So in this morning's edition of the Brazosport Factless, my local newsrag published a letter I had written about how Chief Neil Longbotham had stolen over one hundred thousand dollars worth of cash and video poker machines from a local "Eight Liner" parlor that had been found to be paying out cash prizes.
Also on the opinions page was an op-ed piece by Ms. Yvonne Mintz of the Brazosport Facts, telling me and the countless others who were disgusted about this obvious theft by a "public servant" that our anger is "misplaced" and should be directed toward our state legislature.
While I am angry at my legislature in general anyway, I do firmly understand that they could honestly care less about the wants and wishes of the People of the State of Texas...unless those people are so pissed off at their legislators that they're chasing them down the road with pitchforks.
Regardless, our LOCAL officials deal with what is going on LOCALLY. The reason I am disgusted by the confiscation of a man's personal property (other than, of course, Chief Longbotham's inability to be publicly honest about it, saying that he raided the place to "protect the public"), is that our local officials can and do have the authority to decide what priorities to place on certain things within the arena of their respective offices.
Ms. Mintz's own article provides plenty of reason to be very upset about this...not with the legislature, but with the local law enforcement and the county DA's office.
I used to work at one of these "eight-liner parlors" when I was in college, and I know for a fact that they DO NOT STAY IN BUSINESS WHILE OPERATING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW. Let there be no mistake about it, you do not run a video gambling joint legally without going broke. It just does not happen. While this may have been possible ten or fifteen years ago, the laws have been changed within the past decade in a manner that makes these places a no-win situation for everyone involved...unless the relationship between the house and the player crosses the line of the law.
Prior to laws being changed (or possibly just clarified), an eight-liner parlor was forbidden to pay out in cash...but it was able to pay out in the form of "gift certificates" that could be worth a maximum of $5 in game credits or merchandise. The way it worked was simple...they couldn't pay you in cash, but they could give you a $600 television if you had saved up 120 of these $5 certificates. Often, the player would show the house a newspaper flier of the merchandise desired, and someone working for the house would go purchase it, bring it back to the game room, and help load it up for the customer.
After the law was updated, they still couldn't pay you in cash...and now, the maximum value of any prize was $5. You could no longer collect a stack of 100 certificates and trade them for a prize worth $500, you now had to trade them in for 100 prizes worth $5 each. Anyone stupid enough to continuously pump $20 bills into a machine for hours at a time, with no possibility of actually winning anything bigger than a $5 plastic trinket, likely wouldn't have that kind of money to begin with. The law, in effect, turned what was once legalized gambling into an overrated video game arcade.
Game rooms are typically open 24/7. That's AT LEAST five grand a month in payroll, provided you have only one attendant on duty at any given time...and that attendant is only making minimum wage. Then you have the light bills. Do you have any idea how much power consumption goes on when you have 50 computers sitting side by side? Don't forget about the complimentary snacks and drinks that are often provided for the players, because most municipalities require a permit to sell food/drinks. Then there's the lease or mortgage on the building, if you don't own it outright. Most importantly, don't forget about paying your annual taxes on each coin-operated gaming machine.
You're looking at an overhead of at least eight grand a month, which means you have to be pulling in about $300 every 24 hours. That's just to break even. This is required EVERY SINGLE DAY, regardless of how jacked up the economy is, or whether it's a Tuesday night, or the county fair is in town, or whatever other reason there may be for people not coming into your game room. If you have more than one employee, you're going to need to bring more dollars into those machines.
Simply put, you're going to have one hell of a hard time getting enough people into your game room spending that kind of money on what is essentially an obnoxiously noisy Nintendo game, without breaking the law. Grown folks just are not going to come into a game room and pump $50 into a machine for the prospect of winning a trinket worth $5. Seriously, you can't even buy a Barbie doll for $5 anymore. What kind of prizes are these people giving away? Keychains and beer koozies, maybe?
Okay, so now we've established that EVERY eight liner parlor is breaking the law. Yes, every single one of them. Here's why it shouldn't matter...
IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE! THAT'S RIGHT, IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE AT ALL!
Interestingly enough, Ms. Mintz tells us that investigations, such as the one resulting in the THEFT (you'll notice I don't use the word "confiscation", because "confiscation" is simply theft by a government employee) of over one hundred thousand dollars worth of cash and video gambling devices, required the use of an informant and took several months of surveillance.
According to the original article, Chief Longbotham was quoted as saying that several "complaints" had been made to the police department about this establishment paying cash to its players. Okay, really? Come on. Who calls the police to complain about a video game parlor paying cash to its customers? Obviously, it isn't the police department themselves, otherwise that statement would be a complete and total lie...which would leave only two other options.
Either A) the complaint was made by a player that lost his rent money for the month in hopes that he would score big, or B) the complaint was made by the owners of another game room. Either way, I continue to ask...who was harmed by paying cash to the players?
Absolutely NO ONE that didn't wantonly and willingly put himself into a position to lose money. You're a complete idiot, if you think the house doesn't have an advantage in "games of chance". The odds of winning any casino-style game are severely stacked in favor of the house. With any computer-based game (such as video poker, keno, slots, et cetera), the odds can actually be manipulated via the game's processor chips...ironically, most avid players even know this, and continue to play.
But now, I ask this...if a man is willing to risk losing his rent money for the chance of winning it back five-fold, is the house he's betting against not also running the risk of losing more money, even if the odds are stacked in favor of the house? If so, is this not a mutually agreed-upon contractual relationship?
Keep that in mind, and now ask yourself this: Are there not other problems that thousands of dollars worth of man-hours and resources could not be spent on, especially when these problems involve crimes against people and property?
As a police chief, is it not Longbotham's responsibility to his community to more wisely utilize his department's resources in a manner that actually IS "protecting the public", as opposed to wasting them on something as petty as arresting someone for paying cash prizes at an eight-liner parlor?
I know there are worse places to live, but I also know for a fact that burglary and thievery goes on in the city of Brazoria. You know it, I know it, and the police chief knows it. What's more important, protecting the private property of the citizens you are paid to serve, or attempting to enforce legislated morality in a manner that the majority of the public does not agree with by STEALING the private property of the citizens you are paid to serve?
Should we hold our legislature responsible for outlawing video poker? Absolutely, but the officers who enforce these laws are equally culpable, as are the district attorneys who prosecute these cases. Without investigators and prosecutors, such laws are utterly useless.
Since the newspaper article has stated that arrests will be coming soon (for all I know, they've already been made), I suppose the only recourse the owner of Jacks R Better will have is a sympathetic jury.
Regardless of this, the majority of people in Texas support legalized gambling. When faced with choices for our legislature, however, we are far too often given candidates that place legalized gambling at the bottom of their list of priorities (where it probably should be, were it not for our budget problems and the possibility of the metric shitloads of tax money we could be bringing in for the state through legalized gambling). Because it isn't a "hot-button issue", it isn't being used as a campaign promise. As such, our legislators don't want to be known as "the guy that wants to bring in gambling", because his re-election opponents will seize on this as an opportunity to claim that such a legislature is attempting to destroy the "family values of Texas" or some such nonsense.
I probably wouldn't have cared about any of this, as I'm not a gambler and don't even live in the city of Brazoria. I was, however, just a bit miffed when I saw Chief Neil Longbotham being quoted as saying he was shutting the gaming parlor down to "protect the public"...because I know that statement is complete and utter bullshit.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
...from my Cold, Dead Hands!
That's where they can take them from, the sonsabitches!
What am I rambling about? Why, nothing much, just Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ban my hunting rifle!
Yes, all the major news outlets are reporting that Mr. Holder is pushing for not just a reinstatement, but a PERMANENT reinstatement, of the "assault weapons" ban.
Okay, I'm sorry, but I've been speaking the English language for the better part of three decades. I understand that "assault" is an ACTION, not an OBJECT.
The reason for wanting to reinstate the ban on "military-STYLE" weapons? It has absolutely nothing to do with crime in America, and everything to do with crime in MEXICO! Well, that's the excuse we're getting, anyway. In reality, it has nothing to do with crime ANYWHERE, and everything to do with the disarmament of the American people.
You see, for ten years (1994-2004), America was under the "Assault Weapons Ban" (henceforth known as the "AWB"). Violent crimes involving assault weapons were CUT IN HALF! Yeah, but then read the fine print. You see, crimes involving assault weapons went from 2% to 1%. That still leaves out, of course, the 98% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES THAT WERE NOT BEING COMMITTED WITH SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" TO BEGIN WITH! The AWB did absolutely nothing in the way of actually deterring violent crime. All it did was make it more expensive for target shooters, collectors of militaria, et cetera to purchase the rifles they wanted.
How does that work? The same way the amendments to the National Firearms Act in 1986 made an M16 more expensive to own! You see, these weapons were not actually "outlawed" outright, you could still own them. You just had to jump through more hoops to get them, and their supply was limited because full-auto weapons could not be manufactured for civilian use. Any full-auto weapon owned by a civilian had to be taxed and registered with the BATFE, which caused a $1,000 rifle to instantly become priced at $10,000.
Every day, we're hearing about how Mexican drug cartels are waging war in the streets of Mexico. They're shooting people in broad daylight, like it's the cool new thing. You hear about automatic rifles and hand grenades being used regularly.
And yet, Mr. Holder thinks that this is because of some sort of "gun show loophole". BULLSHIT. Unless you have been fingerprinted, had your personal paperwork signed by the local chief of police, and gone through a very thorough background check via the BATFE, YOU CANNOT BUY A FULL-AUTOMATIC RIFLE. In all likelihood, you won't even ever see one of these at a gun show, since most vendors bring what is available to the general public...even if they have a Class III Federal Firearms License.
So where do these weapons come from, if the Mexican cartels are using them to murder people in record numbers? Armalite M16 rifles, the full-auto rifles used by the US Military, get to Mexico via the US government. They are either given, or sold at below market value, as part of our "foreign aid" to Mexico in our efforts to win the "War On Drugs". Unfortunately, the government of Mexico is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mexican drug cartels. If you have an army officer responsible for a few hundred automatic rifles, and the cartels want those rifles, that officer will either be a few thousand dollars more wealthy, or that officer will be dead.
Full-auto AK47 rifles are also not available in America, nor are hand grenades...but American law cannot prevent manufacturing plants in Venezuela, ComBloc eastern European nations, or China from producing and selling these weapons. Obviously, the gun control laws that outlaw private citizens from owning firearms can't stop it either.
Oh, you didn't know that? That's right, it is ILLEGAL for the average Mexican citizen to own a firearm. In order to own one, he must meet certain legal requirements...in addition to registering the rifle and every round of ammunition. On top of this, it is a "may issue" situation, as opposed to a "shall issue". In other words, the government doesn't have to issue the permit if it does not want to. Even still, the TYPES of firearms that may be purchased by Mexican citizens is severely restricted. A Mexican citizen is FORBIDDEN to own anything capable of firing a "military caliber", such as ***dingdingding*** an AR15, an SKS, an AK47, and countless other so-called "assault rifles".
So what does that mean? EVERY SINGLE CARTEL-RELATED SHOOTING IN MEXICO WITH ONE OF THESE RIFLES HAS BEEN COMMITTED WITH A FIREARM THAT IS ALREADY UNLAWFUL TO OWN.
Obviously, gun laws won't stop criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", and all that jazz.
In nations where guns are outlawed and the police departments aren't COMPLETELY corrupt, such as China and the United Kingdom, the rate of violent crime is not much different than here in the United States. Notice I didn't say "violent GUN crime". Obviously, if it's next to impossible to obtain a gun even by illegal means, you're going to use something else. In England, the weapon of choice is a kitchen knife. In China, it's actually rat poison!
Furthermore, the "90%" figure all too often thrown out about the number of so-called "assault weapons" being traced back to American buyers is complete bullshit. It's 90% of TRACEABLE weapons being traced back to American buyers. That's 90% of all weapons that have serial numbers that can be traced...which is a very small fraction of a percentage of all weapons recovered by the Mexican government. Did I mention that most weapons used by Cartel members can't actually be traced to anyone, and that the entirety of the Mexican gov't is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the drug cartels?
Now, let's get to this supposed "gun show loophole" that Mr. Obama and his ilk keep referring to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE". This "loophole" they refer to is nothing more than a lack of a legal requirement to register a transfer of ownership of a firearm between two private parties via the federal government, according to federal law. If you go to a gun show, and see a guy at a booth selling firearms, that guy has a federal firearms license...which means that he's going to either do the paperwork and background check, or he's going to risk jail for breaking the law. If you purchase a firearm from someone who is NOT A LICENSED DEALER, you don't have to do a background check. It doesn't matter if this person is your grandpa, your next-door neighbor, or some random individual walking around at a gun show trying to sell his deer rifle. You don't have to do an FFL transfer from a private seller (at least not in this state, I am not sure of other states).
