The Gun Is Civilization

Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

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

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

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

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.  The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.  These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.  That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

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

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

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

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

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

And that is why carrying a gun is a civilized act. 

 What is a Right?

Michael Zak

Civil rights.  Inalienable rights.  Human rights.  Animal rights.  Individual rights.  Group rights.  God-given rights.  Sacred rights.  Natural rights.  Positive rights.  Negative rights.  Children's rights.  Parent's rights.  Patient's rights.  Property rights.  Personal rights.  Basics rights.  Fundamental rights.

Just what is a right?  Can some rights be more basics or fundamental than others?  Which is more important, a basic right or a fundamental right?  Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few?  Are rights absolute?  One could assert whole new kinds of rights and then argue about where they fit in among all the other rights.  How about essential rights, or core rights, or perhaps preeminent rights?

Definitions of the nature and origin of rights vary widely - from a gift from God, to one of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison's tenets, all the way down to "a good thing" - but these disputes can be left to theologians and historians and scatterbrains.  Let constitutional scholars debate the fine points of original intent or understanding (of each delegate?  or the drafter of a particular clause?  or the Convention as a whole?  or Congress?  or the ratifying state conventions?).  What really matters is how rights function within our constitutional system.

A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him.  To admit there is such a right is to accept that the opinion of the majority on his having XYZ is meaningless; it is to accept that your opinion on the issue is meaningless, too.  As anti-democratic limitations on the scope of majority rule, rights are like provisions of the Constitution.  Indeed, they are one and the same, because in a practical sense - the only sense that matters - a right is a government policy that must be so regardless of majority will.

Any constitutional provision can be seen as a right.  For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 - "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state." - can as easily be: "Every person has the right to export Articles from any State without a federal Tax or Duty laid on it."  The first part of Article II, Section 2 is the equivalent of "The President has the right to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy."  One could say he has the right to veto laws and grant pardons.  A Supreme Court Justice has the right to serve for life, and the Supreme Court has the right to original jurisdiction over cases involving foreign ambassadors.  The residents of every state have the right to representation by two Senators.  People have the right to have their federal laws enacted by a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  There are many more such variations on the theme, but the point is that the Constitution is nothing but a long list of rights, that is, government policies that must be so regardless of majority will.

In addition to provisions limiting the ability of Congress or the President to change the general structure of the government apart from the amendment process, the Constitution contains many specific limitations on government action that are recognizable as rights.  The narrow definition of treason means that a person has the right not to be convicted of treason for a crime that does not fit the definition.  The privileges and immunities provision is a right, as is the jury trial guarantee.  The Constitution protects creditors by prohibiting states from voiding contracts (as they had done under the Articles of Confederation).  Congress may not pass a bill of attainder (a legislative pronouncement of guilt) or an ex post facto law (making an act illegal after it was committed).  The habeas corpus protection against arbitrary arrest is one of the most important rights protected by the Constitution.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist 84, the Constitution contains these rights and more even without the amendments known as the Bill of Rights.  Can the Bill of Rights protection against unreasonable searches somehow supersede the right to a jury trial spelled out in Article III?  Does freedom of the press outrank freedom of speech?  Is the 3rd Amendment ban on quartering soldiers in private homes more important than the 13th Amendment ban on slavery?  Does the order in which they are listed matter, so that freedom of religion is more important than freedom of speech?  No, to all these questions.  Since the entire Constitution - every rule in the rule book - must be so regardless of majority will, every provision of the original text (where unamended), of the Bill of Rights, and of the later amendments is no more or less important than any other.

Since the entire Constitution - from "We, the people" to "shall have intervened" - is one long right and rights can only be exercised within our constitutional framework, constitutional rights are the only kind with any meaning.  As determined, ultimately, by the Supreme Court, an issue is either a political question - meaning it is to be decided by majority vote - or it is a constitutional right - meaning the correct decision, as determined by the Constitution, must be imposed on the American people whether people want it or not.  In the latter case, figuring out just what it was the Constitutional Convention decided for us on a particular issue may be difficult to determine, but the task does not involve balancing one provision of the document against another.

