enough, I think, that you didn't need ear protection. (All those years in the army I never used ear protection, and that's probably why I don't hear a thing my wife says.) Today I never shoot without ear protection, except when hunting. If I could afford it, I would use suppressors on everything.
1911 Colt in .45 ACP
The old 1911 .45 is what I cut my teeth on in the army. But I never got really good with handguns until much later in civilian life. Maybe for psychological reasons, I never took handguns seriously, as I just saw myself as a rifleman. There were some marksmen in an office I was working in, and they got me interested in hand-gunning. You might say, for awhile, I went overboard on it; I started reloading, then even casting my own bullets. I slugged the barrels of all the guns I reloaded for - that is, I drove a soft lead slug through with a wooden dowel, and then mic'ed the diameter of the slug, and bought swageing dies with which to swage cast bullets to exact barrel fit for the lands and grooves of that specific gun.
I learned something important about reloading for automatics: don't do it. It's a very narrow range in which to reload; you may not experiment with automatic loads. Load them too light, and the action won't work. Load them too hot, and you slam-bang the action and cause missfeeds and other problems. Forget cast bullets for automatics. Automatic feeding shaves lead off of bullet noses and builds it up lead deposits on the feed ramp and around the chamber. Eventually they will cause jams, missfeeds and stovepipes. Just stick with jacketed bullets. Bite the bullet, so to speak, and just buy match grade ammo. It's expensive, but it always works.
I eventually sold my 1911 to a friend, and he had it smithed into one of those super-duper competition-type guns you see on TV. We were all into magnums in those days, and I really fell in love with the .44. I cast a 250 grain Keith semi-wadcutter on top of 20 grains of Hercules 2400 with magnum primers, and that load was absolutely fantastic.
Much later, working in another office, my boss got me interested in archery. (Here we go again, said my wife.) Anyway, getting into archery, and more into fishing the streams around here, my guns kind of fell silent for a long time.
But then, Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, was elected President.
Glock 30 SF in .45 ACP
A growing recognition of the need for self protection beyond the limits of the doors of my house led to considering acquiring a CCW (license to carry a concealed weapon) and determining the best kind of weapon for that purpose. It's funny how things that went around come around again. I finally settled on the venerable old .45 ACP again, as a decent big caliber that I already knew I could hit with out to 25 yards. In match form, its a 230 grain jacketed round that lumbers along at around 800 fps and gets the job done; but did I want to go back to the old 1911 again? After looking at a lot of possibilities, I settled on a small model of the Glock. I liked all the Glocks I looked at, but only one looked to be a small enough package to carry concealed. The Glock 30 SF (where SF stands for Slim Frame) seemed to fill the ticket. It is smaller than the 1911 in every dimension except width.
The Crossbreed inside-the-pants concealed-carry holster
One thing I always liked about the 1911 was the flatness, which made it a good belly gun. The Glock is a little thicker, but then, these days, so am I. Just sticking the Glock in your belt under your shirt works fine, for a little while; it's too uncomfortable for all day carry. If you need to carry all day - a rarity for me - the Crossbreed holster is great for that. It's made of cow hide, and it has clips that hook over your pants and belt from the inside. You wear it between your underwear and your outerwear. The only drawback is that you have to buy pants a couple of inches too big in the waist, or you won't be able to button them (or you won't be able to breath properly - one or the other.) Wear a loose shirt un-tucked and the gun is invisible. You can't even feel it. It's very secure; easy in, easy out, no danger of falling out. The two belt clips are adjustable for height and cant.
The Glock is kind of funny in some ways, to Americans. The 30 has such a short grip that, with the clip out, there's no place for your pinky. Your little finger is just hanging out there. Put the clip in, and you have a full grip again. There is a 9-shot clip that just barely gives your pinky a place to rest; I prefer the 10-shot, that gives a full solid grip for the whole hand. 10 in the clip and one in the pipe gives you an 11 shot package.
Another funny thing is, there is no safety, as most of us think of them. It's a safe gun; just all the safety features are built into the trigger mechanism. If you're used to the 1911 or guns like it, you are probably used to thumbing off the safety before you fire; there is no safety to thumb-off on the Glock. Just keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're on target and ready to fire. You should always "index" anyway, with any gun. Indexing means laying your trigger finger along the side of the frame rather than putting it in the trigger guard and on the trigger. Indexing is doubly important with a Glock.
