In the Crosshairs

Just for the record: I’m not a conspiracy theorist.  I simply don’t believe in coincidences.  But I promise, I don’t buy a copy of Catcher in the Rye every time I pass a bookstore.  However, it looks like another victory for the anti-gun Obama Administration.

stag arms
Stag Arms logo (Credit: Bigcommerce.com)

The Crosshairs of What We Know

  • In 2007, Stag Arms was audited by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF);
  • ATF found shoddy record-keeping;
  • ATF helped the straighten-out or at least advise them to do so;
  • In July 2014, the ATF began an investigation of Stag Arms;
  • Stag Arms is pleading guilty to a felony, paying a $500,000 fine and having its firearms manufacturers license revoked; and
  • The owner and CEO, Mark Malkowski, is pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and has
    • agreed to sell the company,
    • pay a $100,000 fine, and
    • not own or manage a firearms business.

The Crosshairs of Thoughts to Ponder

Now what is interesting about the media reports the investigation began in July 2014 began

after a routine ATF compliance inspection turned up a variety of record- keeping violations, missing firearms and unregistered machine guns, the government said.

However, no where in the articles I’ve seen does it say this was a recent compliance inspection earlier in the year.  So, it is possible this is still from the original 2007 infractions.  But this is unclear.

In 2013, Malkowski was quoted relating to the stricter gun laws enacted in Connecticut and he said that his goal was to ensure politicians

heard from our side as well.

I do find it ironic that these inspections come after those comments.  I mean just listen to the words of the U.S. District Attorney who seems almost gleeful about the decision yesterday

For the first time in Connecticut, and there have only been a few of these prosecutions throughout the nation, a large manufacturer is pleading guilty to a felony charge relating to record-keeping violations.

Hopefully Stag can be sold and their products continue to provide freedom to Americans!

“I really don’t think these guys know what they are talking about.” (Richard Feynman)

The environmental movement has done with the whole global warming/climate change hysteria they are creating, and sadly, governments, as we see with the IPCC report just released, are colluding under the assumption that carbon dioxide is causing global warming (or as its now been called, climate change, just in case the temperature does go down, it can be blamed on anthropogenic [man-made] sources as well.)  This fits the characteristics of a Big Lie and extortion because it is undertaken to achieve a policy goal that people would not normally agree to i.e., giving up economic prosperity  to stop something that humans have no control over.

Statistically Speaking

Looking closely at the IPCC report, we see that they consider it very likely that anthropogenic (human produced) carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing global warming. But there is a footnote to that very likely and looking at that we see it is the definition of “very likely.” The report defines “very likely” as “>90% chance of occurrence.” Now that still leaves 10% chance that it won’t occur, which means that there is a 10% chance that the experts are wrong and that their data has been contributed to chance.

What does all this mean? Well, as a student of the political science field, whenever there is a survey, they always quote those numbers at the bottoms of polls saying “+-4%, 95%” What they are saying is that they are 95% certain that the results can be within plus or minus of the number on the screen–the margin of error. So, as you hear the talking heads on TV state that it is a dead heat, that usually means that both candidates or issues are within the margin of error, so, either one could be leading. Well, the IPCC report leaves a 10% chance that they are wrong.

Being that political science has to be held to the 95% confidence interval to taken seriously, why then are we basing drastic economic and policy change on a 90% confidence interval? This question bears acute examination since the hard sciences have always been held to a higher standard. The FDA would not allow a drug on the market that kills 1 person out of every 10 that takes it. They consider that too great a risk. They might allow 1 in 100 and probably 1 in 1000, since the chance of death is 1% and O.1%, respectively, but certainly not 1 in 10 except in rare circumstances.

As Richard Feynman said when the TTAPS report came out about a nuclear war causing nuclear winter: “I really don’t think these guys know what they are talking about.” I echo the same sentiment towards the global warming scientists.

The Christian Response

After the creation of Adam and Eve, God told them to “fill the earth and subdue it.”  Similarly, Adam’s first work in the Garden was the name all the animals.  So, early in the creation account mankind has authority over the earth and is supposed to use the earth to his purposes for food and water, life, shelter and clothing.  At the Fall, we see a merciful God (with foreshadowing that a payment is needed for sin) crafting animal skins to cover Adam and Eve instead of their leaf attire.  So, certainly the picture presented in Genesis and the whole Bible is one of order and one of creatures worshiping the Creator instead of creation.

Further we see in the New Testament that as our bodies are the holy temple of the Lord, we are to take care of them and use them in service fitting to the Lord.  Thus, sinful and destructive activities that do not present the glory of God to others and give Him praise should not be practiced.  Some in the Christian history have said that this prohibits smoking; I do not see this as the case.  However, I certainly do not recommend it nor thing that we can smoke to give glory to Jesus!  I apply the discussion that Paul had with the Corinthians regarding meat sacrificed to idols—do as the Holy Spirit convicts.

The key word here is stewards.  A steward is one who takes care of something for another.  God has given us the ability to use the earth for our benefit but expects us to do so responsibly.  Technological advances in the last 50 years make a lot of the environmental issues moot.  However, a line from Casting Crowns echos the current environment Christians, in our response to presenting the truth, have to fight against:

As we’re sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children

Nuevo Dia Argentina!

A new day for Argentina and another example of countries going away from state-controlled economies in exchange for economic growth!  Muy bien!

The meat of the article is the last two paragraphs…

Macri promised to reduce the state’s role in the economy and embrace more pro-business policies, as well as shift Argentina’s foreign policy away from close relations with the anti-American governments in Venezuela and Iran and better ties with the USA.

He also wants to scrap currency controls and make it much easier for Argentines to change their local pesos into U.S. dollars, a move that would require the country’s central bank to increase its currency reserves.

Certainly a good start!