So what does this mean? This supposed "loophole" does not apply to gun shows, but rather, every single individual gun owner in the United States of America that does not sell guns for a living.
Okay, so moving right along. We've discovered that the weapons used in cartel violence aren't coming from Joe Bob the redneck that bought a truckload of Semi-Auto AK47s at a gun show so he could smuggle them into Mexico. Why would they, when the cartels can just as easily import the real deal from Venezuela? But anyhow, let's now look to WHY there is cartel violence in Mexico to begin with!
If you outlaw a substance that people are going to continue to consume illegally, you're going to create a black market for it. You haven't reduced its consumption, you've merely increased its potential for profitability. When the demand is extremely large (such as that of, oh I don't know, COCAINE), and its supply is limited to those willing to risk a life sentence in federal prison to get it here, the price is going to skyrocket.
Unlike alcohol or marijuana, cocaine cannot be easily and readily produced domestically. The climate, labor requirements, et cetera for producing cocaine make its domestic production next to impossible. As such, it must be imported.
Smuggling in cocaine through customs at an international airport in the US is rather difficult, especially if one is wanting to bring in enough to make it economically viable. Our porous border to the south, on the other hand, is ready to rock and roll...and has been, for decades. This is how the drug cartels became so powerful! Coca plants are grown in south and central American nations, smuggled up into Mexico, and then trucked across the border via NAFTA trade routes. If you don't believe me about the NAFTA thing, check every major cocaine bust coming in on a truck from Mexico!
So how do we stop it? Do we start shooting people who smuggle cocaine? We could start doing that, but it won't put a dent in the problem. The short answer is, of course, WE DON'T STOP IT. If a man is willing to risk a life sentence for smuggling tons of cocaine into America, you're not going to stop him with the threat of death. There is a market for cocaine in America, and there are willing participants in other nations that smuggle it in.
So the proper answer to this? LEGALIZE IT! Yes, I said that. Legalize the sale, use, and possession of crack, coke, smack, meth, weed, and every other illicit drug known to man, for those over the age of 18.
Wait, did I just really say that? You're damned right I did. Almost every person in America knows, right now, that smoking crack is bad for you. There's a reason why the term "crackhead" has such negative connotations. Regardless, we're still not even close to putting a dent in the consumption of cocaine in this nation.
But imagine what would happen if you were to legalize the sale, use, and possession of drugs in this nation...and have them regulated like you would with a bottle of Maker's Mark.
About half of the prison population would be GONE, instantly. About 20% of our prisons are comprised of inmates incarcerated solely for the non-violent sale and/or possession of drugs...which is, with the exception of marijuana, a felony in every state. Then, you have the other 30% who are incarcerated for the violence revolving around drug-related issues that cannot be solved in a civil court due to the fact that disputes involving illegal activities cannot be resolved in such a manner. Of course, old cases of murder and assault will still be housed...but there will be drastically fewer new ones, if you could buy your reefer or coke at a "dope store" like you can with tequila at a liquor store. Remember how debts were settled in the days of alcohol prohibition?
Then, you look at treatment and education. While they comprise less than ten percent of all the money spent on our "drug war", they have been shown to be 16 times more effective than "drug interdiction" (read: arrests and incarcerations). Double or even triple your efforts in these areas, and spend zero money on the DEA, and you're saving billions of dollars every year while simultaneously reducing the number of people who are actually using drugs.
Then, think of all the money, man-hours, and other resources that can be saved at the local law enforcement level. You've got fewer users because you are educating more people before they start to use drugs, you've got less users still using because you've treated more of them, and both of these things equate to fewer drug-related crimes not involving sale or possession (i.e. theft, robbery, et cetera). These crimes will be further reduced by the fact that a drug habit becomes less expensive once it becomes regulated and can be sold by any licensed dealer...just like alcohol licensing provided more competition and lower prices.
Then, you have fewer children using drugs. Children typically have far less money than adults do, which means the market for selling DAMNED NEAR ANYTHING is going to be more lucrative if you are dealing your dope in a regulated market and abiding by the rules. If these rules say you'll lose your license and go to jail for selling a rock of crack to a 17 year old kid, what's the incentive to do so when you have an adult customer willing to buy it legally?
When you have a free market, there is money to be made, just like there is with tobacco and alcohol. I am unaware of any deaths over "turf wars" involving alcohol sales, since the end of prohibition in America.
As usual, the proper answer is less regulation, not more. The same applies to firearm sales.
What am I rambling about? Why, nothing much, just Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ban my hunting rifle!
Yes, all the major news outlets are reporting that Mr. Holder is pushing for not just a reinstatement, but a PERMANENT reinstatement, of the "assault weapons" ban.
Okay, I'm sorry, but I've been speaking the English language for the better part of three decades. I understand that "assault" is an ACTION, not an OBJECT.
The reason for wanting to reinstate the ban on "military-STYLE" weapons? It has absolutely nothing to do with crime in America, and everything to do with crime in MEXICO! Well, that's the excuse we're getting, anyway. In reality, it has nothing to do with crime ANYWHERE, and everything to do with the disarmament of the American people.
You see, for ten years (1994-2004), America was under the "Assault Weapons Ban" (henceforth known as the "AWB"). Violent crimes involving assault weapons were CUT IN HALF! Yeah, but then read the fine print. You see, crimes involving assault weapons went from 2% to 1%. That still leaves out, of course, the 98% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES THAT WERE NOT BEING COMMITTED WITH SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" TO BEGIN WITH! The AWB did absolutely nothing in the way of actually deterring violent crime. All it did was make it more expensive for target shooters, collectors of militaria, et cetera to purchase the rifles they wanted.
How does that work? The same way the amendments to the National Firearms Act in 1986 made an M16 more expensive to own! You see, these weapons were not actually "outlawed" outright, you could still own them. You just had to jump through more hoops to get them, and their supply was limited because full-auto weapons could not be manufactured for civilian use. Any full-auto weapon owned by a civilian had to be taxed and registered with the BATFE, which caused a $1,000 rifle to instantly become priced at $10,000.
Every day, we're hearing about how Mexican drug cartels are waging war in the streets of Mexico. They're shooting people in broad daylight, like it's the cool new thing. You hear about automatic rifles and hand grenades being used regularly.
And yet, Mr. Holder thinks that this is because of some sort of "gun show loophole". BULLSHIT. Unless you have been fingerprinted, had your personal paperwork signed by the local chief of police, and gone through a very thorough background check via the BATFE, YOU CANNOT BUY A FULL-AUTOMATIC RIFLE. In all likelihood, you won't even ever see one of these at a gun show, since most vendors bring what is available to the general public...even if they have a Class III Federal Firearms License.
So where do these weapons come from, if the Mexican cartels are using them to murder people in record numbers? Armalite M16 rifles, the full-auto rifles used by the US Military, get to Mexico via the US government. They are either given, or sold at below market value, as part of our "foreign aid" to Mexico in our efforts to win the "War On Drugs". Unfortunately, the government of Mexico is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mexican drug cartels. If you have an army officer responsible for a few hundred automatic rifles, and the cartels want those rifles, that officer will either be a few thousand dollars more wealthy, or that officer will be dead.
Full-auto AK47 rifles are also not available in America, nor are hand grenades...but American law cannot prevent manufacturing plants in Venezuela, ComBloc eastern European nations, or China from producing and selling these weapons. Obviously, the gun control laws that outlaw private citizens from owning firearms can't stop it either.
Oh, you didn't know that? That's right, it is ILLEGAL for the average Mexican citizen to own a firearm. In order to own one, he must meet certain legal requirements...in addition to registering the rifle and every round of ammunition. On top of this, it is a "may issue" situation, as opposed to a "shall issue". In other words, the government doesn't have to issue the permit if it does not want to. Even still, the TYPES of firearms that may be purchased by Mexican citizens is severely restricted. A Mexican citizen is FORBIDDEN to own anything capable of firing a "military caliber", such as ***dingdingding*** an AR15, an SKS, an AK47, and countless other so-called "assault rifles".
So what does that mean? EVERY SINGLE CARTEL-RELATED SHOOTING IN MEXICO WITH ONE OF THESE RIFLES HAS BEEN COMMITTED WITH A FIREARM THAT IS ALREADY UNLAWFUL TO OWN.
Obviously, gun laws won't stop criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", and all that jazz.
In nations where guns are outlawed and the police departments aren't COMPLETELY corrupt, such as China and the United Kingdom, the rate of violent crime is not much different than here in the United States. Notice I didn't say "violent GUN crime". Obviously, if it's next to impossible to obtain a gun even by illegal means, you're going to use something else. In England, the weapon of choice is a kitchen knife. In China, it's actually rat poison!
Furthermore, the "90%" figure all too often thrown out about the number of so-called "assault weapons" being traced back to American buyers is complete bullshit. It's 90% of TRACEABLE weapons being traced back to American buyers. That's 90% of all weapons that have serial numbers that can be traced...which is a very small fraction of a percentage of all weapons recovered by the Mexican government. Did I mention that most weapons used by Cartel members can't actually be traced to anyone, and that the entirety of the Mexican gov't is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the drug cartels?
Now, let's get to this supposed "gun show loophole" that Mr. Obama and his ilk keep referring to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE". This "loophole" they refer to is nothing more than a lack of a legal requirement to register a transfer of ownership of a firearm between two private parties via the federal government, according to federal law. If you go to a gun show, and see a guy at a booth selling firearms, that guy has a federal firearms license...which means that he's going to either do the paperwork and background check, or he's going to risk jail for breaking the law. If you purchase a firearm from someone who is NOT A LICENSED DEALER, you don't have to do a background check. It doesn't matter if this person is your grandpa, your next-door neighbor, or some random individual walking around at a gun show trying to sell his deer rifle. You don't have to do an FFL transfer from a private seller (at least not in this state, I am not sure of other states).
So what does this mean? This supposed "loophole" does not apply to gun shows, but rather, every single individual gun owner in the United States of America that does not sell guns for a living.
Okay, so moving right along. We've discovered that the weapons used in cartel violence aren't coming from Joe Bob the redneck that bought a truckload of Semi-Auto AK47s at a gun show so he could smuggle them into Mexico. Why would they, when the cartels can just as easily import the real deal from Venezuela? But anyhow, let's now look to WHY there is cartel violence in Mexico to begin with!
If you outlaw a substance that people are going to continue to consume illegally, you're going to create a black market for it. You haven't reduced its consumption, you've merely increased its potential for profitability. When the demand is extremely large (such as that of, oh I don't know, COCAINE), and its supply is limited to those willing to risk a life sentence in federal prison to get it here, the price is going to skyrocket.
Unlike alcohol or marijuana, cocaine cannot be easily and readily produced domestically. The climate, labor requirements, et cetera for producing cocaine make its domestic production next to impossible. As such, it must be imported.
Smuggling in cocaine through customs at an international airport in the US is rather difficult, especially if one is wanting to bring in enough to make it economically viable. Our porous border to the south, on the other hand, is ready to rock and roll...and has been, for decades. This is how the drug cartels became so powerful! Coca plants are grown in south and central American nations, smuggled up into Mexico, and then trucked across the border via NAFTA trade routes. If you don't believe me about the NAFTA thing, check every major cocaine bust coming in on a truck from Mexico!
So how do we stop it? Do we start shooting people who smuggle cocaine? We could start doing that, but it won't put a dent in the problem. The short answer is, of course, WE DON'T STOP IT. If a man is willing to risk a life sentence for smuggling tons of cocaine into America, you're not going to stop him with the threat of death. There is a market for cocaine in America, and there are willing participants in other nations that smuggle it in.
So the proper answer to this? LEGALIZE IT! Yes, I said that. Legalize the sale, use, and possession of crack, coke, smack, meth, weed, and every other illicit drug known to man, for those over the age of 18.
Wait, did I just really say that? You're damned right I did. Almost every person in America knows, right now, that smoking crack is bad for you. There's a reason why the term "crackhead" has such negative connotations. Regardless, we're still not even close to putting a dent in the consumption of cocaine in this nation.
But imagine what would happen if you were to legalize the sale, use, and possession of drugs in this nation...and have them regulated like you would with a bottle of Maker's Mark.