The grip assembly is polymer, not steel. That explains why the recoil seems to be sort of a gentle push rather than a snap. It actually flexes a little bit under recoil. No-tools take-down and reassembly for cleaning is extremely simple, fast and easy. The Glock isn't pretty, but it works every single time, and absolute reliability is what I was looking for.
So, I got a brand new gun I had never shot before at the same time I took my CCW classes. The CCW involved 32 hours of training; 20 hours classroom and 12 hours range time. Most all of the classroom time involved law, restrictions and situations. It's almost not worth it to carry most places these days. I think the Founders and the Framers would be rolling in their graves. There are more places that you cannot carry than that you can; there are situations you had better not get into if you're carrying. You had better know what to do and what to say any time you're stopped by a cop for any reasons while you're carrying.
What can I say? It is what it is.
I strongly recommend looking into the USCCA program, for the legal back-up you might need if ever, God forbid, you are actually called upon to use your concealed weapon.
A good friend with a CCW has a different sort of preparedness than mine. He has a little Walther PPK/S chambered in - get this - .22 long rifle. This is the famous James Bond gun, but in a smaller package, and in .22 rimfire. His work frequently gets him into potentially dangerous situations, and at those times he needs something for protection. The little Walther is so small he just drops it in his pants pocket, and it almost gets lost in there. Ladies should think about that.
Before you laugh, consider this: the .22 long rifle is probably one of the longest lived, highy refined and successful cartridges ever developed. Compared to any other caliber, it is cheap; probably the cheapest ammo you can get. It is capable of great accuracy in a good gun and in practiced hands. And, this guy is a crack shot with it. When we talked about the caliber size discrepancy, his simple comment was this:
Very profound, when you think about it. A good solid head hit ends the confrontation, even when it's only a .22. Whatever you shoot, the cardinal rule for acquiring expertise is: practice, practice, practice. And a .22 rimfire makes all that practice a lot more affordable for most of us.
Any time any member of the Democrat Party, any Journalist or any other Marxist tells you that the Second Amendment was not referring to military assault weaponry you will be listening to a liar. Military weaponry is precisely and exactly what the Second Amendment was referring to. When you hear them say that the only valid purpose for gun ownership is hunting, you will again be listening to a liar. Not that there's anything wrong with hunting, but what the Framers were talking about was protection from your own government.
The Marxist would deny you the ability to defend yourself, your family and your property against criminals; that is because they have an ulterior motive. They cannot criminally take over in the presence of an armed citizenry that knows the Constitution. They are horrified at the notion of citizens protecting themselves against their own government; but that is precisely what the Founders and the Framers intended.
Every American citizen should be thinking about acquiring good firearms and the skill to put them to good use.
Teach your children the Constitution, and teach them to shoot well.
Sarcastic Acronym 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" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; hover over it just to see the simple interpretation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sun Jan 06 10:03:08 2013
From: William Beinlich
Location: Yankeetown, FL, USA
Another fantastic essay! Am continually impressed with the depth,
breadth, relevance and clarity of your articles.
Don't only law-biding citizens heed gun control
laws? Isn't this an insurmountable
fallacy? Would like to hear from anyone
who advocates a particular gun control law along with the data to support it.
Keep up the good work!
Date: Sun Jan
06 12:06:24 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Thank you, sir; most of the time I feel like I’m flogging a dead horse. The attacks on the Constitution, large and small, are coming from so many directions it’s hard to tell which is the greatest threat. It sometimes makes me so almost panic stricken that it brings to mind Benjamin Franklin’s calming advice to an over-worried Congress, which was to “Draw your saber, mount your horse, and charge, furiously, in all directions at once!”
This is the problem:
That’s it. The only thing standing between us and Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is the Constitution. The only thing protecting us from our own government is our Constitution.
Someone had bloody well better start defending the Constitution, because the Republican Party sure as hell is not defending it.
Date: Mon Jan 07 05:29:28 2013
If I may borrow your phraseology, someone had bloody well better start defending Catholic faith and morals in America, because the USCCB sure as hell is not defending it.
Date: Mon Jan 07 07:13:42 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Jan 11 07:06:10 2013
Location: Yankeetown, FL, USA
Curmudgeon (how can that
You’ve put your finger
squarely on the problem. First some
observations, then the beginning of a resource list, followed by some thoughts for Vic’s readers
to evaluate and concluding with a suggestion.
the exception of our Beloved Pope, you’ll not find the Church hierarchy “…
defending Catholic faith and morals …” with the “bloody passion” you seek. There really isn’t a “chain of command” – the bishops do what they please.
is a Catholic bureaucracy, think of it as “Catholic, Inc”. Catholic, Inc. is motivated by “the
world”: promotion, access, prestige,
power, privilege, security, self-preservation, status quo …. Notably missing – courage.
in Church history has the disobedience been as blatant or as pervasive? Entities such as the Catholic League,
National Catholic Register, EWTN claim to advance the Faith, but will not focus
their intense spotlight on the real problem –
it’s inside our Church. Vic says “” and
he’s right,consistent and often alone.
