I was going to post this as a response to this...I don't know what you'd call it, but I thought I'd drop it here. I may also post this as a response, but for now, I'm going to post it here.
A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century. Guns got invented. That genie is now out of the bottle, and it ain't going back in. If you think that by banning guns all the ills of our society would go away, you are in dire need of some counselling. You cannot un-invent something, and you cannot make people forget the know-how to create it. Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean there won't be guns. In Chechnya for example, homemade guns abound. And not semi-auto guns. Full on, full bore, full auto machine guns. So you have to ask yourself this question. Would I rather deal with legal semi-auto firearms in the hands of law-biding citizens, or would you rather deal with backyard machinists cranking out Sten-type submachine guns for a group of angry partisans?
For those that think a few 'peasants' with spitballs couldn't possibly stand up to the best trained, best equipped, and most battle hardened army in the world, you don't know history, or current events, for that matter.
Our own history as a nation started out with a rag-tag band of patriots picking a fight with the most powerful army in the world. (I wonder how that one turned out?) A rag-tag bunch of settlers took on the second most powerful army in the western hemisphere in the 1830s. (Texas, anyone?) More recently, a rag-tag bunch of en-educated peasants took on the US Army, and WON! ( I can't remember what country that was, but the little guys wore black pajamas.) For the last 10 yrs or so, a rag-tag bunch of peasants has been kicking the largest army in the worlds' kiester. (Vladdy, phone please!) And lets not forget that rag-tag bunch of goat herders has been giving the most technologically advanced military the world has ever known absolute fits.
Now, as for registration, licensing, and means testing for a specific enumerated right, we wouldn't put up with someone telling us we had to have a permit and a background check to buy the latest Danielle Steele slobber book, nor would we put up with someone having us register and ask permission to go to church on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or any other day of the week. As a country, we abolished testing as a means of exercising the most fundamental right of any American, the right to vote. So why, in all that's right and holy, would we subject ourselves to registering that which our country was founded on? We have the right to be secure in our homes and papers. Why would we give up the means to that security?
So, we don't put prior restraints on civil rights. Same goes for our Second Amendment rights. That states currently use a permit system means it is nothing more than a revenue system to add even more money into the states coffers. No one should have to beg the government to exercise their rights, and we rightly don't put up with that in any other context.
That you (meaning antis) don't trust others with something like a gun tells me you don't trust anyone. Which is kind of ironic, don't you think? You probably drive a car or truck that weighs in excess of 3000 lbs. You probably drive in congested traffic, and trust those around you to not run into you. Much hay has been made about the number of people killed by guns, but what is the real, true killer in this country? That distinction falls to the automobile. It's been killing people in this country at rates that are truly astounding. Yet we don't blame Ford or Toyota when someone crosses the center line and plows into a crowd of school kids getting ready to catch the school bus. Nor do we blame Jack Daniels, Budweiser, or Zima when someone gets mind numbingly drunk and plows into the local senior citizens center. We don't investigate what caused the drunk to do what he did. We don't go blaming the radio station, we don't make excuses and try to blame everyone else but the individual for the carnage. We arrest them, charge them, try them, incarcerate them, and in the most extreme cases take their life. And nobody cares that he heard voices, his girlfriend left him, his dog died, or he caught his wife sleeping with the Maytag man. We condemn the individual, not the tool used to commit the carnage.
My point in all this? Law-biding gun owners are NOT the problem. Lawfully owned, lawfully carried firearms are NOT the problem. Criminals ARE. People who, by their very nature cannot be made to register any guns they have, as to do this violates THEIR fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Passing new, onerous gun laws will not do anything to stop murderers from plying their trade. It will however, ensure a large swath of the citizenry won't be able to do anything but sit back and take it.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Pisses Me Off
What really pisses me off are these letters and articles in newspapers around the country written by supposed gunowners. They all start off the same:
"I'm a gunowner, but I don't support..."
This statement is usually followed up by inserting whatever politically sensitive firearm is on the hotseat that particular week. It could be Glock, it could be DPMS or Colt. Or it could be an accessory that is on the block, such as standard capacity magazines.
Take, for instance, a commenter named 'Boo Hoo' over here.