About half of the prison population would be GONE, instantly. About 20% of our prisons are comprised of inmates incarcerated solely for the non-violent sale and/or possession of drugs...which is, with the exception of marijuana, a felony in every state. Then, you have the other 30% who are incarcerated for the violence revolving around drug-related issues that cannot be solved in a civil court due to the fact that disputes involving illegal activities cannot be resolved in such a manner. Of course, old cases of murder and assault will still be housed...but there will be drastically fewer new ones, if you could buy your reefer or coke at a "dope store" like you can with tequila at a liquor store. Remember how debts were settled in the days of alcohol prohibition?
Then, you look at treatment and education. While they comprise less than ten percent of all the money spent on our "drug war", they have been shown to be 16 times more effective than "drug interdiction" (read: arrests and incarcerations). Double or even triple your efforts in these areas, and spend zero money on the DEA, and you're saving billions of dollars every year while simultaneously reducing the number of people who are actually using drugs.
Then, think of all the money, man-hours, and other resources that can be saved at the local law enforcement level. You've got fewer users because you are educating more people before they start to use drugs, you've got less users still using because you've treated more of them, and both of these things equate to fewer drug-related crimes not involving sale or possession (i.e. theft, robbery, et cetera). These crimes will be further reduced by the fact that a drug habit becomes less expensive once it becomes regulated and can be sold by any licensed dealer...just like alcohol licensing provided more competition and lower prices.
Then, you have fewer children using drugs. Children typically have far less money than adults do, which means the market for selling DAMNED NEAR ANYTHING is going to be more lucrative if you are dealing your dope in a regulated market and abiding by the rules. If these rules say you'll lose your license and go to jail for selling a rock of crack to a 17 year old kid, what's the incentive to do so when you have an adult customer willing to buy it legally?
When you have a free market, there is money to be made, just like there is with tobacco and alcohol. I am unaware of any deaths over "turf wars" involving alcohol sales, since the end of prohibition in America.
As usual, the proper answer is less regulation, not more. The same applies to firearm sales.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Andrew Joseph "Joe" Stack III..."martyr" or "murderer"?
By now, I'm sure you've likely heard about the nutjob that crashed his single-engine prop plane into the tax office in Austin, TX. "Keep Austin Weird", right? Anyway...am I going to call him a "murderer", because he killed an IRS worker? Nope, and here's why...
In the 1940s, our own government set out to write what would become the first internationally-binding criminal statutes. This set of Ex Post Facto laws, known as the "London Charter", are what was used to prosecute not only the Nazi leadership but also lower-level Nazi party members. The reasoning was, essentially, that the Nazi party's various agencies that were responsible for these "crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity", were actually "criminal organizations" in and of themselves...and the mere membership in these organizations was a criminal act. As such, every member of the organization was culpable for any act carried out by the organization if that act was committed by official policy of the organization. This is how men who simply guarded the gates of concentration camps were hanged for the atrocities committed within the camps, even though the gate guards were "just following orders" and had no actual hand in gassing anyone.
Fast-forward to 1970. Section 18, United States Code, was amended to include the Racketeering-Influenced Criminal Organizations (aka "RICO") statutes provided for by Section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act. Much the same as the London Charter had codified what constitutes a "criminal organization", the RICO law allows for prosecution in the presence of certain predicate offenses. What might have been a max penalty of 10 or 20 years can now be prosecuted with the possibility of a life sentence if the offender is found to have been a member of this "criminal organization".
Does the Internal Revenue Service meet the definition of a "criminal organization", according to the RICO law? Well, for starters, it is an "organization" (obviously, right?). Second, it is involved in systematic robbery, kidnapping, and even murder as an official policy of that organization!
Okay, so that last statement is open for debate, but let's look at it this way...suppose you get up and go to work Monday through Friday, at a specific wage. You get your paycheck every Friday afternoon, and go cash it. Ten minutes later, some crackhead hops out from behind a minivan and demands 1/3 of your paycheck as you're trying to get into your car to leave, all the while threatening to kidnap you if you do not comply. In the state of Texas (and many others), you're allowed to tell this crackhead to get lost...and if he attempts to make good on his threat to kidnap you, you're allowed to put one in his forehead.
However, since it is a government agency performing the robbery, it isn't considered "robbery" at all. That doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the wages YOU worked for were taken from you, under the threat of being kidnapped (the government likes to call it "confinement in federal prison"...oh, the semantics!), and these people are likely to murder you in the event that you should assert your right to your own property and not allow them to take it under the threat of force.
So yes, I consider the IRS to be a "criminal organization", as it robs American citizens every day by demanding tribute. Make no mistake, the "income tax" DOES NOT have anything to do with maintaining our infrastructure. Plenty of other taxes handle that stuff. It doesn't go into road-building, social security, et cetera. It goes to pay for entitlement programs and government salaries.
I don't know about you, but I personally disagree with a "War on Drugs", the notion that a congressman should have a taxpayer-funded aide for his taxpayer-funded aide, the welfare state, and about 95% of everything else our federal government pisses away our hard-earned wages on. On a daily basis, new programs are added when our government finds new and inventive ways to waste our money.
On top of this, the income tax has become even more of a violation of the "equal protection" amendment, as it does not apply to everyone individually. Obviously, we have a progressive-scale income tax rate in this country, in the sense that we use a "bracket system" that taxes a person at a higher rate when that person has a higher personal income. In addition to this, we also tax different people in the same tax brackets differently, according to the taxpayer's personal lifestyle.
The amount of interest paid on a student loan by the taxpayer, the number of children living in the taxpayer's household, the decision made by the taxpayer to go into debt by purchasing a new home or automobile, et cetera has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the taxpayer's income...and yet, the amount of income tax he is required to pay is different from another taxpayer with a different lifestyle.
For instance, I paid several thousand dollars more in income taxes last year than a coworker, even though that coworker had a far greater personal income than I did in that same time period. Why? Because that coworker has several children, and had several other deductions he was able to claim. I personally chose to not have children, and as a result, my government feels that I am responsible for paying for the "fair share" of the children of others.
I am not sure what Mr. Stack's issues with the IRS were the result of, for three reasons. Mr. Stack is dead, and did not detail these issues in his several-page-long suicide note. Mr. Stack's wife has not yet spoken to the press about these issues. The IRS refuses to disclose such information to the press.
However, I will say this...Mr. Stack was, in my mind, obviously not a "crazy sociopath". 31 years of life experience has told me that you don't have a wife, two children, a nice home, college degrees, and a private airplane when you're batshit crazy to the point where you're unable to function in normal society. Mr. Stack, in addition to working in private industry, also apparently had many professional relationships with various government entities he did engineering work for.
Last night, a friend asked me what I thought about this, and I said that I didn't condone it...but that I understood it. Then he asked me, if things were so horribly bad with the IRS, why couldn't Mr. Stack have simply left the country and set up shop somewhere that didn't have the ridiculous taxation we face here. My response was that, in all reality, he should never have had to. Mr. Stack was an American citizen. Texas was his home. He probably felt that a life without the home he knew was not a life worth living...which is, likely, why he decided to take his life.
Again, I certainly do not condone the actions of Andrew Joseph Stack III...but I definitely understand them. Mr. Ken Hunter, the son of the man who was killed, states "My dad, in that building, he didn't write the tax laws. If he would have talked to my dad, my dad would have helped him.” Doubtful, Mr. Hunter. Doubtful. Your father may not have written tax laws, but he damned sure helped with their enforcement...which, by extension, makes your father an accessory to robbery, kidnapping, and murder.
Lest we forget, the IRS office Mr. Stack crashed into was not simply a place to drop off your 1040EZ forms. It housed the regional IRS Criminal Investigations Unit, which is the enforcement arm of the IRS. If the Internal Revenue Service is to be viewed as a "criminal enterprise", the office Mr. Stack flew his plane into could be said to house the IRS's "leg breakers". The Criminal Investigations Unit is the unit making sure that John Q. Taxpayer is forking over Big Brother's cut every time a paycheck gets cashed, "or else".
I'm not sure how high up Mr. Hunter was in this office, but he was in his late 60s and had been employed by the IRS for about 30 years...which leads me to believe that he wasn't exactly a secretary. If this is the case, he was undoubtedly involved in the prosecution of those who refused to be robbed by the government.
As such, Vernon Hunter was a robber. In Texas, you're allowed to kill people who attempt to rob you...provided they don't wear a government ID badge. Vernon Hunter's family will get no sympathy from me. Personally, I think this tax-collecting scumbag got his due.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should start chasing tax collectors with torches and pitchforks, nor should we just shoot them or crash airplanes into their offices. What I am saying is that every person who works for the IRS is working there voluntarily, and should fully expect animosity from those they steal from. Personally, I think I would rather spit on a tax collector, as opposed to shaking his hand...but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill him. If someone does shoot a tax collector, I won't shed any tears over it.
In order to maintain an honest living, a man has to work. In order to lawfully work in the United States of America, a man is forced to give a specific amount of his wages to the government, against his will. If you are willing to collaborate with robbers, thieves, kidnappers, and murderers (by seeking employment with the Internal Revenue Service), you are simply asking for whatever harm comes your way as a result of this activity.
No, I don't think this makes Andrew Joseph Stack III a "martyr", but I don't quite think it makes him a "murderer", either. He was just a man that had enough, and decided it was worth it to him, to end his life if Big Brother wasn't going to allow him to live free.
In the 1940s, our own government set out to write what would become the first internationally-binding criminal statutes. This set of Ex Post Facto laws, known as the "London Charter", are what was used to prosecute not only the Nazi leadership but also lower-level Nazi party members. The reasoning was, essentially, that the Nazi party's various agencies that were responsible for these "crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity", were actually "criminal organizations" in and of themselves...and the mere membership in these organizations was a criminal act. As such, every member of the organization was culpable for any act carried out by the organization if that act was committed by official policy of the organization. This is how men who simply guarded the gates of concentration camps were hanged for the atrocities committed within the camps, even though the gate guards were "just following orders" and had no actual hand in gassing anyone.
Fast-forward to 1970. Section 18, United States Code, was amended to include the Racketeering-Influenced Criminal Organizations (aka "RICO") statutes provided for by Section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act. Much the same as the London Charter had codified what constitutes a "criminal organization", the RICO law allows for prosecution in the presence of certain predicate offenses. What might have been a max penalty of 10 or 20 years can now be prosecuted with the possibility of a life sentence if the offender is found to have been a member of this "criminal organization".
Does the Internal Revenue Service meet the definition of a "criminal organization", according to the RICO law? Well, for starters, it is an "organization" (obviously, right?). Second, it is involved in systematic robbery, kidnapping, and even murder as an official policy of that organization!
Okay, so that last statement is open for debate, but let's look at it this way...suppose you get up and go to work Monday through Friday, at a specific wage. You get your paycheck every Friday afternoon, and go cash it. Ten minutes later, some crackhead hops out from behind a minivan and demands 1/3 of your paycheck as you're trying to get into your car to leave, all the while threatening to kidnap you if you do not comply. In the state of Texas (and many others), you're allowed to tell this crackhead to get lost...and if he attempts to make good on his threat to kidnap you, you're allowed to put one in his forehead.
However, since it is a government agency performing the robbery, it isn't considered "robbery" at all. That doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the wages YOU worked for were taken from you, under the threat of being kidnapped (the government likes to call it "confinement in federal prison"...oh, the semantics!), and these people are likely to murder you in the event that you should assert your right to your own property and not allow them to take it under the threat of force.
So yes, I consider the IRS to be a "criminal organization", as it robs American citizens every day by demanding tribute. Make no mistake, the "income tax" DOES NOT have anything to do with maintaining our infrastructure. Plenty of other taxes handle that stuff. It doesn't go into road-building, social security, et cetera. It goes to pay for entitlement programs and government salaries.
I don't know about you, but I personally disagree with a "War on Drugs", the notion that a congressman should have a taxpayer-funded aide for his taxpayer-funded aide, the welfare state, and about 95% of everything else our federal government pisses away our hard-earned wages on. On a daily basis, new programs are added when our government finds new and inventive ways to waste our money.
On top of this, the income tax has become even more of a violation of the "equal protection" amendment, as it does not apply to everyone individually. Obviously, we have a progressive-scale income tax rate in this country, in the sense that we use a "bracket system" that taxes a person at a higher rate when that person has a higher personal income. In addition to this, we also tax different people in the same tax brackets differently, according to the taxpayer's personal lifestyle.