• A profile of the priests in our diocese:
o 50% voted for President Obama - thus supporting intrinsic
evil. (This is held to be a crisp,
accurate filter.) Is there a cogent
explanation as to how their actions might be construed as being faithful to
Church teaching? This group is often
loosely categorized as “social justice” priests. They tend to be older.
o 40% did not vote for President Obama and are assumed to be
accurately transmitting the faith. This
cohort has concerns about Church leadership (including the USCCB) and the
Church’s crisis, but do not want to make their views known. They can be termed “pro-life” priests -
younger; from the John Paul II generation.
o 10% have a profile similar to the 40% but would “come out of the
closet” if a leader were to emerge.
Note: Some priests from our diocese, and other
dioceses, believe this is optimistic.
your priest ask that you increase your monetary contributions, help to the
unfortunate, visits to the sick & imprisoned ….? Yes.
Would they ask that you challenge Catholic, Inc.? What does this tell you? What is God asking you to do?
repeated asked “What national-level organization stands up for the Faith? For example, challenges the USCCB?” There is only one that I know of: St. Michael's Media with their super churchmilitant.tv (CMT) programming. Does anyone know of another? Even one more?
we should aggressively engage in the political fight, we should first (perhaps
simultaneously) reclaim our Catholic Church.
• One reason that Curmudgeon can make his claim so
confidently is that no clergy or Catholic, Inc. stockholder will respond. You can write to Timothy Cardinal Dolan, your
bishop, your priest, EWTN, the Catholic League … and consider yourself lucky
for a receipt confirmation. Are they
simply too busy to do their job? No,
they simply refuse o participate in a meaningful dialogue. They can’t.
They position is untenable. But
there is clear evidence that the message is being heard.
Turning to individuals at
the national level - Some may stand for Catholic authenticity, but they are not
“bloody” passionate. They will not take
on the USCCB. Two very notable
exceptions: Michael Voris (CMT) and Vic
Biorseth. Others? Relaxing the “bloody” constraint, let’s
compile a list of individuals who do know the score. Will offer two to get us started:
Robert Sirico (Action Institute)
Royal (Faith & Reason Institute)
Thoughts on What to Do:
• Pray! Invoke our Blessed Mother Mary and all the
saints. God may forsake the United States,
as we have turned our backs on him, but he will not abandon his Church – He will remain with us as individuals. Isn’t it clear by now that there is no worthy
leader in our entire country?
broadcast Vic’s essays. When you find a
rational, fact-driven, logical commenter who challenges Vic – enter the fray. (Personally, although a relatively new
subscriber, I don’t recall seeing any credible counter to Vic’s assessments.)
churchmilitant.tv There is a free
subscription with daily programming that is fantastic. If you are Catholic the premium subscription
($10/month) provides more Faith-based instructional material that you can read
in a life-time. Forward
churchmilitant.tv as widely as possible –
each and every day.
someone, perhaps churchmilitant.tv, to create a mailing list of like-minded
individuals. About 3,000 folks
participated in their poll. Isn’t that
about ten per U.S.
together at the diocese level (and at the parish level when you find someone
awake) and pepper the priests and bishops with letters. (Some samples are available.) Meet face-to-face with your bishop. Tell him in clear language exactly what you
want him to do. (PowerPoint presentation
forces with those entities challenging the CCHD/USCCB. Redirect your donations to worthy
organizations such as the Catholic Medical Mission Board (CMMB). Hit them in the pocketbook.
to find a faithful priest in your diocese who has leadership qualities and will
organize other faithful priests. (While
not predicting martyrdom, they will be savagely attacked by brother priests and
ostracized by most bishops).
ways to force the clergy into the open; to participate in the dialogue to focus
the light on their failure to respond to the faithful.
identify a national, Catholic layman to help persuade the Catholic “elite”(such
as Bill Donohue, Raymond Arroyo …” to target the real problem. Convince them to abandon Catholic. Inc. Dr. Edward Fuelner, President of the Heritage
Foundation, is such a stalwart, but he’s busy transitioning to retirement – pray he’ll join us later.
