Now I normally try to shut up on my various websites about politics and religion (the last refuge of scoundrels).
*TRIGGER WARNING!* (Pun VERY FUCKING MUCH Intended!)
If seeing a political or social opinion that varies from your own offends you in any way, please just close this webpage now.
If you STILL don’t like it, tough shit.
I kinda got motivated on this angry screed (because that’s what it is, I’m not going to lie) after having one too-many people use the term “common sense gun laws”
I then found that it was so long (I have a tendency to leave “verbose” behind and range out into “War and Peace is a pocketbook”) that Facebook wouldn’t handle the whole thing in a single post.
So I broke it up and did individual posts.
I’m simply posting it here as well so someone can read it in uninterrupted form.
This is where the inflammatory part starts.
What you see as “common sense” is actually “your opinion”. It’s basically a backhanded accusation that anyone who isn’t agreeing with you is unreasonable/irrational.
Remember, the NRA helped DRAFT some of the first gun control legislation in the country.
And they’re not opposed to actual PROPER ENFORCEMENT of the laws we have now.
The problem with enacting further “common sense” measures is that you’re penalizing millions law abiding citizens for the actions of a handful of criminals and crazies.
And none of these “common sense” laws will stop ACTUAL criminals from obtaining guns!
Limiting magazine capacities does nothing. Because the “some got away while he was reloading” argument is a myth. With 15, 10 and 7 round magazines, the time differentials with reloads spans roughly 2 seconds TOTAL. Only The Flash is going to get away from that.
Requiring biometric scanners does nothing. Because it runs the risk of leaving the firearm non-functional when it’s needed by the legitimate owner. And criminals simply won’t obtain a firearm with a biometric lock.
“Assault Weapon” bans are more or less pointless. An “assault rifle” is defined primarily by it’s ability to select-fire between safety, semi-auto (single shot) and either full-auto or three-round burst.
You cannot buy such weapons new nowadays. And you require a Class 3 license to purchase one of the grandfathered weapons. And all the arguments about gun control fall apart with a Class 3 license. As you’re required to document your ENTIRE personal arsenal and make it available to perusal by law enforcement UPON REQUEST. Which means your local cop can come in and ask to see your collection. You’re REQUIRED to show it to them, and to be able to immediately produce all your paperwork.
An “assault weapon” is basically a semi-automatic rifle firing a medium power cartridge that superficially resembles an assault rifle. So it’s being legislated because it “looks dangerous”.
And yes, semi-auto. So you’re not “spraying a crowd” with such a weapon. Because every time you pull the trigger you get exactly ONE shot fired. So, we have people trying to ban certain weapons and OK other weapons that are MECHANICALLY IDENTICAL. Based on appearance (basically is the weapon blacked out, does it look like an existing military weapon and does it have a pistol grip).
That’s the definition of “arbitrary”.
And yes, I used the term “medium powered” cartridge when talking about weapons like the AR-15.
The AR-15 is a cousin of the M16. The M16 can fire full auto or 3 round burst. The reason the M16 can fire full auto in its configuration is because they stepped down from 7.62mm cartridges.
If you tried to put a 7.62mm (what the M60 was firing), through an M16 style mechanism, it’d handle it fine. On single shot. On full auto, the mechanical stresses would be such that it’d cause malfunctions and eventually mechanical failure of the weapon system.
Thus, the designers stepped down to the 5.56mm (Remington 223). Less power, less strain on the mechanism.
The AR-15 retains the less powerful ammo, and is only semi-auto (single-shot). There are LOTS of non “assault weapon” rifles out there firing MUCH more powerful loads.
Denying to people on the “No Fly List” isn’t “common sense” because it violates people’s right to due process. Flying isn’t a right. Owning a weapon is. Foo-foo’ing the fact that owning a weapon is an inalienable right simply means you don’t understand what a “right” is and why it needs defending.
“Closing the gun show loophole” is a pointless endeavor. Because there IS no gun show loophole. All firearm vendors, whether they’re selling at their place of business or at a gun show are REQUIRED to do a background check. What’s ACTUALLY being talked about is the right of civilians to perform private sales. Because of straw purchases.
Essentially straw purchases are ALREADY illegal. Which means they’re acting like a criminal (someone who, by definition doesn’t follow the law). So if someone violates the law by doing this, they go to jail and lose their guns.
Firing a gun at another human being is akin to shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater.
If you shout “FIRE” in a theater, and there’s actually a fire, you don’t go to jail.
If you shout “FIRE” in a theater, and there ISN’T a fire, you go to jail. Not for exercising free speech, but for endangering public safety.
If you shoot a person who is in the process of attempting to harm you, you don’t go (or shouldn’t be going) to jail. It was justifiable.
If you shoot a random Joe on the street because you felt like busting a cap in someone? If you DON’T get gunned down by a concealed carry person or a cop, you go to jail. Because it is illegal to kill people who are not threatening your safety in this country.
