Recently Louisiana made the correct move of passing a bill into law that would allow for church goers to pack a concealed weapon with them to services.  Gov. Jindal has made it abundantly clear that he believes in the civil rights of all religions to protect themselves in their places of worship.  This will allow church members who legally have a permit to carry a concealed weapon to provide security for their fellow faithful.

The perks to this legislation are many.  First and foremost it further recognizes the fact that the law of the land is the right to keep and bear arms, indeed shall not be infringed.  Recognizing civil rights is essential, and it is enumerated in the constitution just as obviously as their rights to choose which God to worship or how to worship them.  Larger churches that have a higher profile can now rely on their own flock to help provide security, which will allow the church to allocate those funds to more fruitful endeavors such as helping their local community.  Churches are no strangers to acts of violence.  Many Muslim and Jewish places of worship have been the victims of horrific and bigoted violence.  Both of these places can now protect themselves if they were to be the victims of an attack.

Opponents to this recognition of civil rights are too short sighted to actually see the positive nature of this legislation.  Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence quips that “We are seeing the NRA moving us to vigilante-type justice with little accountability.”  First of all most of that statement is completely ignorant to the facts.  The accountability is there in the fact that we have laws against discharging your firearm in public unless it’s in self-defense.  We also have laws against murder, negligent discharge, and intimidation / coercion with a weapon.  Secondly the definition of a “Vigilante” is: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice.  By simply defending yourself and other innocent people from a crazed gunman, you are well within your rights to preserve your life and the lives of others.

How can we forget some of the most prominent acts of violence on American soil against places of worship?  Maybe the champion of the abortion crusade, Dr. George Tiller, would be alive today if he or some other member of the congregation would have been able to recognize that threat, and relying on their repetitive training been able to engage that threat and neutralize it.  Then they could abort thousands more babies!

Or how about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963.  Violence was almost expected during the civil rights era.  This also ties back to the fact that the 14th Amendment came into being directly after the Civil War as a response to southern states attempts at disarming blacks.  The 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and many other constitutional amendments to apply to states.  By abridging a persons right to self defense, you are making them a victim against someone who would do them violence.  If someone is motivated enough to kill you, that in and of itself is a breaking the most sacred law of mankind.  Do you really think a trite law that bans them from having a gun in a church is going to stop them from barging into that church with a gun and shooting it up?  No, no it wont.  There are no magical barriers that go up just because theres a law on the books, prohibiting people from carrying guns into certain places.

So effectively the only impact banning guns anywhere has is it enables criminals to have a target rich environment that has no way to defend itself.  It’s like herding a bunch of sheep into a corral and then letting the wolves in AND expecting the wolves to not kill any of the sheep.  In the great words of Penn and Teller, “Gun Control, is bullshit!”

My homies at the Heritage Foundation are spot on it.  I won’t even try to claim this as my own idea, but i want to regurgitate it out to my few people that read me.  I’ll make sure to add my natural flare.

As the more fair media outlets are reporting, Elena Kagan has a very slim track record for a person being recommended for the Supreme Court.  She’s been in judicial posts since at least the ’80s, but she has never actually been a judge.  So how can the Senate accurately vet someone for a position that has no formal opinions?

Well they have to dig.  Maybe they can use their millions of dollars and hundreds of lackeys and summer interns to pour over her papers.  At least one journalist, James Oliphant from the LA Times was able drudge up that she drafted an executive order during her time working for Clinton that restricted the importation of certain semiautomatic rifle types.

There are several other reports of her comments being anti-gun.  She worked on another executive order that required federal law enforcement officials to lock up their guns.  She is also cited as saying she had no love or care for a man who was alleging that his 2nd Amendment rights were being violated.

Kagan herself commented on a book that she believes it is the duty of the Senate to properly vet candidates.  We’ll see if she lives up to that promise.

I do however have a slight glimmer of hope.  She has proven to be slightly bi-partisan.  Perhaps she won’t be another Obama lackey…you know..actually doing the separation of the branches of government.  Honestly though, i’m sure she’ll fall right into the democrat party line.

However for the news for people who believe in their civil rights, specifically for their individual right to keep and bear arms, is bad.