Saturday, January 5, 2013

guns, Guns, GUNS!

That get your attention?

A lot of points have been made or brought up recently and I'd like to condense a few of them that I heard that I agree with.

"Why do I need an AR-15 or AK-47?"
I dunno, why do you need the car you're driving or the shoes you're wearing or the hamburger you're eating or the computer you're viewing this on? Why is that question never asked? It's a choice, isn't it, and a free person has the G-d given right to make the choices they see fit, as long as those choices don't interfere with the rights and choices of others. At least not intentionally. My guns, unless I am threatened, will never be used against another human being. In their current state, they are not a threat to anyone. Unless I pick it up, load it, and aim it at you, it doesn't affect your life.
In a free society, a central aspect of that freedom is the right to chose what we want, regardless of need, as long as we have the means to acquire said item and we're not attempting to steal it, whatever it is. Whether it is the charm to acquire a partner we like or the money to acquire a new smartphone, be it an Android, iOS, or Windows. When government interferes, through the demands of the public, and attempts to determine what choices we can and cannot make, we have left a free society and entered something else. It starts as democracy and ends in totalitarianism. They're not that far away from each other; mob rule to the mob deciding on a ruler.
Ban my AR or AK and you best start banning Corvette's and Ferarri's, Jimmy Choo shoes and Dolce & Gabana bags, Starbucks and McDonalds, Home Depot and Target. Your choices should only come from government; they know what's best.

"Who needs a 30 round magazine? 10 rounds should be more than enough."
Who came up with 10? Why not 15? Why not 12? Why not 22 1/3? Anyone who's ever been in a situation where they've had to either draw or fire a gun has never uttered the words "I'm sure glad I only have 10 rounds. I don't need more than this."
Why? Beyond the choice item that's already been discussed:
  1. People are sucky shots. In tense situations, studies have been done and shown that even the best soldiers and police officers have about a 50% hit rate. So with a 10 round magazine, they're hitting 5 times. Now that sounds like MORE than enough, but again, studies have shown that someone high on some sort of drug may not feel that unless you shoot them in the head. Good luck at that. If someone who trains regularly (FACT: Most cops don't. They train a little before their qualification tests and that's it. They don't regularly practice. There are certainly some who are gun enthusiasts or departments that train all the time, but the norm is they shoot to qualify and that's it) is going to miss every other shot at best, what are an untrained persons chances? About 20%. So 2 out of 10. Drugs aside, that sounds like enough, right? Until...
  2. Multiple attackers. Everyone imagines the one-on-one in the street showdown at high noon when you say "gun fight". Reality: Break-ins often happen with multiple people. Gangs are prevalent on many streets. I want enough to stop as many people as I have to and if I get to 10 and it goes click, are you going to take care of my family when I'm killed by the rest of the people who are attacking me? Didn't think so.
  3. Market saturation. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines on the market.  A ban can't be retroactive; you'd make millions into overnight criminals. Even if you said "People have a time to turn them in", people will keep them or sell them to someone less than ethical. So a ban will do nothing. PLUS, even if by some stroke of magic, you took them off the civilian market, they are still being made. Rebels, military's, and other sorts around the globe have them. The criminal market WILL get them and the ban will do nothing.
An oldie but goodie that I brought up before: "The Founders never imagined 'assault rifles'!"
Sure they did. To them, the muskets they had in their homes or the militias or armies carried into battle, those were the 'assault rifles' of the day.
The term itself is bullshit. It was made up by anti-gun organizations to sound scary. A rifle is a rifle. Some have black plastic and metal accoutrements, others have wood. All guns are made for 'assault' because that's what you do with a gun. All guns are 'military style' as that was where the need for them arose.
And the Founders were men who knew technology changes. They demanded that the PEOPLE, not the government, have their natural rights of protection defended from the people who would attempt to take them. What people? THE GOVERNMENT. 
 The fact that an Uzi could be used to keep a criminal or two out of your home is secondary. The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Constitution, is so the citizenry can resist the forces of government. It's what the founders did and it's what we were supposed to do. But no one has the stomach for it.
If you insist on this argument then my retort is your freedom of speech or privacy does not apply to your computer, smartphone, television, radio, modern magazine, newspaper, billboard. The government can, without a warrant, search your car, your computer, your phone conversations, as well as search you at an airport, stop you on a train and search you, or while you convey on any manner of transport not conceived during the 18th century. Stupid argument begets stupid response.