This guy with the gun, if it actually happened that way, where he brandished a gun at someone just for being an ass? He needs to do some jail time and lose his ability to own a gun. Not because people feel unsafe around guns. But because he’s shown that he cannot be trusted to act in a safe, responsible, lawful manner with them.
Things that people are ignoring. Mental health screening. But NOT in a programmatic way by government doctors.
Actually jailing offenders with harsh sentences. Right now, a computer hacker goes away longer than someone who commits a gun crime that hurts or kills people.
BETTER screening. The idiot down in Florida had been interviewed by the FBI TWICE and they still missed him.
And also a realistic understanding that the world is sometimes a shitty place, and no matter WHAT we do, we aren’t going to stop ALL the criminals and crazies. That’s a basic utopian fantasy. That we’ll “somehow” get rid of all the “bad” and life will be perfect.
We’re talking about human beings here. We’ve been doing dumb shit since the first man set foot on this planet. And considering that there are over 300 MILLION legally owned guns in this country, and the total number of non-suicide deaths among those who aren’t (or don’t live among) gangbangers is so low that you basically have a better chance of dying of the FLU than you do of being randomly shot by a crazy, a cop or a criminal.
Nation-wide gun registry is a particularly noxious idea. Simply from a historical perspective. Just about every major historical instance of government tyranny has begun with a ban on private ownership.
And whether you think the US going to become a tyrannical government now, tomorrow, a hundred years from now or NEVER is irrelevant. The founders of this country understood that ANY government can become tyrannical. And it wanted the people to be able to defend themselves, EVEN FROM THEM.
Now, before you start talking about taking an AR-15 up against a tank. STOP. Your understanding of warfare has essentially never left the 18th century. Wars nowadays are almost totally asymmetric. Nobody stands up in nice, neat little rows and waits to be mowed down by volley anymore.
This is why ISIS is still a thing right now. This is why Al Qaeda is still a thing. This is why we lost the war in Vietnam.
Any insurrection by the US populace is NOT going to square up with the police or the US military all “Marquis of Queensbury Rules”. It’s going to be a nasty, ugly, bloody guerrilla action. In such actions, machine guns, automatic fire, grenades, tanks, rocket launchers, bombing campaigns, etc, are of little to no use. ESPECIALLY since we’re talking about fighting on American soil.
Basically the what we’re talking about is a government’s attempt to obtain a monopoly on violence. And if we really want to talk about gun deaths. Tyrannical governments have killed far, FAR more than all the crazies and terrorists and just disgruntled whoevers COMBINED.
The term is “Democide”. And the current count for government sactioned murder/genocide (this doesn’t include people killed in legitimate wars) stands north of a QUARTER BILLION LIVES.
Now, you can say that the government, now, is mostly benign. But will it be tomorrow? Or next year? Or a hundred years from now?
Do you get paid day–to-day? Do you go out and eat every meal every single day? Do you never set anything aside in case of a financial or medical mishap? Sure you do! Hell, in some cases, you’re required by law to do so or be fined (Obamacare, car insurance, etc).
The Second Amendment occupies the same headspace. It’s insurance against an unthinkable event.
The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or militias It’s not even about “giving” people the right to own and bear arms. The Second Amendment doesnt’ GIVE you ANYTHING. It’s a RECOGNITION of the right as a pre-existing state and inalienable.
This is why the “Well why do you NEED a *INSERT HERE*?” argument is so silly. You don’t have to justify a right with “need”. Do you have to justify your free speech? Do you have to justify your 4th Amendment rights? Do you women have to justify their right to vote? Do blacks have to justify their equal treatment? Do you need to justify your right to buy and consume a beer?
And remember, once you give your rights away, your chances of having it returned to you is virtually nill. Because you’ve given the government power with no checks or balances on it. So they don’t HAVE to give it back.
This is why the Bill of Rights talks about any rights not expressly granted to the government being reserved for the people.
And while nobody likes talking about it. Within the “gun control” lobby is the “ban guns” group. Their basic aim IS to essentially make all firearms illegal. And if they can’t do it all at once, they’ll do it in stages, making it progressively tougher and crazier to legally acquire a firearm, until it’s essentially impossible. Basically, “give an inch, get asked for another inch”.
Now you say this and most “common sense” gun people wave their hands and go “nobody wants that”. That’s what’s known as a “LIE”.
Now, if YOU wish to abrogate your own rights to firearm ownership for some false promise of “safety”, that’s fine. Go ahead. I support your ability to make that choice. Even if I think you foolish for doing so.
What I do NOT support is attempting to steal the rights of OTHERS who have no desire to abrogate theirs, simply so they conform to your view of the world.
Yeah, that’s a giant wall of text. Kudos if you’re actually open-minded enough to read it all.4:49 PM 7/27/2016