Happy Pi Day!

by Tim Faircloth on Mar 14, 2009, 10:24 am

That’s right, it’s 3/14. I only wish I had thought about it at 1:59 am.

...On Federal Watch Lists

by Tim Faircloth on Mar 12, 2009, 11:47 am

Just wanted to say howdy to all the federal agents that just put me on that Federal Terrorist Watch list we all keep hearing about. I know I had several key words in that last post. Just for poops and grins, let’s list a few more key words:

Violence
Doom
Quake
Weapon
Grenade
Gun
Assault
Knife
Bomb
Explosive
Tannerite
Biological
Nuclear
Nucular (haw haw!)
Revolution
Al Qaeda
Hezbollah
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
Korea

…that’s all I can think of without thinking too hard about it. Anyone got anything else?

(0 comments)

...On Gun Control

by Tim Faircloth on Mar 12, 2009, 11:33 am

As many of you may know, I’m a big believer in the right to bear arms, as stated in the constitution. I’d like to step outside my usual realm of conversation and talk a little about that.

First, let me talk to you a little bit about the fight to ban “assault weapons”.

According to the article, one definition of assault weapons is “military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently”.

Let’s take a look at one or two of these firearms.

The Springfield M1903 was first developed for military snipers and saw a lot of action in WWII. It’s a high-power, highly accurate, single-shot rifle with a five-round clip that is usually paired with a scope for long-range shots. It’s heavy enough to absorb recoil energy, but light enough to carry from point to point so you can get the best vantage. I would consider this firearm to be an assault weapon — it’s a military-bred firearm developed specifically for killing human beings quickly and effectively.

Strangely enough, when hunting large game (like deer) or shooting competitively at targets, the same qualities are desirable.

The M1 Carbine was developed for military infantry and saw a lot of action in WWII and Korea. It’s a lightweight, moderately accurate (infantry usually prefer not to use a scope, which adds bulk to the gun), semi-automatic rifle with a 15 to 30 round clip. It doesn’t pack the same punch as a Springfield or the M1 Garand, but it holds more ammunition in the clip and is significantly lighter and smaller for easy carrying. I would consider this firearm to be an assault weapon — it’s a military-bred firearm developed specifically for killing human beings quickly and effectively.

Strangely enough, when hunting small game (like pigs), the same qualities are desirable.

There are several other war weapons that are already highly regulated because they are fully automatic, such as the Sten gun and the Thompson sub-machine gun. One can get a hard-to-obtain permit for some of these weapons, but it turns out they’re only good for show. I’ve actually fired a .45 caliber sten gun before; at 10 paces I unloaded a 30-round clip at a target and only hit it 5 or 6 times. It made a hell of a lot of noise, though.

The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of military weapons, though they serve as a good basis, are actually improved slightly to fit civilian needs. Hunters often use soft-point or hollow-point rounds (the military only uses full metal jacket), and competitive shooters buy higher quality scopes, improved stocks, specially designed weights, and better ammunition to make their rifles more accurate.

It turns out that humans are easier to kill than most game, and easier to hit than most targets. Sounds to me like these folks are barking up the wrong tree by defining assault weapons as “human killers”.

I’ve also come to find out that the military has done a lot of development for modern non-lethal weapons. Pepper spray? Tazers? Sandbag rounds for shotguns? All developed initially for the military.

Now that I’ve said that, I’d like to switch gears a bit. What did our founding fathers have to say about guns? Here’s a quote from the Bill of Rights, an important part of the Constitution of the United States:

Amendment II: Right to Bear Arms and Militia

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ignoring grammatical mistakes, I interpret this amendment to say “since a militia is important to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be hindered”.

It’s important that militia is mentioned, not military. It means that ordinary citizens are meant to keep guns around for the explicit purpose of forming a militia in times of crisis.

Wait, what? We’re supposed to be ready to form a militia? Why is that? Doesn’t the U.S. have a military to protect us from any threats?

Yes, we do, but you have to remember the context in which the Constitution was written. At the time it was penned, the early citizens had just won their independence from a tyrannical government in England — the very same government that was meant to protect them.

Let’s take a closer look at one statement in that amendment:

…necessary to the security of a free State…

Free State. It looks like the founding fathers left us a little breathing room so we can rebel against our own government if we need to.

This amendment was put in place so the government would fear and respect ordinary law-abiding citizens; to balance the amazing power they have to make laws that restrict us. Now they are trying to take that balance away.

The whole reason we’re allowed to bear arms is so we may stage a revolution; we may need to kill people, in which case we will need “military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently”.

I’m not saying all this to justify any murderous rampage or incite revolution. I just want you all to understand what I understand. I want more people like me to own guns, learn how to use them, and know the power and responsibility they have.

(0 comments)