While there is no shortage of blame to go around when it comes to environmental issues and environmental policy, the over politicization of environmental matters falls squarely on the shoulders of those pushing the global warming (or climate change or whatever the term du jour happens to be) narrative. That the Earth’s climate is changing is undeniable, the science insofar as that is concerned is fairly settled and the conclusion well supported, but whether or not that change is an artifact of human industrial and technological advance is another matter entirely. However, arguendo, let’s assume that that anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is correct.
On 18 April 1775, a middle-aged man in Boston sat, almost certainly in his study, and, as a warm fire crackled1, set quill to paper. That man was General Thomas Gage, and the letter he wrote to Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith contained an order, an order that became the proximate cause of the American Revolution. The contents of that order? A command to march on Concord and “seize and [destroy] all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and Military Stores whatever”.
Continue reading The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Hillary Clinton
What follows is an argument built upon a number of premises, some of them more contentious than others. Should you reject any of the main premises, you will necessarily reject the conclusions1. If, however, you find that you agree with all of the (main) premises, you must necessarily accept the conclusions. If you find that you reject any of the premises, then this argument may not be for you, and that is not unintentional. This argument is meant for those who 1) believe in the Natural Law and 2) believe that human life begins at some point prior to birth2. If you, incorrectly, believe that either of the foregoing points is untrue (or you’re the sort of person who likes to double down on mistakes and believe them both untrue), I still welcome you to continue reading if only for curiosity’s sake.