The amount of interest paid on a student loan by the taxpayer, the number of children living in the taxpayer's household, the decision made by the taxpayer to go into debt by purchasing a new home or automobile, et cetera has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the taxpayer's income...and yet, the amount of income tax he is required to pay is different from another taxpayer with a different lifestyle.
For instance, I paid several thousand dollars more in income taxes last year than a coworker, even though that coworker had a far greater personal income than I did in that same time period. Why? Because that coworker has several children, and had several other deductions he was able to claim. I personally chose to not have children, and as a result, my government feels that I am responsible for paying for the "fair share" of the children of others.
I am not sure what Mr. Stack's issues with the IRS were the result of, for three reasons. Mr. Stack is dead, and did not detail these issues in his several-page-long suicide note. Mr. Stack's wife has not yet spoken to the press about these issues. The IRS refuses to disclose such information to the press.
However, I will say this...Mr. Stack was, in my mind, obviously not a "crazy sociopath". 31 years of life experience has told me that you don't have a wife, two children, a nice home, college degrees, and a private airplane when you're batshit crazy to the point where you're unable to function in normal society. Mr. Stack, in addition to working in private industry, also apparently had many professional relationships with various government entities he did engineering work for.
Last night, a friend asked me what I thought about this, and I said that I didn't condone it...but that I understood it. Then he asked me, if things were so horribly bad with the IRS, why couldn't Mr. Stack have simply left the country and set up shop somewhere that didn't have the ridiculous taxation we face here. My response was that, in all reality, he should never have had to. Mr. Stack was an American citizen. Texas was his home. He probably felt that a life without the home he knew was not a life worth living...which is, likely, why he decided to take his life.
Again, I certainly do not condone the actions of Andrew Joseph Stack III...but I definitely understand them. Mr. Ken Hunter, the son of the man who was killed, states "My dad, in that building, he didn't write the tax laws. If he would have talked to my dad, my dad would have helped him.” Doubtful, Mr. Hunter. Doubtful. Your father may not have written tax laws, but he damned sure helped with their enforcement...which, by extension, makes your father an accessory to robbery, kidnapping, and murder.
Lest we forget, the IRS office Mr. Stack crashed into was not simply a place to drop off your 1040EZ forms. It housed the regional IRS Criminal Investigations Unit, which is the enforcement arm of the IRS. If the Internal Revenue Service is to be viewed as a "criminal enterprise", the office Mr. Stack flew his plane into could be said to house the IRS's "leg breakers". The Criminal Investigations Unit is the unit making sure that John Q. Taxpayer is forking over Big Brother's cut every time a paycheck gets cashed, "or else".
I'm not sure how high up Mr. Hunter was in this office, but he was in his late 60s and had been employed by the IRS for about 30 years...which leads me to believe that he wasn't exactly a secretary. If this is the case, he was undoubtedly involved in the prosecution of those who refused to be robbed by the government.
As such, Vernon Hunter was a robber. In Texas, you're allowed to kill people who attempt to rob you...provided they don't wear a government ID badge. Vernon Hunter's family will get no sympathy from me. Personally, I think this tax-collecting scumbag got his due.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should start chasing tax collectors with torches and pitchforks, nor should we just shoot them or crash airplanes into their offices. What I am saying is that every person who works for the IRS is working there voluntarily, and should fully expect animosity from those they steal from. Personally, I think I would rather spit on a tax collector, as opposed to shaking his hand...but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill him. If someone does shoot a tax collector, I won't shed any tears over it.
In order to maintain an honest living, a man has to work. In order to lawfully work in the United States of America, a man is forced to give a specific amount of his wages to the government, against his will. If you are willing to collaborate with robbers, thieves, kidnappers, and murderers (by seeking employment with the Internal Revenue Service), you are simply asking for whatever harm comes your way as a result of this activity.
No, I don't think this makes Andrew Joseph Stack III a "martyr", but I don't quite think it makes him a "murderer", either. He was just a man that had enough, and decided it was worth it to him, to end his life if Big Brother wasn't going to allow him to live free.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Debra Medina, the TEA Party, and "mainstream" media
So for the past week I was in Florida enjoying a week's vacation at Walt Disney World. Somewhere in the middle of all of that, I got a phone call from my cousin about Texas gubernatorial hopeful Debra Medina's appearance on the Glenn Beck radio program.
I honestly don't like Glenn Beck. I thought he was somewhat of a scumbag before this, now I know for sure. He claims to be a "libertarian at heart", and a "conservative". He is nothing of the sort.
Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, namely ISSUES CONCERNING THE STATE SHE IS CAMPAIGNING IN, he brings up some issue about her supposedly being a "9/11 Truther". Interestingly enough, I could find no such references to 9/11 on her campaign website.
So, instead of sticking to the Texas-oriented issues at hand, Beck decides to go off about 9/11, writes her off as being some sort of kook, and then all but praises Hutchison and Perry. He even derides Medina for refusing to disavow members of her staff who might POSSIBLY be of the persuasion that our government was involved in 9/11.
First and foremost, let's point out that Ms. Medina NEVER ONCE stated that our government was in any way responsible for 9/11.
My take on the 9/11 thing? I don't believe that our government was directly responsible for it, in any manner of official capacity. I watched the second plane crash live, as it happened. I was as close to actually being there as a 22 year old man in Texas could possibly be.
However, it's simply and utterly retarded to think our government played no role in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever. First and foremost, it is universally accepted that "Al Qaeda" is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It is also universally accepted that Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujaheddin, which were financed heavily by our own CIA to combat the spread of Soviet communism in Afghanistan (I mean, Rambo III, anyone? The History Channel? Hello!).
Regardless of whether our government's role was direct or indirect, there are still several questions about the 9/11 attacks that remain unanswered to this day.
Why did several people report hearing explosions coming from below the building that morning?
How did we manage to find intact passports of the alleged (I say "alleged", because they are assumed to have died, and therefore not tried in a court of law) hijackers amongst the rubble, yet the jet fuel is supposed to have burned so hotly that it melted the steel support beams?
Why did at least four (that I'm aware of, there may be more) of the alleged hijackers later surface in foreign countries after they supposedly died in suicide attacks involving hijacked and crashed airplanes?
Why was the debris from flight 93 unlike that found at any other jetliner crash in the history of man?
Why was there never any security film footage of the Pentagon attacks?
The fact remains that we will likely never know the answers to these questions. However, to suggest that we (the general public) know everything about anything concerning 9/11 is the same as suggesting that the Warren Commission was right about Kennedy and Oswald really did shoot alone. It's just stupid. There's no fault on anyone, in my book, for not immediately denouncing someone for not buying in to the idea that our government isn't telling us everything.
To call Medina a "kook", because she accepts the fact that our government is notorious for lying to us, and for failing to involve herself in policing the thoughts and opinions of those who support her candidacy, is typical. If memory serves, the same smear tactics were used on Dr. Ron Paul when he didn't support mainstream Republican ideas of warmongering. Remember how Fox News, and Sean Hannity in particular, accused him of saying "America is responsible for 9/11"? Sounds quite a bit like what is happening here with Ms. Medina.
Now, moving right along to the TEA Party movement. Does anyone else remember the origins of the TEA Party? "TEA" supposedly stands for "Taxed Enough Already". I know, because I was a part of it during its infancy...before it became nothing more than the activism arm of the Republican party.
In the days since its inception, it has gone from being strictly about lower taxes, to the point where it now chooses statist scumbags like Sarah Palin and Tom Tancredo as its representatives.
Let's start with Sarah Palin. If I'm not mistaken, she has publicly endorsed Rick Perry for the governor's race. That, in and of itself, should be enough of a reason to shun her like the plague. On top of that, she decided to denounce Obama's $780bil bailout...but had no problem supporting Bush's $700bil bailout. Bailing out businesses with taxpayer funds is being friendly to taxpayers? Look at her voting record concerning crime, and tell me that isn't a massive waste of tax dollars. Now that it's illegal in her home state, she doesn't smoke marijuana anymore (even though it was always illegal under federal law for her to smoke it)...but wasn't afraid to spend your money on fighting marijuana as governor of Alaska, because marijuana "threatens families". Did I mention she also supports the never-ending wars this nation appears to be in, as opposed to saving money and protecting our way of life by ACTUALLY DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY?
Then there's Tom Tancredo...I honestly don't even know where to start with this guy. He's against the legalization of drugs, for unending foreign wars against bumpersticker slogans, and is against a separation of the church and state...which are, either directly or indirectly, the three leading wasteful expenditures of tax dollars.
The TEA Party has been hijacked by the mainstream GOP. With people like Tancredo and Palin leading the way, who can honestly take them seriously? They obviously don't want to lower our taxes, they would rather just steal from us and piss it away on their own ideas of what our society should be.
Of course, the mainstream media has latched on to this, and has associated people who initially supported the idea of lower taxation with racist scumbags like Tancredo (who advocated a return to Jim Crow at the TEA Party Convention, and got a standing ovation for it) and idiots like Sarah Palin (who advocates "abstinence-only" sex ed, even as her teenage daughter is getting knocked up by the unemployed boyfriend).
Sorry, but I can't align myself with hockey-moms and klansmen, just because they have co-opted a historical reference. Let 'em teabag each other, I'll continue to vote my conscience...
I honestly don't like Glenn Beck. I thought he was somewhat of a scumbag before this, now I know for sure. He claims to be a "libertarian at heart", and a "conservative". He is nothing of the sort.
Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, namely ISSUES CONCERNING THE STATE SHE IS CAMPAIGNING IN, he brings up some issue about her supposedly being a "9/11 Truther". Interestingly enough, I could find no such references to 9/11 on her campaign website.
So, instead of sticking to the Texas-oriented issues at hand, Beck decides to go off about 9/11, writes her off as being some sort of kook, and then all but praises Hutchison and Perry. He even derides Medina for refusing to disavow members of her staff who might POSSIBLY be of the persuasion that our government was involved in 9/11.
First and foremost, let's point out that Ms. Medina NEVER ONCE stated that our government was in any way responsible for 9/11.
My take on the 9/11 thing? I don't believe that our government was directly responsible for it, in any manner of official capacity. I watched the second plane crash live, as it happened. I was as close to actually being there as a 22 year old man in Texas could possibly be.
However, it's simply and utterly retarded to think our government played no role in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever. First and foremost, it is universally accepted that "Al Qaeda" is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It is also universally accepted that Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujaheddin, which were financed heavily by our own CIA to combat the spread of Soviet communism in Afghanistan (I mean, Rambo III, anyone? The History Channel? Hello!).
Regardless of whether our government's role was direct or indirect, there are still several questions about the 9/11 attacks that remain unanswered to this day.
Why did several people report hearing explosions coming from below the building that morning?
How did we manage to find intact passports of the alleged (I say "alleged", because they are assumed to have died, and therefore not tried in a court of law) hijackers amongst the rubble, yet the jet fuel is supposed to have burned so hotly that it melted the steel support beams?
Why did at least four (that I'm aware of, there may be more) of the alleged hijackers later surface in foreign countries after they supposedly died in suicide attacks involving hijacked and crashed airplanes?
Why was the debris from flight 93 unlike that found at any other jetliner crash in the history of man?
Why was there never any security film footage of the Pentagon attacks?
The fact remains that we will likely never know the answers to these questions. However, to suggest that we (the general public) know everything about anything concerning 9/11 is the same as suggesting that the Warren Commission was right about Kennedy and Oswald really did shoot alone. It's just stupid. There's no fault on anyone, in my book, for not immediately denouncing someone for not buying in to the idea that our government isn't telling us everything.
To call Medina a "kook", because she accepts the fact that our government is notorious for lying to us, and for failing to involve herself in policing the thoughts and opinions of those who support her candidacy, is typical. If memory serves, the same smear tactics were used on Dr. Ron Paul when he didn't support mainstream Republican ideas of warmongering. Remember how Fox News, and Sean Hannity in particular, accused him of saying "America is responsible for 9/11"? Sounds quite a bit like what is happening here with Ms. Medina.
Now, moving right along to the TEA Party movement. Does anyone else remember the origins of the TEA Party? "TEA" supposedly stands for "Taxed Enough Already". I know, because I was a part of it during its infancy...before it became nothing more than the activism arm of the Republican party.
In the days since its inception, it has gone from being strictly about lower taxes, to the point where it now chooses statist scumbags like Sarah Palin and Tom Tancredo as its representatives.
