The Liberty Hawk

God Bless Gun Culture 

A week ago, violence struck the West Freeway Church of Christ. Many of us have now seen the raw footage of a lone gunman with a shotgun who killed two men before himself being killed by a single well-placed shot from volunteer security guard Jack Wilson. 

In the wake of this tragic circumstance of quick-thinking and heroism, I have several points I’d like to make. 

I’ll start with some thoughts from one of David French’s more recent French Press Newsletters. He points out that, contrary to narratives widely adopted on the political left and often echoed in mainstream media, America’s gun culture is far from toxic. Instead, this is a culture that cultivates, “courage, accuracy, and restraint.”

Rather than the trigger-happy rednecks with hero complexes that so many have come to assume typifies law-abiding gun owners, Jack Wilson and the other brave citizens at West Freeway demonstrated the ethos that truly embodies those who accept the responsibility of private gun ownership : 

“Be aware of your surroundings. Know your weapon. Be accurate with your weapon. Cultivate the courage necessary to step up if the worst happens but also the restraint that comes with understanding that when you hold a gun, you possess the power of life and death.” 

Speaking of courage and restraint, one of the things about the video that struck me immediately was just how terribly wrong a lot of common assumptions are about gun owners in a crisis.  

First, there was no “wild west moment” with various armed citizens firing at each other in a hail of confusion. Everyone who drew a weapon did so responsibly, they communicated with each other, they knew where the threat was and where it wasn’t. 

Second, the confrontation of the shooter by armed nonprofessionals did not increase the danger to bystanders. The training and preparation that allowed Jack Wilson to survive his unforgiving minute is typical of many legal gun owners. When the moment of action came, he responded decisively and with precision, applying only the force necessary to end the threat.

Notably, his use of force, and the show of force by other armed members of the congregation, was strikingly controlled and subdued compared to what has become typical of domestic law enforcement in the United States. 

Third, we can forever dispense with the notion that the “good guy with a gun” is a myth. The facts on the ground in White Settlement, Texas are that Jack Wilson acted and the loss of life ended. If that church had been a gun-free zone, if Jack Wilson and his fellow congregants had been unarmed, the loss of life would have continued until police arrived on the scene.

Given that three men died, two congregants and the shooter, in a matter of seconds, perhaps the raw footage of this shooting nails home just how consequential minutes and seconds are in such a situation.

Finally, I’d like to repeat what, for me, has become a common refrain:  law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for the circumstances that lead to mass shootings, in fact any true solution to the threat of mass shootings must involve the knowledge, abilities, and cooperation of law-abiding gun owners.  The tendency to blame and shame legal gun-ownership in the wake of tragedy is the biggest obstacle to meaningful action.  

I can say with pretty good certainty that we will likely soon learn that the shooter at the West Freeway Church of Christ, like most other mass shooters, would not have been stopped by universal background checks, by assault weapons bans, by age restrictions, or by red flag laws. Thankfully, he was stopped by a good guy with a gun.  

God bless gun culture. 

The Ignoble Tradition of the Mad King 

Recently, I began watching Amazon Prime’s rendition of King Lear. It’s a surprisingly star-studded affair and makes the interesting choice of presenting the original dialogue in the context of modern England reimagined as a dystopian dictatorship. 

The opening scenes, the famous fawning and flattering by the two eldest daughters followed by the refusal to do likewise by the youngest, immediately made me consider just how consistent a tradition there is of mad and petty kings in both literature and history.  

Most recently, this was a particularly consistent theme in Game of Thrones. All the various plots and sub-plots trace back to the actions of a literal Mad King, and throughout the storyline, we are constantly bombarded with the actions and excesses of varying levels of madness and pettiness from those who hold seats of power.

Even the two characters who we thought would be the ones to rise above it all, the ones who seemed destined to “break the wheel” of death and despair, fell into madness that eventually compromised their values. (Yes, that includes Jon Snow because yes, love is madness) 

We all know that power corrupts. But what struck me as I watched the opening scenes of King Lear, as I thought about the themes of Game of Thrones, and as I dwelt on the many similarities that can be drawn from these tales of fiction to our own present political realities, was that there might be something that corrupts the heart of men far more absolutely than having power.  

While we tend to dwell on the horrible actions of tyrants both real and imagined, rarely do we consider the circumstances, and the people, who allowed these horrible things to happen. The most striking example from Game of Thrones is the brief but turbulent reign of King Joffrey.

Joffrey is a petulant brat, a petty bully, and a coward. Everyone knew it. His own mother, whose love for him blinded her to all moral consideration, knew it. And yet, he was allowed to rule. His commands were obeyed. Sure, he was mocked by his uncle and he was spoken down to by his grandfather, but in the end, he was allowed to plummet the kingdom into civil war, creating a schism with the north that was never reconciled. 