Curmudgeon, get another
handle. You can’t possibly be
ill-temped, resentful and stubborn and still speak so clearly. Why impute a refusal to stand for the truth
to negative qualities? You are a
warrior. A Christian, Catholic
soldier. Suggestions for “Curmudgeon“ replacements?
Date: Fri Jan 11 20:28:59:SS 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
About my "bloody passion"; I may have inadvertently slipped into a jargon unfamiliar to these shores. A long time ago, some buddies and I were drinking with some Aussie Marines in Nha Trang South Vietnam, and these Aussies had a curious way of abusing the English language; their accents were even worse than the Brits. Half the time, us Americans didn't even understand what they were saying; anyway, one of them, who was getting pretty drunk, would be repeatedly led by his brothers into a reaction that always included the words "You bloody well better!" or "You're bloody well right!", to which the guy next to him would always instantly bellow "You watch your language!" at which point all the rest of them would laugh uproariously. We didn't get it, but it was very funny at the time, the laughter was infectious and we were all having very a good time.
I think the word bloody is considered to be a mildly vulgar term among non-American English speakers. But I also think it is in the nature of an American saying "You're durn Tootin'!" or "Danged Right!"
The Constitution, and the Catholic faith, are two things worthy of passionate defense, and that is what this site is all about.
You and Michael Voris have made me increasingly aware of the nature of the USCCB and suspicious of its very organization. First, having seen the http://www.churchmilitant.tv. CD on the relationship between the CCHD and Saul Alinksky, it began to look like the CCHD was not only affected by Alinskyite radicalism, but it might even have been an invention of Alinsky himself. If that kind of anti-American and anti-God radicalism had given birth to the CCHD, then, it raises questions in my mind about a possible Alinsky involvement in the creation and development of the USCCB itself.
Long before you ever contacted me, I had an uneasy feeling about the USCCB because of the heavy lay involvement in an organization of Catholic Bishops. Why the two seemingly equal divisions, one lay and one bishopric, in a national organization of Bishops? What do laymen have to contribute to the proper teaching and maintaining of the Catholic faith? That is the exclusive domain and responsibility of the Bishops, and the laity should have nothing to say about it.
It was the same sort of reservation everyone should have had about the periti (experts) who had such a strong voice in Vatican II, even though they were not Bishops. (See the New Liturgy page.) Only Bishops are supposed to make decisions and drive the bus, so to speak, in Ecumenical Councils. I feel the same way about lay paricipation in the USCCB as I do about non-Bishop "expert" cleric participation in an Ecumenical Council.
In American government, we have all these Czars, Department Heads, Bureaus and Departments up the ying yang, all seemingly administrating us, in direct violation of the design of the government, which is to say, the Constitution. Laws are not being legislated; regulations are being issued instead. We don't have legislators and executives and justices; what we have are administrators and ministers and bureaucrats running everything.
On the ecclesial side of the street, the thing that worries me most is what I wrote about in the Pope on Globalism page. I have written many times in many places about how no pope has ever taught error on faith or morals, and how no original Church teaching from the Depositum Fide ever changed. And, we know that secular political organization is not addressed in the Depositum Fide, and so the Holy Father is as free as the next man to voice his secular political opinions. Nevertheless, it bothers me greatly that he might favor some Marxian principles of physical equality over the liberty of man as concretized in our American founding and constituting documents.
I didn't mean to speak for Curmudgeon; just wanted to put in my two cents worth.
Date: Fri Jan 11 23:21:19 2013
Location: Wilkes-Barre PA
In this day and age what possible reason could you have to possess a 30+ round magazine for anything?
Date: Sat Jan 12 05:49:30 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
The same reason the Framers had for writing the Second Amendment:
Politicians, Parties and pundits who clamor for ever increasing gun controls always seem to be the ones seeking to increase the encroaching power of an increasingly tyrannical government.
Date: Sat Jan 12 07:05:23 2013
Yes I am ill-tempered, resentful and stubborn. I am a grumpy old man, and the more society slides the grumpier I get. I have been following and poking at Vic for several years now. I sometimes play the devil’s advocate here just to get him going. Sometimes just the right words can get him to vomit a dissertation of a response; this time all I got was an Amen. You may prove to be another Vic.
Date: Sat Jan 12 07:39:13 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Curmudgeon and I go way back; but I never knew that he was such a “poker.”
Stirring up priests, as you suggest, has some problems. First, when they are ordained they take an oath of obedience to their Bishop. That means they can't just get up in the Bishop's face and stand their ground, any more than a military grunt can get up in the face of his commander. Any priest can only go so far in opposing what his Bishop says or does, and then he has to back off.