Let's start with Sarah Palin. If I'm not mistaken, she has publicly endorsed Rick Perry for the governor's race. That, in and of itself, should be enough of a reason to shun her like the plague. On top of that, she decided to denounce Obama's $780bil bailout...but had no problem supporting Bush's $700bil bailout. Bailing out businesses with taxpayer funds is being friendly to taxpayers? Look at her voting record concerning crime, and tell me that isn't a massive waste of tax dollars. Now that it's illegal in her home state, she doesn't smoke marijuana anymore (even though it was always illegal under federal law for her to smoke it)...but wasn't afraid to spend your money on fighting marijuana as governor of Alaska, because marijuana "threatens families". Did I mention she also supports the never-ending wars this nation appears to be in, as opposed to saving money and protecting our way of life by ACTUALLY DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY?
Then there's Tom Tancredo...I honestly don't even know where to start with this guy. He's against the legalization of drugs, for unending foreign wars against bumpersticker slogans, and is against a separation of the church and state...which are, either directly or indirectly, the three leading wasteful expenditures of tax dollars.
The TEA Party has been hijacked by the mainstream GOP. With people like Tancredo and Palin leading the way, who can honestly take them seriously? They obviously don't want to lower our taxes, they would rather just steal from us and piss it away on their own ideas of what our society should be.
Of course, the mainstream media has latched on to this, and has associated people who initially supported the idea of lower taxation with racist scumbags like Tancredo (who advocated a return to Jim Crow at the TEA Party Convention, and got a standing ovation for it) and idiots like Sarah Palin (who advocates "abstinence-only" sex ed, even as her teenage daughter is getting knocked up by the unemployed boyfriend).
Sorry, but I can't align myself with hockey-moms and klansmen, just because they have co-opted a historical reference. Let 'em teabag each other, I'll continue to vote my conscience...
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Is there proof of evolution in the Judeo-Christian Bible?
So a question was posed to me by my evolution-denier cousin, about what I thought of Noah’s Ark. In the simplest of terms, I told him it was biblical proof of evolution. Yes, I said that. Biblical proof of evolution. But, but, how can this be? I mean, in Genesis, it speaks of God creating every living creature according to its kind, does it not?
Now, it's my understanding that the word "kind" is used to describe a class of animal, not a species. Regardless of how this played out, that boat was going to be full...but there are only a few different ways this could have gone.
A) The word "kind" referred to a particular type of animal, and not a species...which means that there were only a limited number of animals on that ark. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of different species that exist today.
B) The word "kind" referred to a particular species, and there just weren't that many different species of animals at the time. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of species that exist today.
C) The word "kind" referred to a particular species of animal, and the same number of animal species existed at that particular time also exist today...which means that, essentially, evolution does not exist and Noah had a boat the size of California.
Remember, if the word "kind" referred to a particular species, and each "kind" of "clean animal" was to have seven pairs of male and female with each "kind" of "unclean animal" having two pairs, he would have been loading up a massive amount of animals. Even if "kind" merely referred to a class of animal, as opposed to an individual species, that's still a lot of 'em. The boat would be at least bigger than a city block, unless you were greatly simplifying things in regard to the "kinds" of animals you're bringing along with you.
If you think you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. I like to think that my God wants me to think, so I try to understand things the best way I know...
Why yes, it does. When I speak of “evolution”, I am not speaking of monkeys magically turning into men. I am speaking merely of one species having a common ancestor with other species. This concept is really not difficult to figure out, if you use a bit of logic with it.
Yes, it involves random mutation, which is also not one of those “myths of liberal science”. Genetic mutation is caused by any number of environmental factors, even occurring from things as simple as sunlight. It is not necessary to be dropped into a puddle of radioactive ooze in order for a genetic mutation to occur.
It also involves adaptation of an organism to its environment. For the record, I am completely aware of the fact that adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution.
Evolution occurs when the offspring of a particular species has changed to the point where it is no longer the same species of its ancestor, according to the determinant characteristics defining its ancestor. Obviously, this doesn’t happen overnight, it happens across several (perhaps even hundreds or thousands) of generations.
There are different species of dogs, cats, and even people. Yes, there are AT LEAST thirteen different species of "human", with five of them having been actually discovered in my lifetime.
The "theory of evolution" does not necessarily state that mankind evolved from primordial ooze, but merely that different species share common ancestors.
Now, moving on to the biblical aspects of this discussion, I know for a fact that things are "lost in translation". Ever seen the photos of the 40lb box of "RAPE"? Having taken several years of Latin instruction in high school, I've seen half a dozen people come up with different translations of the same text...and every one of them were "technically" correct. That's going across two languages. Context of the translated language, as well as knowledge of the original intent, are what makes a translation "truly" correct. In order to know the original intent of the originating language, you must be both fluent in it, as well as be able to have intimate knowledge of popular custom of the age it was written. Many languages have words that cannot even be properly translated at all, because the culture of the original language uses a particular idea that is simply non-existent in the culture of those who live where the translating language originated or is spoken fluently. The German word "schadenfreud" comes to mind here. Literally translated into English, it means "harm joy". Loosely translated into English, it expresses an idea of taking joy in the misfortune of another, but without truly ill intent. There is, however, no true and proper way to translate this simple word without an entire paragraph describing its cultural significance...and even then, you're lucky if you get close, as it is purely a German cultural idea. Keep in mind, this is not passing from an ancient language to a modern language, but between two modern languages existing simultaneously.
Modern biblical translations of Genesis have passed across the lines of AT LEAST three languages, with centuries and even a millennium or two in between. Ancient Hebrew culture did not exist at the time of the ancient Greek translation, nor did ancient Greek culture exist at the time of the modern English (or even the medieval Latin) translation.
Personally, I do believe that my Almighty God created this place called Earth, as well as all of the creatures on it. When the bible says that God created the animals, it does not specify HOW He did it. It merely says He did it. I consider it a gross violation of basic logic to even suggest that our One True God is capable of simply "poofing up" something as complex as an animal lifeform, but is too unintelligent to allow nature to run its course so all of those innumerable atoms He created to form the bonds necessary to create the complex strains of deoxy-ribonucleic acid that make up an animal. The bible DOES say that man was created by God, by basically scooping up some dirt and making a man. I'll get to that later.
Modern science has been able to isolate every single chemical in the human body. When you look at it from a biochemical point of view, the human body isn't really that complex. It's just a bunch of molecules. What makes mankind (or any living creature, for that matter) "special" is the fact that all of these molecules have combined to create a living organism that breathes, reproduces, and in many cases actually THINKS. That's "intelligent design", right there.
If God can create something like all of the chemical elements that make up our planet, does it not stand to reason that he is capable of designing them in a manner that they can be arranged to form a human being?
Now, the big problem most people have with this theory of creation is the timeline. Before, I mentioned that evolution occurs over multiple generations. I also mentioned the near impossibility of being able to translate accurately the ideas of one culture to that of another.
Here's something I haven't mentioned yet...the Old Testament story of creation was written more than a thousand years (at least) before Abraham first spoke to God. Remember about how the Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew? Hebrew is the language of the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham.
Is the Judeo-Christian bible the true word of God, inspired by Him? In my personal belief, yes. In this bible, it also says that we (mankind) will never truly understand God. While I believe the bible is the "true" word of God, I do not personally believe that it is the "literal" word of God. Perhaps I am wrong about this, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something. This is just my personal opinion.
However, just imagine the possibility of the first human transcribers of the bible receiving a vision from God. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone has received a vision from God. Thousands of years ago, mankind was still struggling with the invention of the wheel. Gravity wasn't even fully understood until Newton. Imagine the possibility of putting the awesomeness of creation into words, using the most appropriate language you knew to use. These people couldn't quite understand the concept of indoor plumbing, so it would be quite a stretch to say they would have been able to understand things such as molecular bonds and evolution of species.
The same science that tells us about the power of the atomic bomb and the mutation of the various strains of influenza virus also teach us about things like carbon dating and evolution. I don't know about you, but I firmly believe that both nuclear weapons and flu season really do exist. I don't think these things are "liberal pseudoscience", nor do I think this way about evolution or carbon dating.
To be of the impression that evolution is wrong, and that the earth is only six or seven thousand years old, requires something very simple...and very simple-minded, in my opinion. It requires a person to believe that your particular translation of the bible is an exact word-for-word transcription of the direct spoken word of God, that God would never use a metaphor in a description of His awesomeness, that God is unimaginative, and that God did not intend for mankind to think.
In my personal opinion, I feel that evolution is most definitely reconcilable with the notion of God creating mankind and every other creature on this planet...and I also feel that ancient man simply lacked the knowledge to appropriately describe exactly how awesome my God really is. If God had intended for every man in this world to have known exactly what was on HIS mind, he would probably just tell us Himself instead of going through a middleman. I think He's more than capable. Instead, I think he didn't want us to be lazy, either (an idea actually passed along by the bible!)...so He allowed us to get the basic gist of it, while being able to learn more through study, and in turn becoming closer to Him.
Now, back to actual proof of evolution from the bible...
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven a]">[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."Now, it's my understanding that the word "kind" is used to describe a class of animal, not a species. Regardless of how this played out, that boat was going to be full...but there are only a few different ways this could have gone.
A) The word "kind" referred to a particular type of animal, and not a species...which means that there were only a limited number of animals on that ark. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of different species that exist today.
B) The word "kind" referred to a particular species, and there just weren't that many different species of animals at the time. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of species that exist today.
C) The word "kind" referred to a particular species of animal, and the same number of animal species existed at that particular time also exist today...which means that, essentially, evolution does not exist and Noah had a boat the size of California.
Remember, if the word "kind" referred to a particular species, and each "kind" of "clean animal" was to have seven pairs of male and female with each "kind" of "unclean animal" having two pairs, he would have been loading up a massive amount of animals. Even if "kind" merely referred to a class of animal, as opposed to an individual species, that's still a lot of 'em. The boat would be at least bigger than a city block, unless you were greatly simplifying things in regard to the "kinds" of animals you're bringing along with you.
If you think you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. I like to think that my God wants me to think, so I try to understand things the best way I know...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Kiddie-fiddlin', a stolen grenade launcher, and a scumbag named Rhodes!
Okay, so seriously...what's the one thing that 99.44% of every American citizen detests, regardless of race, religion, political affiliations, et cetera? Yep, you guessed it...it's the sexual abuse of a child.
Maybe this is why the BATFE used the "child molester" excuse for annihilating the Branch Davidian property in Waco, TX. I was a youngster then, but I still remember it. It was a big played-up media circus about how Vernon Howell, AKA "David Koresh", was sexually abusing children. Of course, after the Branch Davidians were slaughtered, everything about "child abuse" was quickly forgotten about...unless someone made the point about how the BATFE violated so many federal statutes and murdered all of those people.
It's been almost 17 years since the last day of February in 1993. In those years, I've read up a lot of things about what happened to Waco. About two years ago, I saw the FLIR footage of the final massacre. I have also seen the close-up photos of the infamous metal doors, which showed no outgoing bullet holes...the same doors that mysteriously disappeared when the defense counsel of survivors being tried for murder (and were actually acquitted).
Much the same, you can look at my first ever blog posting and see how a particular county in Texas used the same old "child molestation" excuse to run through the Fundamentalist church of Latter-Day Saints, even going so far as to break out an armored personnel carrier affectionately known as "Bubba" supplied free of charge by the Pentagon's L.E.S.O. program. Apparently, the local Sheriff's Department was hoping for a Waco-style shoot-out with the FLDS, but couldn't quite pull it off because the people weren't looking for a fight.
Instead, the FLDS had over four hundred children KIDNAPPED by the Child Protective Services of Texas. Ironically, several of these "children" were actually past the age of legal majority and were, in fact, ADULTS.
This fiasco resulted in no new charges to the FLDS, cost the taxpayers of Texas several millions of dollars, and resulted in families being ripped apart solely for the sake of being able to say "your religious practices are weird!". Oh yeah, the entire thing originated from a BOGUS CLAIM OF "CHILD MOLESTATION" BY A WOMAN WHO WAS NOT A CHILD...AND WAS NOT EVEN IN TEXAS WHEN THE "ANONYMOUS TIP" WAS CALLED IN FROM COLORADO.
But I digress...
Let's talk about someone else now. His name is Charles Dyer. Charles Alan Dyer, a former sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, is better known by the rest of the world as "July4Patriot". You can see his youtube.com channel here. Be forewarned, his words just might be inspiring.
The story is, on the 18th of this month, county deputies went to his home to serve a search warrant for DNA after allegations were made that he repeatedly sodomized a seven year old girl. Sgt. Dyer was not home when deputies arrived, but a "roommate" supposedly granted permission to search the home. During the course of this search, authorities allegedly found an M203 40mm grenade launcher laying out openly in one room of the home. Deputies supposedly decided that this find warranted notification of the BATFE. According to official reports, the M203 grenade launcher is one of three that were reported stolen by the US Army.