Why did the literal adults in the room acquiesce to King Joffrey’s rule? Why did everyone who knew better, which was everyone, hold their tongue and allow events to spiral out of control?

Why do King Lear’s daughters heap praise on him, when we so quickly learn their true disdain for their father? Why have tyrants through the whole of human history been allowed to wreak havoc on their dominions with such rare occurrences of rebellion or resistance? 

The answer is simple:  the one thing that corrupts more than power is access to power. Far worse than an unstable mind given the reins of power are those who willingly place such a deviant in a position of leadership. A petty man is easier to goad, an unstable mind is easier to manipulate, and an unscrupulous moral center is easier to ply and mold. 

In the tale of King Joffrey, is the true villain the boy who should have never been given the throne, or his grandfather who plotted and murdered to put him there, thinking he could control and use him? In King Lear, is the true villain the aging monarch whose mind is leaving him, or the fawning daughters who feed his vanity to gain inheritance?

In America’s recent history, are the true villains those who have abused the office of the President and expanded the scope of the presidency far beyond its constitutional bounds, or those who’ve demonstrated such extreme capacity for setting aside principles, morals, and ideological moorings to have the ear of whoever happens to win the popularity contest we ostensibly still call an election? 

Iran – Appeasement or Deterrence? 

A few years ago, an American embassy came under attack by Islamist militants in Libya. Due to ignorance of growing tensions and a confused and feckless response, the American ambassador was killed by the assailants. The embassy, and the rest of the American personnel, were only saved by the actions of contractors who acted decisively and likely against orders. 

Further compounding this sad chain of events, the presidential administration at the time engaged in rhetoric that flew in the face of known facts on the ground in what amounted to an apparently purposeful attempt to mislead the country on the circumstances of the attack (on the eve a presidential election). 

With such a scenario in mind,  I cannot summon outrage at President Trump or his administration for a vigorous defense of an American embassy or a subsequent, decisive show of force against those responsible for the attack.  

Perhaps facts will soon arise that demonstrate President Trump’s response was misguided or an overreaction, but I will need those facts before I choose to condemn the President as a warmonger who is escalating a conflict needlessly, especially when the previous administration’s response was confused, disoriented, and weakened American standing abroad.

Contrary to the opinions of many, appeasement and uncertainty are more often the recipes for war, while demonstrations of decisive action and strength of will can be the most effective deterrent to such conflict.   

It is in situations such as these that we should do our best to separate frustrations with the character and integrity of Donald Trump from a consideration of whether or not certain foreign policy developments fall within the purview of consistent principles. 

I am a proponent of deterrent strategy, so I was openly supportive of attacks on Syrian targets after Assad used chemical weapons.

I am also a proponent of strong and supportive alliances across the world, which is why I spoke out strongly against Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds, his derision of NATO, and his punitive tariffs on partner countries. 

Further, I am a vociferous opponent of appeasement policies, which I believe open the door to far more extensive and more devastating conflict ( I sniff derisively at anyone who dares channel the spirit of Neville Chamberlain ), and therefore I opposed Obama’s approaches to Iran and Cuba as well as Trump’s frenemies approach to North Korea.  

Finally, I believe free nations should decisively defend their interests, their dominions, and their citizens. I am of the Jefferson and Madison school of foreign policy.

Jefferson refused to be held ransom by the Barbary pirates (the shores of Tripoli) and Madison demanded and received the respect of Britain and other nations who had treated America as a lesser nation, though it forced us to defend our shores in the War of 1812 (by the dawn’s early light).

Reagan, by-the-way, was initially condemned for taking tough stances against the Soviets and others, but it was his approach that led to the fall of the Soviet Union and a prosperous decade of relative peace (which cannot be said of the state of world affairs in the wake of Carter’s presidency). 

I am still watching for more information, but early indications suggest the following: 

1. Iran has been sponsoring militants operating within the borders of regional allies and partners and has directed these groups to engage in terrorist activities throughout the region.  

2. These Iran-backed militants are responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers over the course of the Iraq conflict and have recently escalated the aggression of their presence in Iraq by attacking the American embassy there. 

3.  Overtures of diplomacy with Iran under the present and previous presidential administrations have done little to curb the continuous terrorist and military activities of Iran, a reality that represents the greatest threat to regional stability.  

If these indications are correct, and if President Trump chose his actions from suggested responses as presented by military leaders operating on sound strategic doctrine, then I can only conclude our recent actions against Iran are consistent with my foreign policy principles.  

There are very few conservatives more opposed to Donald Trump than I am, but I still attempt to operate on a sound set of principles and I cannot oppose Trump for the sake of opposing Trump. I am compelled by my sense of intellectual consistency to continue calling balls and strikes as I see them 

It would appear reports of my serial Trump Derangement Syndrome have been greatly exaggerated.  

Stay free my friends, 

-Justin