The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the "Hughes Amendment", the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" and all manner of federal laws and regulations having to do with guns, firearms, et al, are unconstitutional. Period. End of discussion. The Second Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government from enacting any sort of law that attempts to prevent people from keeping or bearing arms. Now, this doesn't mean your state cannot enact laws, if your state constitution allows for it. Most state constitutions have a provision that protects the peoples rights to arms and to protect themselves from the state government. However, if your state constitution so allows, your legislature could enact restrictions on what it chooses to. The U.S. Constitution is not an incorporated document. Meaning; the roles for government and the restrictions contained therein ONLY apply at the federal level. This applies to all provisions and restrictions. Meaning, unless restricted by your state constitution, your natural right to speak or worship freely could be curtailed. As I said, it's unnatural and any state that attempts to restrict it should be held in contempt by its citizens.
Even if you were attempting to argue that the federal constitution IS incorporated then you simply need to turn to the 14th Amendment which guarantees that all citizens of the US are entitled to all rights and privileges of the United States of America and thus the NFA, the GCA, 'Hughes", etc... are once again unconstitutional AS WELL AS all state restrictions on ownership of guns. Either way, your argument is invalid.

I fully expect the Obama administration and many Democrats to try and "do something". The question is: Do the Republicans and Democrats in Congress , who believe in freedom, have the stones to stop them? AND... If Obama doesn't get his way and attempts to do this through regulation (he has no authority to do so, but that hasn't stopped him yet), will those same people hold him in contempt of his office and impeach him? My guess is no and no, but we'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: I'd like to add another here, brought up by a friend who's a closet progressive. He'll deny it until St. Swivens Day, but he is one.
"All guns should be registered and all sales tracked. Everyone who wants one should be licensed and have to go through proficiency training. Like driving."
 What's ironic is he makes this analogy to driving when it comes to guns but when I argue that more people are killed driving than are killed with guns in this country, he retorts that cars weren't built to kill people, guns were. On top of that, he's the first to decry the government stomping on the rights of privacy and speech.
Throughout history, every time all gun sales have been registered and tracked, it's lead to confiscation. Most recently in England and Australia; when the government knows who has guns, they will use those records to confiscate them or jail the people who attempt to resist that confiscation. Now, thanks to forms authorized by the Gun Control Act of '68, all commercial sales of guns HAVE to go through a Federal Firearms License dealer. You can't purchase a gun online from a business. PERIOD. The forms used to record these sales HAVE to be kept for 20 years. The ATF, at ANY time (don't fool yourself into thinking that they can only do it when investigating a crime) can request to see these records. So, from the manufacturer, to a dealer, to the first sale, there's a record of who has it.
Now, for some states, there is no requirement for a record of this to happen for a private sale. A sale between two citizens with no record of transfer. BUT, at least with those guns manufactured after 1968, there is a record of first sale and if I go and sell that gun I just bought to someone unscrupulous, if that gun is used in a crime, it'll come right back to me and I could be held liable for that crime, depending. Sure, the criminal can file off the serial number, but why should they? They're committing a crime as it is; they really don't give a shit what happens to me.
As for proficiency training: Do you need training for free speech? Do you have to show proficiency to create a life? Wouldn't that be a hoot: "Folks, I'm sorry. According to federal form 11391.23, you are not engaging in procreation appropriately and we'll have to deny you your license to spawn. You need to seek additional training from a licensed facility before you can lawfully engage in unprotected coitus."
I don't have a problem with background checks. Yes, there is a "slippery slope" argument that can be made here, but I think if you've been convicted of a felony, you have lost some natural rights through due process. Now I think we need to fix a fuckload of laws in this country so that someone whose sole crime is getting themselves high or helping others get high ISN'T considered a felony, but that's for another time. If you've been reported for 'domestic abuse': sorry, but you weren't convicted of a crime so to deny someone a right because they were accused of something is completely unjust. I understand it, I really do, but then convict the abusive motherfucker and cut his nuts off. But if you've only been accused, then the burden of proof is not on the state and to deny you your rights is bullshit.
On proficiency itself - Ugh... I can see it. There's some logic to it. BUT, to what end? Over half of the gun deaths in this country are suicides. No issue with proficiency there, eh? Sorry, that was uncalled for. But, in a serious note, there's roughly 600 fatal gun accidents a year. It's rough because people can't pinpoint whether some are accidents or murders. These are tragedies, but to force millions of others to conform to a proficiency standard when the problem is with about 600 people... really? I mean... really?

As I said earlier on here: Gun laws are state matters, if their state constitution allows for it. If your state wants to be restrictive, find another state or embrace it, depending on which way you sway. If they're very permissive, enjoy it or find another state. Problem solved.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments will be moderated. I don't suffer temper tantrums.