Mr. Dyer is currently incarcerated on state charges of child molestation, as well as federal weapons-related charges due to the untaxed (notice I didn't say "unlawful", because you can own a grenade launcher if you pay the appropriate tax!) grenade launcher.
There are so many holes in this story that I don't even know where to begin...
First of all, there is the fact that the allegation of sodomizing a seven year old girl. From everything I've heard, this allegation originated with the out-of-state wife he has been separated from for quite some time. On top of that, there is the whole "child molestation" issue in general, which seems to be used by authorities when they are looking to crucify someone who cannot be touched by legal means.
Then, let's look at the search of Sgt. Dyer's home. According to police reports, Dyer's home was originally approached by deputies holding a warrant for a DNA sample. This, in and of itself, is ludicrous for the simple reason that A) since the Patriot Act, federal, state, and local authorities are not only authorized, but ENCOURAGED to collaborate in criminal investigations, and B) Sgt. Dyer is a fairly recent veteran of the USMC...which means Uncle Sam has his DNA on file. Regardless of these two facts, the warrant covered only the DNA of Mr. Charles Dyer...and DID NOT permit a search of his home, unless the authorities serving the warrant had probable cause to believe that Mr. Dyer was hiding from them in the house somewhere. Since there is absolutely NOTHING that would reasonably provide such probable cause, there was no valid cause to search the home...aside from his roommate supposedly "consenting" to a search of the home.
The immediate "RED FLAG" that instantly popped into my head, upon reading this, was the fact that Mr. Dyer was surrounded by "like-minded people"...and there's not a single one of these people who would have thought twice about telling a cop to go get f*cked if he came poking around. I don't buy, for a second, that Dyer would have been around anyone that would have told the cops "yeah, go ahead!".
And then, there was the notion that deputies just happened to have found an M203 grenade launcher laying around out openly. Seriously, what kind of stupidity are they trying to claim Mr. Dyer suffers from?
A) An M203 grenade launcher is COMPLETELY USELESS without 40mm grenades.
B) 40mm grenades are NOT available to anyone but military personnel, and such ordinance is highly regulated.
C) A man familiar with the M203 would also be undoubtedly aware of the criminal nature of the untaxed/unregistered M203, and would not leave such a thing lying around in his home unattended...especially not a person so concerned with the actions of the very same government that supposedly found said grenade launcher lying around in his home.
Then, I remembered a particular person I met a few weeks ago at the local gun range. Myself and my cousin were on the range, firing our evil "assault" rifles. I was firing my AR15, and he had his AK47. Both are lawfully-owned SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles.
While on the range, a very peculiar young man approached us. Myself and my cousin both thought he was a bit odd, as we overheard him talking about how he was going to load his Taurus Judge with BIRDSHOT for the purposes of "home defense". Cousin and myself enjoyed a slight chuckle about it, and went on about our shooting.
He asked me about my rifle, and I told him it was an AR15. Was nothing unusual at that point, as I get those kind of questions all the time when I'm on the range. The average layman can instantly pick an M16 out of a line-up due to movies and militaria, and the standard AR15 looks no different. My particular AR15 happens to be a bit different, as it has been outfitted with a larger barrel, bipod, abnormally large scope, and has had the front end wrapped in camo burlap for deer season...so I get a few questions when I bring it out.
Things got a bit weird when this man started talking about random issues with the AR15 (did I mention that both myself and my cousin are "gun nuts", and have forgotten more about them than we should probably know?) to other people, while me and cuz just looked at each other in the standard "huh?" formation. He proceeded to approach both of us at our bench, and start talking about the various ways we could modify our rifles to make them full-auto.
Naturally, I trust people I don't know about as far as I can throw 'em, and this guy was quite a bit bigger than me. Things got really weird when he handed me a business card from the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (A.K.A. "MARSOC"), telling me about how they "lose things all the time", and if I was ever looking to modify my rifle to full auto, to give him a call.
At this point, I'm thinking, "Seriously, what the fuck just happened?". Seriously. He is supposedly a US Marine, and approached a complete stranger at a shooting range with a proposition to supply contraband machine gun parts. Red flags went up right, left, and center.
I am not a US Marine (see you later, SSgt. Jackson!), but I've seen enough R. Lee Ermy movies to know that a US Marine knows his rifle inside and out...as well as knowing what it is used for. While my setup was capable of accepting 100rd drum magazines and could easily facilitate "rapid fire", anyone who knows anything about rifles PERIOD knows that it was set up to facilitate single-shot accuracy. Making a heavy-barreled rifle sitting on a bipod and equipped with a 24x scope into a full-auto rifle is greatly defeating its purpose. Even I got that much out of my Knowledge...
Furthermore, you would think a Marine working for MARSOC would know a decent bit about the masterpiece of Eugene Stoner...enough to know how easy it is for a garage hobbyist to make his rifle full-auto using a hacksaw blade, if he were inclined to do so...and anyone that has spent the amount of time and money as I have apparently spent on mine would probably know these things. Then again, if you had any f*cking clue what you were talking about, you would have recognized my rifle from the get-go as an AR15. Good to go?
So no, I don't buy the charges at all. "Child molestation" accusations have been a long-time favorite of our government, as a way to undermine the real issues at hand. It happened in Waco, it happened at the FLDS ranch, and it's happening everywhere Big Brother wants to turn a person's supporters against him...because our government knows that, deep down, every single one of us would castrate anyone that has been found to have hurt one of our children.
The "stolen grenade launcher" story? Again, not buying it. Even if (and this is a VERY BIG "IF") he actually had possession of a grenade launcher that could not be used for lack of ammunition, someone in Mr. Dyer's situation doesn't seem like the type to leave a ten-year sentence sitting around in his living room. Fer f*ck's sake, I'm not even breaking any laws and I'm more paranoid than that! On top of that, I seriously doubt he would be living amongst people who would willingly allow the police to "take a look around". Again, I'm not even a law-breaker...and I am hesitant to let them look in my car when they pull me over!
So the charges are, at least as they appear to me, completely bunk...which leads us to the next topic. The "Oath Keepers". An organization founded by a Mr. Stewart Rhodes (I pray to God that I am not related to this scumbag!), widely considered to be a front-runner in the emerging "patriot movement". Oath Keepers is an organization of Law Enforcement and Military personnel who are dedicated to keeping the original oath they swore, which is to uphold the constitution of the United States of America.
Oath Keepers had invited Dyer to be a guest speaker at some of their events, and had allegedly even considered Charles Dyer to be their liaison to the US Marine Corps...and with good reason. Judging by his words, Dyer had what it took. Judging by those who knew him, he stood by those words.
However, the moment news broke about Dyer being arrested on the charges of molestation and a stolen grenade launcher, Stewart Rhodes disavowed Dyer in an instant. Mr. Rhodes went so far as to claim Dyer was never an "official" member of their organization, and did everything he could to distance himself and the Oath Keepers from Dyer.
This story couldn't be more of a "made for TV movie" if it had an actual screenplay written by someone on the payroll of the Lifetime channel, but Dyer's supporters are split down the middle over the incident. Half of them are afraid to support the man who inspired them so much, while the other half are willing to support him to their dying breath. Those who believe in the republican system of law and "innocent until proven guilty" proudly show themselves for who they are, and are waiting to see the evidence.
The question remains, "but did he actually do it?". That's something I can't answer, as I don't know all the facts yet. However, judging based solely upon what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to say "I'll believe it when you can prove it!"...mainly, because I've seen what actions our government has taken in the past, and it's readily apparent that lying and destroying a person's life are not things they have a problem with doing.
Just my two cents, you can take it however you want...
Maybe this is why the BATFE used the "child molester" excuse for annihilating the Branch Davidian property in Waco, TX. I was a youngster then, but I still remember it. It was a big played-up media circus about how Vernon Howell, AKA "David Koresh", was sexually abusing children. Of course, after the Branch Davidians were slaughtered, everything about "child abuse" was quickly forgotten about...unless someone made the point about how the BATFE violated so many federal statutes and murdered all of those people.
It's been almost 17 years since the last day of February in 1993. In those years, I've read up a lot of things about what happened to Waco. About two years ago, I saw the FLIR footage of the final massacre. I have also seen the close-up photos of the infamous metal doors, which showed no outgoing bullet holes...the same doors that mysteriously disappeared when the defense counsel of survivors being tried for murder (and were actually acquitted).
Much the same, you can look at my first ever blog posting and see how a particular county in Texas used the same old "child molestation" excuse to run through the Fundamentalist church of Latter-Day Saints, even going so far as to break out an armored personnel carrier affectionately known as "Bubba" supplied free of charge by the Pentagon's L.E.S.O. program. Apparently, the local Sheriff's Department was hoping for a Waco-style shoot-out with the FLDS, but couldn't quite pull it off because the people weren't looking for a fight.
Instead, the FLDS had over four hundred children KIDNAPPED by the Child Protective Services of Texas. Ironically, several of these "children" were actually past the age of legal majority and were, in fact, ADULTS.
This fiasco resulted in no new charges to the FLDS, cost the taxpayers of Texas several millions of dollars, and resulted in families being ripped apart solely for the sake of being able to say "your religious practices are weird!". Oh yeah, the entire thing originated from a BOGUS CLAIM OF "CHILD MOLESTATION" BY A WOMAN WHO WAS NOT A CHILD...AND WAS NOT EVEN IN TEXAS WHEN THE "ANONYMOUS TIP" WAS CALLED IN FROM COLORADO.
But I digress...
Let's talk about someone else now. His name is Charles Dyer. Charles Alan Dyer, a former sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, is better known by the rest of the world as "July4Patriot". You can see his youtube.com channel here. Be forewarned, his words just might be inspiring.
The story is, on the 18th of this month, county deputies went to his home to serve a search warrant for DNA after allegations were made that he repeatedly sodomized a seven year old girl. Sgt. Dyer was not home when deputies arrived, but a "roommate" supposedly granted permission to search the home. During the course of this search, authorities allegedly found an M203 40mm grenade launcher laying out openly in one room of the home. Deputies supposedly decided that this find warranted notification of the BATFE. According to official reports, the M203 grenade launcher is one of three that were reported stolen by the US Army.
Mr. Dyer is currently incarcerated on state charges of child molestation, as well as federal weapons-related charges due to the untaxed (notice I didn't say "unlawful", because you can own a grenade launcher if you pay the appropriate tax!) grenade launcher.
There are so many holes in this story that I don't even know where to begin...
First of all, there is the fact that the allegation of sodomizing a seven year old girl. From everything I've heard, this allegation originated with the out-of-state wife he has been separated from for quite some time. On top of that, there is the whole "child molestation" issue in general, which seems to be used by authorities when they are looking to crucify someone who cannot be touched by legal means.
Then, let's look at the search of Sgt. Dyer's home. According to police reports, Dyer's home was originally approached by deputies holding a warrant for a DNA sample. This, in and of itself, is ludicrous for the simple reason that A) since the Patriot Act, federal, state, and local authorities are not only authorized, but ENCOURAGED to collaborate in criminal investigations, and B) Sgt. Dyer is a fairly recent veteran of the USMC...which means Uncle Sam has his DNA on file. Regardless of these two facts, the warrant covered only the DNA of Mr. Charles Dyer...and DID NOT permit a search of his home, unless the authorities serving the warrant had probable cause to believe that Mr. Dyer was hiding from them in the house somewhere. Since there is absolutely NOTHING that would reasonably provide such probable cause, there was no valid cause to search the home...aside from his roommate supposedly "consenting" to a search of the home.
The immediate "RED FLAG" that instantly popped into my head, upon reading this, was the fact that Mr. Dyer was surrounded by "like-minded people"...and there's not a single one of these people who would have thought twice about telling a cop to go get f*cked if he came poking around. I don't buy, for a second, that Dyer would have been around anyone that would have told the cops "yeah, go ahead!".
And then, there was the notion that deputies just happened to have found an M203 grenade launcher laying around out openly. Seriously, what kind of stupidity are they trying to claim Mr. Dyer suffers from?
A) An M203 grenade launcher is COMPLETELY USELESS without 40mm grenades.
B) 40mm grenades are NOT available to anyone but military personnel, and such ordinance is highly regulated.
C) A man familiar with the M203 would also be undoubtedly aware of the criminal nature of the untaxed/unregistered M203, and would not leave such a thing lying around in his home unattended...especially not a person so concerned with the actions of the very same government that supposedly found said grenade launcher lying around in his home.