Typical 'I'm a gunowner, but..." response. I own guns but I don't see the need for anyone to carry one. I own guns but I don't see the need for a gun with a magazine capacity of more than x rounds. I'm a gunowner, but I don't see why anybody would need (insert politically incorrect firearm reference here) for hunting, self defense, ad nauseum.
I'll tell you what we don't need. What we DON'T need is some jagoff speaking about crap he/she willfully knows nothing about. We don't need one 'gunowner' out of 80,000,000 trying to put the rest of us in a neat little box.
One thing he mentioned in his comment to the linked story (which was about the Brady Bunch picketing an open carry meeting, go figure, huh?) was that without a gun, the nutjob in Tuscon wouldn't have been able to kill 6 and wound 20. I got a news flash for him. 19 guys with box cutters took out 3000 10 yrs ago. A whackjob with a Ryder truck, some fertilizer, and some diesel fuel killed 168 in 1995. Nutjobs half a world away are killing that many and more with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, some nails and ball bearings, and cell phone. Is he really that dense to think that mass killing in this country would magically disappear overnight if we could just get rid of those icky guns?
I got an idea. If you feel the need to post one of them "I'm a gunowner, but..." pieces in you local cat box liner, do us all a favor.
Keep your 'butt' out of it.
"I'm a gunowner, but I don't support..."
This statement is usually followed up by inserting whatever politically sensitive firearm is on the hotseat that particular week. It could be Glock, it could be DPMS or Colt. Or it could be an accessory that is on the block, such as standard capacity magazines.
Take, for instance, a commenter named 'Boo Hoo' over here.
Typical 'I'm a gunowner, but..." response. I own guns but I don't see the need for anyone to carry one. I own guns but I don't see the need for a gun with a magazine capacity of more than x rounds. I'm a gunowner, but I don't see why anybody would need (insert politically incorrect firearm reference here) for hunting, self defense, ad nauseum.
I'll tell you what we don't need. What we DON'T need is some jagoff speaking about crap he/she willfully knows nothing about. We don't need one 'gunowner' out of 80,000,000 trying to put the rest of us in a neat little box.
One thing he mentioned in his comment to the linked story (which was about the Brady Bunch picketing an open carry meeting, go figure, huh?) was that without a gun, the nutjob in Tuscon wouldn't have been able to kill 6 and wound 20. I got a news flash for him. 19 guys with box cutters took out 3000 10 yrs ago. A whackjob with a Ryder truck, some fertilizer, and some diesel fuel killed 168 in 1995. Nutjobs half a world away are killing that many and more with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, some nails and ball bearings, and cell phone. Is he really that dense to think that mass killing in this country would magically disappear overnight if we could just get rid of those icky guns?
I got an idea. If you feel the need to post one of them "I'm a gunowner, but..." pieces in you local cat box liner, do us all a favor.
Keep your 'butt' out of it.
Monday, January 24, 2011
All This Talk Of Bans and Whatnot
In the wake of the shooting a couple of weeks ago, debate has raged from all over as to whether our gun laws are too weak or not.
The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.
A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.
In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.
It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.
See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.
The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.
A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.
In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.
It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.
See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
When The Monkeys Fling Poo At The Zoo
Normally, when the monkeys at the zoo start flinging poo all over the place, most folks try to avoid it.
What I'm seeing and hearing all over the TV, radio, and the Algorian intertubes is a whole lot of poo flinging with not a lot of it hitting anything. And what it does hit, it doesn't stick to very well.
From Paul Krugman at the NYT, to Olbermann and Matthews at MSLSD, all the way down the Obama-bot zombies in the farthest reaches of the intertubes. In this case, it's like passing a bad car wreck on the highway. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help it, either.
With each passing day, with more and more evidence of the twisted mind of the lunatic shooter coming to light that paints him not as some political assassin but as the lone, deranged nutbag he was before the NYT and MSLSD took over the failed narrative.
It's almost pitiiful to watch actually. The picture that has been painted the last couple of days is falling down around them, yet they can't bring themselves to backtrack or retract what they've said. And the venom they use to defend their position is probably the most ironic thing to come out of this whole mess. Blaming a political faction and party for violent rhetoric by accusing them with....violent rhetoric.