Some rules in our society's rule book cannot outweigh other rules; they are all equally valid.  Once understanding that any part of the Constitution, whether expressed as a provision or a right, is a policy that must be so, a person can see the absurdity of trying to balance one right against another.  Gone are tussles between rights and responsibilities, positive rights and negative rights, the rights of the many and the rights of the few, personal rights and property rights, human rights and economic rights, group rights and individual rights, fundamental rights and not-so-fundamental rights.  No constitutional right can be outweighed by some other consideration, because all constitutional rights are absolute.  Either something is mandated by the Constitution or it isn't.

This essay is adapted from Back to Basics for the Republican Party, a history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision.

Islamic Reformation

 Kirk Sours

Islam will never have a reformation.  There has been lots of talk recently focused on the "Reformation" that Islam is currently experiencing. There are a handful of good people, Muslims, like Dr. Zudhi Jassar of Phoenix who is working tirelessly to bring a liberal view of Islam to life; and Ali Eteraz, who's articles in the UK Guardian discuss the need to form a 'Muslim Left' which denies the legitimacy of theocratic governments.

However, these voices are lost in the cacophony of rhetoric from pro-Islamist groups such as CAIR, MAS, MSA, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA and the like. Then there is dawa, or "Islamic colonialism" being practiced and promoted far and wide by the "Turkish Delegation" through groups like the Turquoise Council of American Eurasians (TCAE), The Gulen Institute, and the Raindrop Turkish Houses which host countless receptions, breakfasts, socials, and trips to Turkey for public officials including everyone from the local firehouse, to city councils and mayors, to state legislators. These latter lobbyists forge relationships that serve to influence support and introduction of legislation particularly friendly to Islam.

Many self ascribed "experts" and "intellectuals" and bleeding heart "moderates" in American politics and academia have declared that Islam is struggling to emerge through a "Reformation" of the religion that will purify it and allow it to shed its violent and oppressive political nature, keeping intact those virtuous qualities of peace and benevolence with those who do not share the same beliefs. Usually they cite the Christian Reformation as the model for such a phenomena.

These pundits and commentators obviously have no grasp of religion of any kind, never mind the complex system we call Islam.

Christian Reformation

Firstly, I want to clarify that the Christian Reformation wasn't about purifying or modernizing a "religion" or "faith". The basis of the Christian faith, the Holy Bible, written by forty different inspired people over a period spanning 1500 years, was left intact and unchanged (although translated into several languages, which had been previously forbidden by Rome) throughout the process of the Reformation. The movement of "Reform" was a political move against the Papal authority of an organized Church over the whole of "Christendom", which was a result unification of church and state by Constantine in 325 AD. There was nothing Biblical about this political move by the Emperor of Rome. Constantine unified church and state in order to preserve the Empire after Rome had failed to stamp out Christianity for 200 years. In fact, Jesus Himself actually taught separation of church and state when He was asked if the Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. His answer was "Whose image is on this coin? (Caesar's) So then give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and give to God that which is God's." (Of course the image of God is in mankind.)

The Reformation was not about changing the fundamentals of the Bible. It was a political movement. Thus, the "Protesting" resulted in "Protestants" rejecting the authority of the Papacy. [Indeed it was a bit more complex, but in a nutshell this was the Christian Reformation.] While there were some liturgical and practical changes made, the Bible was still the foundational document delineating the teachings of the founder, that being Jesus Christ, the perfect model for the aspiring Christian. The "fundamentals" remain yet today.

The glaring problem for "Islamic Reformation" is this: The fundamentals are flawed. Not only the self proclaimed prophet Muhammad, but the Koran itself is rife with inconsistencies. But the inconsistencies are not even the main problem. (These may be understood when considering the Islamic principle of "Abrogation". That is to say if there are two differing instructions on the same matter, the latter verse abrogates the former.)