Then, I remembered a particular person I met a few weeks ago at the local gun range. Myself and my cousin were on the range, firing our evil "assault" rifles. I was firing my AR15, and he had his AK47. Both are lawfully-owned SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles.
While on the range, a very peculiar young man approached us. Myself and my cousin both thought he was a bit odd, as we overheard him talking about how he was going to load his Taurus Judge with BIRDSHOT for the purposes of "home defense". Cousin and myself enjoyed a slight chuckle about it, and went on about our shooting.
He asked me about my rifle, and I told him it was an AR15. Was nothing unusual at that point, as I get those kind of questions all the time when I'm on the range. The average layman can instantly pick an M16 out of a line-up due to movies and militaria, and the standard AR15 looks no different. My particular AR15 happens to be a bit different, as it has been outfitted with a larger barrel, bipod, abnormally large scope, and has had the front end wrapped in camo burlap for deer season...so I get a few questions when I bring it out.
Things got a bit weird when this man started talking about random issues with the AR15 (did I mention that both myself and my cousin are "gun nuts", and have forgotten more about them than we should probably know?) to other people, while me and cuz just looked at each other in the standard "huh?" formation. He proceeded to approach both of us at our bench, and start talking about the various ways we could modify our rifles to make them full-auto.
Naturally, I trust people I don't know about as far as I can throw 'em, and this guy was quite a bit bigger than me. Things got really weird when he handed me a business card from the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (A.K.A. "MARSOC"), telling me about how they "lose things all the time", and if I was ever looking to modify my rifle to full auto, to give him a call.
At this point, I'm thinking, "Seriously, what the fuck just happened?". Seriously. He is supposedly a US Marine, and approached a complete stranger at a shooting range with a proposition to supply contraband machine gun parts. Red flags went up right, left, and center.
I am not a US Marine (see you later, SSgt. Jackson!), but I've seen enough R. Lee Ermy movies to know that a US Marine knows his rifle inside and out...as well as knowing what it is used for. While my setup was capable of accepting 100rd drum magazines and could easily facilitate "rapid fire", anyone who knows anything about rifles PERIOD knows that it was set up to facilitate single-shot accuracy. Making a heavy-barreled rifle sitting on a bipod and equipped with a 24x scope into a full-auto rifle is greatly defeating its purpose. Even I got that much out of my Knowledge...
Furthermore, you would think a Marine working for MARSOC would know a decent bit about the masterpiece of Eugene Stoner...enough to know how easy it is for a garage hobbyist to make his rifle full-auto using a hacksaw blade, if he were inclined to do so...and anyone that has spent the amount of time and money as I have apparently spent on mine would probably know these things. Then again, if you had any f*cking clue what you were talking about, you would have recognized my rifle from the get-go as an AR15. Good to go?
So no, I don't buy the charges at all. "Child molestation" accusations have been a long-time favorite of our government, as a way to undermine the real issues at hand. It happened in Waco, it happened at the FLDS ranch, and it's happening everywhere Big Brother wants to turn a person's supporters against him...because our government knows that, deep down, every single one of us would castrate anyone that has been found to have hurt one of our children.
The "stolen grenade launcher" story? Again, not buying it. Even if (and this is a VERY BIG "IF") he actually had possession of a grenade launcher that could not be used for lack of ammunition, someone in Mr. Dyer's situation doesn't seem like the type to leave a ten-year sentence sitting around in his living room. Fer f*ck's sake, I'm not even breaking any laws and I'm more paranoid than that! On top of that, I seriously doubt he would be living amongst people who would willingly allow the police to "take a look around". Again, I'm not even a law-breaker...and I am hesitant to let them look in my car when they pull me over!
So the charges are, at least as they appear to me, completely bunk...which leads us to the next topic. The "Oath Keepers". An organization founded by a Mr. Stewart Rhodes (I pray to God that I am not related to this scumbag!), widely considered to be a front-runner in the emerging "patriot movement". Oath Keepers is an organization of Law Enforcement and Military personnel who are dedicated to keeping the original oath they swore, which is to uphold the constitution of the United States of America.
Oath Keepers had invited Dyer to be a guest speaker at some of their events, and had allegedly even considered Charles Dyer to be their liaison to the US Marine Corps...and with good reason. Judging by his words, Dyer had what it took. Judging by those who knew him, he stood by those words.
However, the moment news broke about Dyer being arrested on the charges of molestation and a stolen grenade launcher, Stewart Rhodes disavowed Dyer in an instant. Mr. Rhodes went so far as to claim Dyer was never an "official" member of their organization, and did everything he could to distance himself and the Oath Keepers from Dyer.
This story couldn't be more of a "made for TV movie" if it had an actual screenplay written by someone on the payroll of the Lifetime channel, but Dyer's supporters are split down the middle over the incident. Half of them are afraid to support the man who inspired them so much, while the other half are willing to support him to their dying breath. Those who believe in the republican system of law and "innocent until proven guilty" proudly show themselves for who they are, and are waiting to see the evidence.
The question remains, "but did he actually do it?". That's something I can't answer, as I don't know all the facts yet. However, judging based solely upon what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to say "I'll believe it when you can prove it!"...mainly, because I've seen what actions our government has taken in the past, and it's readily apparent that lying and destroying a person's life are not things they have a problem with doing.
Just my two cents, you can take it however you want...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Ahhh, the wonder world of gun control!
This morning, I was doing two of the things I really enjoy doing in my spare time. I was putting together a new rifle, while reading LewRockwell.com. Ironically, there was an article on that website about how our new president is considered by most to be "gun salesman of the decade".
It would seem that our beloved president is heavily supported by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which in and of itself was more than enough reason for me to have not voted for him...as if I actually needed another reason. You see, I am a firearm owner, and I actually detest the idea of violence. With this in mind, know that I do own several firearms that were designed with no purpose whatsoever than to kill another human being.
Contradictory statements? Hardly. Firearms were originally designed with the express and primary purpose of taking a human life. Why would a non-violent person ever want to own such a thing? Well, aside from the "sporting purposes" they have since been adapted to, they are also for the purposes of armed defense of ones' life, liberty, and property. Remember this, boys and girls: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!
Seeing as how the rifle I am in the process of putting together at the moment happens to be one of those evil "semi-automatic military-style assault weapons", I thought I would go over some of the so-called facts on the Brady Campaign's page dealing with this exact situation. And, of course, correct these myths with, well, you know...actual facts. Please keep in mind, I have placed words such as "military-style" and "assault weapon" in quotations, as these are terms utilized by the Brady Campaign and have absolutely no bearing in reality.
1) A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
It takes less than a second or two for a practiced individual to drop an empty magazine from your typical rifle, have another in its place, and have the bolt released to load a new round. High-capacity magazines do not increase the number of rounds fired, they merely reduce the number of magazines a person needs.
The claim that "many assault weapons come equipped with 50 round magazines" is, of course, nothing more than a blatant lie. I am considered, even amongst my redneck friends, to be somewhat of a "gun nut". I own two of these "military-type" rifles, and am in the process of building a third. I have NEVER seen a new-in-box rifle sold with a magazine capable of carrying more than 30 rounds. Most ACTUAL military rifles (you know, the ones actually used in combat) don't even come equipped with magazines larger than that.
2) A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A folding stock does absolutely NOTHING to diminish the accuracy of a rifle. I know this must really warp the minds of those at the Brady Campaign, but here's how it works...you UNFOLD it before you shoot it.
3) A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
What is "spray-fire"? Seems like yet another made-up word, like "assault pistol". The purpose of a pistol grip on a rifle has absolutely nothing to do with being able to control a weapon, and everything to do with the design of the rifle itself. The ergonomic characteristics of a "traditional"-style (read: NOT pistol grip) stock actually provide for better control when firing from the hip, due simply to the angle of the wrist...but we wouldn't want human biology to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?
4) A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
Have these people ever actually seen even a hunting rifle? You need a "barrel shroud" for neither stabilization, burn prevention, nor to prevent overheating. The standard fore-end of a wooden stock on your average ordinary bolt-action rifle will handle the first two, which is why they were designed with them in the first place. A "barrel shroud" actually acts contradictory to the third reason, as it provides more of a barrier to open air, thus preventing the rifle from cooling as rapidly as possible...but we wouldn't science to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?
5) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
Wow. Did these people get a list of facts, and then intentionally write the exact opposite of the truth? First off, the flash suppressor (or "flash hider", as it is more commonly called), is not used to "increase concealment" for night shooting. It simply won't do this. It is nothing more than a vented extension to the barrel, which redirects muzzle flash in specific concentrated directions, as opposed to throwing a ball of fire directly out the end of the barrel. The purpose of the flash hider is not concealment, but rather, to prevent flash blindness of the shooter by dispersing muzzle flash.
The "sporting purposes" of this are quite clear. The two most commonly-hunted game animals in Texas are whitetail deer and wild hog. Both are commonly hunted in low-light conditions. Hogs frequently roam at night, whereas deer commonly feed at dawn and dusk. If you are blinded by muzzle flash, are you not less likely to make a follow-up shot if you miss your first shot?
Now, moving right along...the idea of "stability during rapid fire" being a byproduct of a flash hider. Again, blatantly false outright lie. A flash hider is NOT the same as a "recoil compensator" (or "muzzle brake", as they are commonly known). While they are similar, and many compensators also perform the task of working as a flash hider, the purpose of a recoil compensator is to direct muzzle blast outward instead of forward. Unlike a traditional flash hider, a muzzle brake typically has a smaller outlet on the front end, usually only slightly larger than the barrel bore. This forcefully directs muzzle blast outward, after expansion inside the compensator causes the blast to push forward on the "cap" of the brake.
Ironically, during the years of 1994-2004 under the "Assault Weapons Ban", muzzle brakes were allowed by law, whereas flash hiders were not. BATFE approval was necessary, to ensure that it acted primarily as a brake instead of a compensator, and it was also necessary to either blind-pin or weld the brake on to prevent swapping it out for a flash hider. Again, the "sporting purposes" of the muzzle brake should be obvious. If you can prevent your barrel from kicking upward after firing, it is easier to take a follow-up shot. This, of course, is why the manufacturers of hunting rifles (yes, even bolt-action rifles) put muzzle brakes on their weapons.
6) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
Pardon me, but when did the Bloods and the Crips start taking lessons from James Bond? They don't sell silencers at Wal-Mart. They aren't exactly common on the black market, either. Seriously...when was the last time you saw someone being prosecuted for a firearm-related violent crime involving the use of a sound suppressor? Oh, you haven't ever heard of such a thing? Yeah, me either.
That's probably because it requires a special license to make one, and you also have to fill out extensive paperwork and pay hundreds of dollars in special taxes and filing fees to buy one. Each one is registered by the government. It is literally just as easy to purchase a full-auto machine gun in a lawful manner, as it is to purchase a sound suppressor...in other words, it's a certifiable pain in the butt to get one, which is why gangbangers don't ever use them.
7) A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
Again, when was the last time you heard of someone actually bayoneting someone to death in America? To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't happened since the 1800s...in that thing we like to call "The War of Northern Aggression". Okay, so it's properly called "The American Civil War" in our textbooks, but I think you get the idea. Essentially, it just doesn't happen.
So what did banning a bayonet lug mount do to the "assault rifle" industry? Not much, except cause them to retool for recasting of front sight bases for AR15 rifles. You see, the Colt AR15 rifle and its clones were adapted from a military rifle (designated as the M16 by the US military). No, the "AR" is not an abbreviation for "assault rifle", nor is the "15" anything having to do with "military-lite"...it was a design by Eugene Stoner, employed by the Armalite ("AR" being "Armalite Rifle"), and the "15" was merely a model number preceded by the AR7 (.22LR) and the AR10 (.308). Anyhow, the combination front sight and gas block had an integral bayonet lug cast into it, as it always had for the decades predating the assault weapons ban. When bayonet lugs were outlawed by the AWB, it caused A) excess inventory of such-equipped front sight bases to be rendered useless without modification, except as replacement parts for "pre-ban" rifles, and B) increase in costs associated with the manufacture of of new front sight bases. It did absolutely nothing to lower the virtually non-existent "bayonet homicide" rate in America.
8) Semi-automatic "military-style" rifles have no purpose as "sporting weapons".
Actually, this is taken from a quote from Jim Zumbo of Outdoor Life Magazine, it was merely posted on the Brady Campaign website to somehow "prove" that the modern rifle is useless for hunting.