And does Bill Maher really believe the BS he's peddling? Calling the NRA a bunch of assassins? If that were really the case, would Maher have the balls to come out on national TV and say so? Don't think so. Because if all the violent stuff the political right has been accused of were actually true, there wouldn't be a political left in this country. Projection is such a lovely thing, ain't it?
What I'm seeing and hearing all over the TV, radio, and the Algorian intertubes is a whole lot of poo flinging with not a lot of it hitting anything. And what it does hit, it doesn't stick to very well.
From Paul Krugman at the NYT, to Olbermann and Matthews at MSLSD, all the way down the Obama-bot zombies in the farthest reaches of the intertubes. In this case, it's like passing a bad car wreck on the highway. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help it, either.
With each passing day, with more and more evidence of the twisted mind of the lunatic shooter coming to light that paints him not as some political assassin but as the lone, deranged nutbag he was before the NYT and MSLSD took over the failed narrative.
It's almost pitiiful to watch actually. The picture that has been painted the last couple of days is falling down around them, yet they can't bring themselves to backtrack or retract what they've said. And the venom they use to defend their position is probably the most ironic thing to come out of this whole mess. Blaming a political faction and party for violent rhetoric by accusing them with....violent rhetoric.
And does Bill Maher really believe the BS he's peddling? Calling the NRA a bunch of assassins? If that were really the case, would Maher have the balls to come out on national TV and say so? Don't think so. Because if all the violent stuff the political right has been accused of were actually true, there wouldn't be a political left in this country. Projection is such a lovely thing, ain't it?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
My Take On Tuscon
With all the nattering of the media classes so far over the last 3 days, has it struck any one of them the irony of what they are spewing?
I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.
Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.
Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.
And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)
As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.
Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.
Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.
I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.
Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.
Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.
And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)
As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.
Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.
Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.
Friday, January 7, 2011
ACLU, Guns, and South Dakota
So, earlier this week, the ACLU has filed suit against the state of South Dakota regarding the requirement that one be a US citizen to get a concealed carry permit here.
I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I'm not really sure.
One the one hand, we have a guy who has lived in Sioux Falls for 30 yrs and has not gained his US citizenship. He is however, a permanent resident alien. Nobody is telling this guy he can't own a gun. They're just saying he can't carry it concealed.
On the other, we have a states rights argument. The state of South Dakota should have the right to dictate who can or cannot get a permit to carry. Since Congress failed to pass national reciprocity in the last session, it is still up to the states to dictate who gets what.
Where this thing gets sideways is this. With the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010, the courts have said that states cannot ban firearms. In regards to states like Illinois and California, these decisions were a welcome change to decades of precedent regarding guns. The unintended consequence is that states that are friendly to guns like South Dakota can be knee-capped when they try to pass truly sensible gun laws (unlike the 'reasonable' ones the Brady Bunch and the VPC espouse). But with these decisions, they have effectively cut the states out of the picture in regards to firearm law. This law will be hard-pressed to remain in light of those two decisions.
First thing that really pops out at me is that he was not able to obtain a renewal on his permit until just recently? Permits last 4 yrs. If the law was enacted in 2002, even if he got his permit right before the change, he has renewed it at least once, if not twice since then. Why is it that now all of a sudden this is an issue?
Then, there's the fact that the ACLU is involved in this. It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU was against individual rights for firearms. Hell, the national leadership is still hostile to gun rights. One has to wonder if the national board is out of touch with its member state chapters. More and more we are hearing about folks at the state level making court arguments about individual firearms rights. First it was Nevada, now South Dakota.
So where do I come down on this? I'm still undecided.
I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I'm not really sure.
One the one hand, we have a guy who has lived in Sioux Falls for 30 yrs and has not gained his US citizenship. He is however, a permanent resident alien. Nobody is telling this guy he can't own a gun. They're just saying he can't carry it concealed.
On the other, we have a states rights argument. The state of South Dakota should have the right to dictate who can or cannot get a permit to carry. Since Congress failed to pass national reciprocity in the last session, it is still up to the states to dictate who gets what.