The consistent themes of the Koran and Hadith carried by the enforcement of Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia Law) through an over arching political ideology are so intertwined they can never be separated. To live the fundamentals of Islam is to practice "Islamization" on a global scale because this is what Islam demands. There can be no separation of religion and state because the "religion's" legal system must run the state, and will if Islam is allowed to run its natural course to fruition.

Islam is not simply a belief or a religion.

This has been the mistake of the last 50 years, especially here in America as well as Western Europe. To ascribe Islam as a religion gives it a free rein to infiltrate and affect not only culture, but politics and jurisprudence in a manner we would never allow another contradictory ideology or legal system.

Islam is a socio-political ideology with a religious aspect. In those nations or societies where Islam reigns supreme, competing religions or political movements are not only discouraged but forbidden. Just watch the news.

In order for a reformation to occur within Islam, first the Koran has to be open to critique and debate; It is not. Secondly, Muhammad must be availed to critique and scrutiny; He is not. Finally, Islam itself must be open to debate and self examination; it is not. Why? Because Allah, through his messenger Jibril, gave his 'perfect Koran' to his 'perfect Prophet'. It is not open for doubt or debate; he reminds the reader about 200 times, "Do not doubt this Koran". To change the founding document would be sacrilege and no doubt lead to "Fitna", or civil war within the Muslim Ummah, the same way the standardizing the Koran did in the mid 7th Century. We have all seen the uproar caused by those who dare to criticize or characterize Muhammad.

This is the reason 'Reform' will never happen in Islam. If you take away the oppressive demand for submission; you have no Islam. If you rewrite the Koran to eliminate the Jihad, the racist element, the directives for dominating your women, the demand for world dominance of Allah's perfect religion, then you have no Islam. If you eliminate the passages of Koran and Hadith regulating slavery, the supremacy of Muslims in society, and the directives to institute Islamic Law for the good of humanity, then you have no Islam.

Everyone knows that water consists of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen. If you separate one hydrogen molecule from water, you no longer have water.

I must say I respect Dr. Jasser in his honorable intentions to separate the religion from the politics of Islam. But if you could do that, which you cannot, then you have no Islam. The very word "Islam" means "Submission". This submission is not simply for the pious Muslim, but the Muslim is charged with the responsibility to advance the code of Islam into the culture or society until Islam reigns supreme and everyone, including non-Muslims, are subjugated under Sharia. Those Muslims, who refuse this task, are shamed by the fundamentalists, who accuse them of "shirking" their responsibility. ("Shirk" is to disobey Allah)

Islam has already experienced its "Reformation"

Ibn Taymiyyah, 1268-1321, began a call to Muslims back to the fundamentals of Islam to follow more closely the teachings of Koran and Hadith. This was then refreshed and further advanced in the 18th Century by a student of Taymiyyah named Abd al Wahhab. Wahhab began to revive fundamentalist Islamic practices by first leveling the shrine at the grave of Zayd Khattab, the brother of the Caliph Omar. Wahhab contended it had become an object of idolatry. He then ordered the stoning of an adulterous, a practice which had become rare in the region. This kind of radical teaching brought some life threatening attention to Wahhab who left and settled in a village occupied by Muhammad Ibn Saud in 1740. Saud and Wahhab became inseparable and their heirs expanded their holdings by both dawa and military campaigns, gaining control of the modern day Arabian Kingdom. Their legacy continues today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where Wahhabism is both protected and funded throughout the globe. Wahhabism is the foremost source of radical Islamic fundamentalism and has influenced more or less nearly every other school of Islamic theology, particularly in Sunni Islam, which accounts for over 80% of Islam.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and Seyyid Qutb, both Egyptians, carried on the torch of fundamentalism throughout Sunni Islam by their writings and leadership from the 1920's until Qutb's execution in 1965 for sedition against the government of Egypt. This influence is more alive today than ever before, and on a global scale. The push is on for Islam to dominate the globe in this century, bringing the entire world into "submission to the religion of Allah" and all governments using the Sharia.

Such is the directive of Islam. Not to convert everyone to Muslim; but to subject everyone to Sharia. Only then can there be peace in the world.

Good Luck Dr. Jasser!

 Classes forming now for 2012