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, EVERY firearm currently used for hunting today was either ACTUALLY used as a military weapon, or based on a design of a military weapon used at some point. This tradition dates back all the way to the bow and arrow.
I have killed only one deer in my entire life, and it was done with a semi-automatic civilian version of the M16 rifle currently in use by the United States military. The animal was killed efficiently and ethically, with only one round having been fired that day from my rifle.
9) The assault weapons ban expired in September 2004 when Congress and President George W. Bush took no action to save it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons are once again flooding our streets, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.
Interesting. They are the "weapons of choice" for the criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms to begin with? Hmmm...something just doesn't seem right about this. Oh, I know what doesn't seem right about that statement. It's contradictory to REALITY.
The Brady Campaign likes to point out that the number of "assault weapons" traced to gun crimes dropped by 66% during the AWB. Interestingly enough, even during the year they used as the "high number" when the AWB was not in effect, "assault weapons" accounted for LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT of all "gun crimes".
While the above statistic is true, and also included in the "assault weapons" page on the Brady Campaign website, there are a few other facts they left out. Aside from the fact that these "assault weapons" consisted of less than five percent of "gun crimes", there is A) many of these "assault weapons" were actually nothing more than semi-auto pistols that held more than ten rounds, and B) "gun crimes" consisted not only of crimes of violence involving firearms but also thefts of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
10) Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor.
"Assault weapons" are, in reality, no different than any other firearm in terms of being able to penetrate body armor.
Body armor is rated by the National Institute of Justice. Most policemen wear a Level IIIA vest, which is rated only to stop HANDGUN rounds. Handguns included in the AWB are NOT able to penetrate this armor, as their only characteristics putting them on the list are semi-automatic firing and a standard (read: higher than ten rounds) magazine capacity.
Just about every rifle larger than a .22LR rimfire rifle (which is the smallest commonly-available round on the commercial market) will penetrate a Level IIIA vest, because these vests are not designed to stop a rifle round...which means that an "assault rifle" will penetrate it. So will your grandpa's old bolt-action hunting rifle.
A LevelIII vest, which is designed to stop rifle fire, WILL stop rounds from an "assault rifle"...but won't stop many of the heavier hunting rifle rounds available on the commercial market. In reality, "assault" cosmetics (bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, et cetera) make a rifle no more or less dangerous than any ordinary bolt-action rifle, especially when it comes to penetrating body armor.
It would seem that our beloved president is heavily supported by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which in and of itself was more than enough reason for me to have not voted for him...as if I actually needed another reason. You see, I am a firearm owner, and I actually detest the idea of violence. With this in mind, know that I do own several firearms that were designed with no purpose whatsoever than to kill another human being.
Contradictory statements? Hardly. Firearms were originally designed with the express and primary purpose of taking a human life. Why would a non-violent person ever want to own such a thing? Well, aside from the "sporting purposes" they have since been adapted to, they are also for the purposes of armed defense of ones' life, liberty, and property. Remember this, boys and girls: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!
Seeing as how the rifle I am in the process of putting together at the moment happens to be one of those evil "semi-automatic military-style assault weapons", I thought I would go over some of the so-called facts on the Brady Campaign's page dealing with this exact situation. And, of course, correct these myths with, well, you know...actual facts. Please keep in mind, I have placed words such as "military-style" and "assault weapon" in quotations, as these are terms utilized by the Brady Campaign and have absolutely no bearing in reality.
1) A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
It takes less than a second or two for a practiced individual to drop an empty magazine from your typical rifle, have another in its place, and have the bolt released to load a new round. High-capacity magazines do not increase the number of rounds fired, they merely reduce the number of magazines a person needs.
The claim that "many assault weapons come equipped with 50 round magazines" is, of course, nothing more than a blatant lie. I am considered, even amongst my redneck friends, to be somewhat of a "gun nut". I own two of these "military-type" rifles, and am in the process of building a third. I have NEVER seen a new-in-box rifle sold with a magazine capable of carrying more than 30 rounds. Most ACTUAL military rifles (you know, the ones actually used in combat) don't even come equipped with magazines larger than that.
2) A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A folding stock does absolutely NOTHING to diminish the accuracy of a rifle. I know this must really warp the minds of those at the Brady Campaign, but here's how it works...you UNFOLD it before you shoot it.
3) A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
What is "spray-fire"? Seems like yet another made-up word, like "assault pistol". The purpose of a pistol grip on a rifle has absolutely nothing to do with being able to control a weapon, and everything to do with the design of the rifle itself. The ergonomic characteristics of a "traditional"-style (read: NOT pistol grip) stock actually provide for better control when firing from the hip, due simply to the angle of the wrist...but we wouldn't want human biology to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?
4) A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
Have these people ever actually seen even a hunting rifle? You need a "barrel shroud" for neither stabilization, burn prevention, nor to prevent overheating. The standard fore-end of a wooden stock on your average ordinary bolt-action rifle will handle the first two, which is why they were designed with them in the first place. A "barrel shroud" actually acts contradictory to the third reason, as it provides more of a barrier to open air, thus preventing the rifle from cooling as rapidly as possible...but we wouldn't science to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?
5) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
Wow. Did these people get a list of facts, and then intentionally write the exact opposite of the truth? First off, the flash suppressor (or "flash hider", as it is more commonly called), is not used to "increase concealment" for night shooting. It simply won't do this. It is nothing more than a vented extension to the barrel, which redirects muzzle flash in specific concentrated directions, as opposed to throwing a ball of fire directly out the end of the barrel. The purpose of the flash hider is not concealment, but rather, to prevent flash blindness of the shooter by dispersing muzzle flash.
The "sporting purposes" of this are quite clear. The two most commonly-hunted game animals in Texas are whitetail deer and wild hog. Both are commonly hunted in low-light conditions. Hogs frequently roam at night, whereas deer commonly feed at dawn and dusk. If you are blinded by muzzle flash, are you not less likely to make a follow-up shot if you miss your first shot?
Now, moving right along...the idea of "stability during rapid fire" being a byproduct of a flash hider. Again, blatantly false outright lie. A flash hider is NOT the same as a "recoil compensator" (or "muzzle brake", as they are commonly known). While they are similar, and many compensators also perform the task of working as a flash hider, the purpose of a recoil compensator is to direct muzzle blast outward instead of forward. Unlike a traditional flash hider, a muzzle brake typically has a smaller outlet on the front end, usually only slightly larger than the barrel bore. This forcefully directs muzzle blast outward, after expansion inside the compensator causes the blast to push forward on the "cap" of the brake.
Ironically, during the years of 1994-2004 under the "Assault Weapons Ban", muzzle brakes were allowed by law, whereas flash hiders were not. BATFE approval was necessary, to ensure that it acted primarily as a brake instead of a compensator, and it was also necessary to either blind-pin or weld the brake on to prevent swapping it out for a flash hider. Again, the "sporting purposes" of the muzzle brake should be obvious. If you can prevent your barrel from kicking upward after firing, it is easier to take a follow-up shot. This, of course, is why the manufacturers of hunting rifles (yes, even bolt-action rifles) put muzzle brakes on their weapons.
6) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
Pardon me, but when did the Bloods and the Crips start taking lessons from James Bond? They don't sell silencers at Wal-Mart. They aren't exactly common on the black market, either. Seriously...when was the last time you saw someone being prosecuted for a firearm-related violent crime involving the use of a sound suppressor? Oh, you haven't ever heard of such a thing? Yeah, me either.
That's probably because it requires a special license to make one, and you also have to fill out extensive paperwork and pay hundreds of dollars in special taxes and filing fees to buy one. Each one is registered by the government. It is literally just as easy to purchase a full-auto machine gun in a lawful manner, as it is to purchase a sound suppressor...in other words, it's a certifiable pain in the butt to get one, which is why gangbangers don't ever use them.
7) A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
Again, when was the last time you heard of someone actually bayoneting someone to death in America? To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't happened since the 1800s...in that thing we like to call "The War of Northern Aggression". Okay, so it's properly called "The American Civil War" in our textbooks, but I think you get the idea. Essentially, it just doesn't happen.
So what did banning a bayonet lug mount do to the "assault rifle" industry? Not much, except cause them to retool for recasting of front sight bases for AR15 rifles. You see, the Colt AR15 rifle and its clones were adapted from a military rifle (designated as the M16 by the US military). No, the "AR" is not an abbreviation for "assault rifle", nor is the "15" anything having to do with "military-lite"...it was a design by Eugene Stoner, employed by the Armalite ("AR" being "Armalite Rifle"), and the "15" was merely a model number preceded by the AR7 (.22LR) and the AR10 (.308). Anyhow, the combination front sight and gas block had an integral bayonet lug cast into it, as it always had for the decades predating the assault weapons ban. When bayonet lugs were outlawed by the AWB, it caused A) excess inventory of such-equipped front sight bases to be rendered useless without modification, except as replacement parts for "pre-ban" rifles, and B) increase in costs associated with the manufacture of of new front sight bases. It did absolutely nothing to lower the virtually non-existent "bayonet homicide" rate in America.
8) Semi-automatic "military-style" rifles have no purpose as "sporting weapons".
Actually, this is taken from a quote from Jim Zumbo of Outdoor Life Magazine, it was merely posted on the Brady Campaign website to somehow "prove" that the modern rifle is useless for hunting.
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, EVERY firearm currently used for hunting today was either ACTUALLY used as a military weapon, or based on a design of a military weapon used at some point. This tradition dates back all the way to the bow and arrow.
I have killed only one deer in my entire life, and it was done with a semi-automatic civilian version of the M16 rifle currently in use by the United States military. The animal was killed efficiently and ethically, with only one round having been fired that day from my rifle.
9) The assault weapons ban expired in September 2004 when Congress and President George W. Bush took no action to save it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons are once again flooding our streets, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.
Interesting. They are the "weapons of choice" for the criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms to begin with? Hmmm...something just doesn't seem right about this. Oh, I know what doesn't seem right about that statement. It's contradictory to REALITY.
The Brady Campaign likes to point out that the number of "assault weapons" traced to gun crimes dropped by 66% during the AWB. Interestingly enough, even during the year they used as the "high number" when the AWB was not in effect, "assault weapons" accounted for LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT of all "gun crimes".
While the above statistic is true, and also included in the "assault weapons" page on the Brady Campaign website, there are a few other facts they left out. Aside from the fact that these "assault weapons" consisted of less than five percent of "gun crimes", there is A) many of these "assault weapons" were actually nothing more than semi-auto pistols that held more than ten rounds, and B) "gun crimes" consisted not only of crimes of violence involving firearms but also thefts of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
10) Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor.
"Assault weapons" are, in reality, no different than any other firearm in terms of being able to penetrate body armor.
Body armor is rated by the National Institute of Justice. Most policemen wear a Level IIIA vest, which is rated only to stop HANDGUN rounds. Handguns included in the AWB are NOT able to penetrate this armor, as their only characteristics putting them on the list are semi-automatic firing and a standard (read: higher than ten rounds) magazine capacity.
Just about every rifle larger than a .22LR rimfire rifle (which is the smallest commonly-available round on the commercial market) will penetrate a Level IIIA vest, because these vests are not designed to stop a rifle round...which means that an "assault rifle" will penetrate it. So will your grandpa's old bolt-action hunting rifle.
A LevelIII vest, which is designed to stop rifle fire, WILL stop rounds from an "assault rifle"...but won't stop many of the heavier hunting rifle rounds available on the commercial market. In reality, "assault" cosmetics (bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, et cetera) make a rifle no more or less dangerous than any ordinary bolt-action rifle, especially when it comes to penetrating body armor.
*********************************
So, what have we learned here today? The Brady Campaign is so full of that their eyes are turning brown. I really enjoy my "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" are not used extensively by gangbangers. An AR15 can both kill a deer AND accept a 100rd drum magazine...and it will still fire only one round every time you squeeze the trigger, unless you break the law or pay the tax necessary to have it do otherwise. We don't have a problem with "drive-by bayoneting" in this country, or anywhere else in the world. President Obama hates guns. Did I leave anything out?
So, what have we learned here today? The Brady Campaign is so full of that their eyes are turning brown. I really enjoy my "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" are not used extensively by gangbangers. An AR15 can both kill a deer AND accept a 100rd drum magazine...and it will still fire only one round every time you squeeze the trigger, unless you break the law or pay the tax necessary to have it do otherwise. We don't have a problem with "drive-by bayoneting" in this country, or anywhere else in the world. President Obama hates guns. Did I leave anything out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