Where this thing gets sideways is this. With the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010, the courts have said that states cannot ban firearms. In regards to states like Illinois and California, these decisions were a welcome change to decades of precedent regarding guns. The unintended consequence is that states that are friendly to guns like South Dakota can be knee-capped when they try to pass truly sensible gun laws (unlike the 'reasonable' ones the Brady Bunch and the VPC espouse). But with these decisions, they have effectively cut the states out of the picture in regards to firearm law. This law will be hard-pressed to remain in light of those two decisions.
First thing that really pops out at me is that he was not able to obtain a renewal on his permit until just recently? Permits last 4 yrs. If the law was enacted in 2002, even if he got his permit right before the change, he has renewed it at least once, if not twice since then. Why is it that now all of a sudden this is an issue?
Then, there's the fact that the ACLU is involved in this. It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU was against individual rights for firearms. Hell, the national leadership is still hostile to gun rights. One has to wonder if the national board is out of touch with its member state chapters. More and more we are hearing about folks at the state level making court arguments about individual firearms rights. First it was Nevada, now South Dakota.
So where do I come down on this? I'm still undecided.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Farking Computers...
So, last night I sit down at ye olde laptop to do some travelling around the Algorian intertubes. While checking my email, a popup box appears from the manufacturer of my laptop wanting to run updates on a couple of system programs, one of which was BIOS.
The first download and install goes off without a hitch. When I get to the BIOS update, all hell breaks loose. First, my mouse cursor starts acting all funny. Skipping around the screen. Then it stopped all together. So, I tried the old standby in situations like this, control-alt-delete. Nothing. Tried turning the power off. Nothing. Damn, this don't look good.
Now, right after I got that old laptop, I took it on a trip for work. While I was gone, somehow the tabs that hold the battery in place broke and I never got around to getting them fixed. Stupid me.
So, while I'm trying to figure out why my laptop has suddenly gone HAL 9000 on me, I tipped it up. Keep in mind it is not plugged in at this point. So when I tipped it up, you guessed it, the battery falls out. As soon as the battery hit the cooling table, everything went dark. No bells, no whistles, no lights, no sirens, do not pass go, go directly to jail. Crap, this ain't good.
So, after many attempts to revive the dead horse, I decided to take it down to Best Buy to see what they could do, if anything. During the trip down there, I'm thinking the worst. This thing is fragged. Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.
So, after the white shirted dude at Best Buy looks all over it, the consensus is...It's fragged. With a solemn report that replacing the motherboard would cost at least what it would cost to buy a new one.
So, here I sit, pounding keys on a new laptop I didn't want to buy, but had to. (When I called Mrs. Hazmat to explain the situation, she remarked that I should go ahead, since life with me without a computer would be akin to living with a junkie looking for a fix. Did I mention I love this gal?) And trying to figure out this new Windows 7 thing.
Did I mention that sometimes I hate computers?
The first download and install goes off without a hitch. When I get to the BIOS update, all hell breaks loose. First, my mouse cursor starts acting all funny. Skipping around the screen. Then it stopped all together. So, I tried the old standby in situations like this, control-alt-delete. Nothing. Tried turning the power off. Nothing. Damn, this don't look good.
Now, right after I got that old laptop, I took it on a trip for work. While I was gone, somehow the tabs that hold the battery in place broke and I never got around to getting them fixed. Stupid me.
So, while I'm trying to figure out why my laptop has suddenly gone HAL 9000 on me, I tipped it up. Keep in mind it is not plugged in at this point. So when I tipped it up, you guessed it, the battery falls out. As soon as the battery hit the cooling table, everything went dark. No bells, no whistles, no lights, no sirens, do not pass go, go directly to jail. Crap, this ain't good.
So, after many attempts to revive the dead horse, I decided to take it down to Best Buy to see what they could do, if anything. During the trip down there, I'm thinking the worst. This thing is fragged. Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.
So, after the white shirted dude at Best Buy looks all over it, the consensus is...It's fragged. With a solemn report that replacing the motherboard would cost at least what it would cost to buy a new one.
So, here I sit, pounding keys on a new laptop I didn't want to buy, but had to. (When I called Mrs. Hazmat to explain the situation, she remarked that I should go ahead, since life with me without a computer would be akin to living with a junkie looking for a fix. Did I mention I love this gal?) And trying to figure out this new Windows 7 thing.
Did I mention that sometimes I hate computers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