Any real changes among the Bishops in America must begin with at least one Bishop. Perhaps a new organization of Bishops to counter the USCCB, or something like that. The problem, as I see it (and I may be wrong) is that there is an under-cover movement to Democratize the Church in America. As I have said elsewhere, the Church is not and cannot be a Democracy; it is an unshakable fixed and permanent hierarchical bureaucracy whose purpose is to protect and preserve forever the unchanged sacred Creed.
But, as has been noted by Marx himself, Lenin, Stalin and others, pure Democracy is the sure path to Socialism, which is the path to eventual total revolutionary transformation of the system. That's why laymen want a voice among the Bishops; it is why non-Bishop clerics want a voice in the Great Councils.
That is what is so insidious about the Alinskyite infiltration into the USCCB organization.
Date: Sun Jan 13 15:35:21 2013
All about “Bloody”
Yep, those Aussies knew a bit about
life. Never visited Australia, but
remember Nha Trang well: beaches, beer,
bullets … Vic, you’re bloody right
(correct) thinking we bloody well (must) take bloody (aggressive) action to
save our bloody (beloved) Church because the bloody (ineffective) bishops won’t
be as bloody (intensely) passionate about doing their bloody (appointed)
job. Record us as being bloody
passionate about that and not caring what the bloody other people may think.
A sadder look back involves the atrocities
in places such as at Hue
and all those (U.S. Vietnamese, military, civilians . ..) left to fend for
themselves - a juxtaposition of shame, humility and resolve. Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan was imprisoned for
thirteen years - nine in solitary.
This was a second up-close, intense, personal and bitter taste of
Marxism. Some buddies make this
challenge: “Name a U.S. citizen
who is a Marxist/progressive/democrat and has these experiences/qualifications.
Sought refuge in the U.S. from a socialist regime.
Has toured battlefields, visited
concentration camps, engaged in combat, is honest and understands history. (John Kerry and Chuck Hagel don’t qualify -
which should be clear to even a “tactical “thinking Catholic.)
How many do you think were identified in 2012 (just called to check)?
Save Our Church, Reclaim Our
Country Good points Vic.
Agree that “the Constitution, and the
Catholic faith, are two things worthy of passionate defense..” with the
Catholic Church being preeminent. The
Catholic Church is the only entity that can change the culture which must
precede reclaiming our country (constitutional fidelity).
We are now a pagan nation. The “democratic” component of our
constitutional republic is working. We
elected a pagan president.
You mentioned the USCCB.
The relationship between the clergy and the
laity seems analogous to the preverbal love-hate phenomenon. The clergy, often better educated, devoted,
with a narrower focus, might consider themselves as the authority. They may also think of themselves as good
examples, which while was true fifty years ago is no longer as wide-spread. You have personal experience here which often
prompts Barbara and me to redouble our efforts and challenge priests
straightaway when then misbehave.
The laity, on the flip-side, recognize that
heresies generate from the clergy. Popes
have misbehaved, all of us are sinners.
Thus, we have a purifying responsibility. Don’t the vast majority of clergy have
theological, philosophical or cannon law backgrounds? Do they lack training, experience and
possible proclivity in vitally important areas of “world” operations:
management, leadership, finance,
experience running a business or a large organization, or being in the
military? Many may be timid by nature
and prideful by position – a dangerous combination
when surrounded with “yes, your eminence”(to his face). Later, a whispered “no” (as I know more than
Jesus who wasn’t married, didn’t have five kids, didn’t have an LGTB sibling).
As you’ve cited many times, Marxist
infiltration is pervasive – even
in our Church. Given our shoddy,
propagandized educational institutions it’s a gigantic challenge to have a
rationale conversation encompassing a knowledge of history. Yes, Satan & Alinsky – interesting point about the possibility of
Alinsky’s involvement in USCCB genesis.
Why not see if Michael Voris will do a CIA-FBI (Catholic Investigative
Agency – Faith Based Investigation)? You might gather some material & thoughts
to get him started.
“It’s up to us. We will gather or
we will scatter”.
Standing up to Priests. Why must priests be obedient to the bishops,
but bishops not need to be obedient to the Pope – or faithful to the Magisterium?
Is there a cannon or doctrinal reason?
What’s preventing right-minded bishops from being “bloody passionate”? Why is there a generational disparity? What do folks thinks about Michael’s
Recall the challenge was to “hear from
anyone who advocates a particular gun control law along with the data to
support it?” No law? No data? No rational reason?
Concerning, your 30 round magazine question:
One might get the impression that Vic’s
essay, was either not read, not understood or not absorbed. He answered your question with the
foundational, constitutional response. A
follow-up question for you – “Why
do you think our founders wrote the 2nd Amendment? [Hint:
the constitution granted this right to individuals and not to any level
or branch of government?]
Vic could have added several operational
reasons as well. Rather than list them
(and assuming you are sincere and open-minded – no reason to think otherwise) you might be better served by
reading the Larry Correa post (see below).
Gun Control Discussion
Resource For those interested in
Father Z’s gun control perspective you can read Getting some terms and issues
right in the “gun control” debate” which is at “http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/getting-some-terms-and-issues-right-in-the-gun-control-debate/ You may need to create an account (free) to
see his post. The essence of Father Z’s
message is reflected in two of his links:
The first is at Darwin Catholic “Assault
Weapons Part 1: Battle Rifle to Assault Rifle” http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2013/01/assault-weapons-part-1-battle-rifle-to.html
There are three parts. Everything one
needs to know about weaponry and its history is here.
The second is at Monster Hunter Nation
“An opinion on gun control” http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
The attempt here was address every relevant GC issue. ). Larry targeted this piece to “… people who
either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually
work…” He ignored “… the willfully
ignorant” and “… the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any
critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme …”. In four days (12/20 – 24) the essay had over 150,000 “reads” – an indication of its popularity.
Would like to hear from anyone who advocates a particular gun control
law along with the data to support it.
“Vomit a dissertation”? Might you be a Western
“.. may prove to be another Vic?” No way Jose.
Vic has talent; am just old. My
apologies for the long-winded posts. The
situation is perilous and so many folks just don’t have the facts; many not
capable of understanding. (Rush Limbaugh
acknowledged this when he initiated his “Low Information” audience broadcasts.
You must have been using
“just the right words” many times over.
Vic’s site is a treasure. Keep
Monday, January 21, 2013
Changed Page Relationship in Right Column Link Sets.
Date: Thu Jan 31 22:24:33 2013
Terrific essay! You stated very well the essence both of the 2nd Amendment and the Progressive/Leftist attack on it. This should be a must read for every Catholic and true-blooded American.
Date: Thu Jan 31 06:06:33 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Thank you, and may God bless.
Date: Thu Aug 15 00:42:06 2013
What do you think about the Knights Armament Co. SR-25 ECR in 7.62 NATO as opposed to your DPMS Panther?
Also, what do you think about the KAHR PM45 as a smaller and more concealable .45 ACP?
Date: Thu Aug 15 06:23:17 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
I looked them up, and they look to be outstanding, but very, very pricey; especially the SR-25. I have never shot them.
Someone may have been shooting an SR-25 with a suppressor on it right next to me at the range once. (Could it have been you?) I was really impressed. Since we were the only ones shooting, I took off my ear muffs just to listen to that thing. And it was producing very small groups.
What I just learned is that it was developed for long range accuracy, the rail system is free floating (nothing touches the free-floating barrel) and it is completely ambidextrous. Now I want one, but I can't afford it.
Re the KAHR PM45, that may be the smallest .45 I ever heard of. With a single-stack clip, 5 in the clip and one in the chamber, it has to be very flat too. It should just drop in your pants pocket without even making a bulge. I'd have to shoot one before preferring it, but if it shot well too, I would wish I had learned about it before I went for the Glock.
Date: Wed Jul 23 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. .
Date: Thu Jul 09 12:26:01 2020
Almost amazing just how stupid some people are, restricting the use of weapons for self-protection. Not only they don't understand that it isn't even their damn business in the first place, but the fact that no man has any rights unless he is able to protect them himself. Being able and willing to use a gun in order to protect yourself and your loved ones is simply a necessity of life - of what use are laws to criminals or would-be dictators, after all? Comrade Lenin once said that a single person with a gun is able to control a hundred people without guns - I certainly do not dispute the truth behind this statement. After all, Marxists sure do know a lot about controlling defenceless people. Of course, some people implore us all to disarm - "let's all be nice", they say. Right. After all, making the job of any would-be dictator or a criminal is a "moral strength", these days. Anybody who presumes to know and legislate what people need to protect themselves or not is precisely the kind of dictatorial elitist the Second Amendment is intented to stop, "good intentions" be damned.
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.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
All Published Articles
By Publication Date
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
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.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the