Monday, March 4, 2013

Response to "My Life as a Tyrant"

Response to My Life as a Tyrant.

Update: He hasn't posted my comment.

Having served in a metropolitan police force a decade ago and having served as private security in Iraq in 2004; I hear you.  I hear you on the abuses in Kosovo (the tyranny) and on how citizens need to protect themselves.  My thought is that personal firearms are for personal defense; "protecting yourself or another from grave bodily injury or death."

Like you, I have little or no problem with legal carry and ownership, especially if the person carrying is qualified (most are not) to handle those firearms for self defense. Sadly, most are not qualified, most are not trained in bring their firearms to bear in a combat situation.  I'll touch on this later.

Now, what I write next may seem to disagree with you. It may be arguing for the banning of the possession of some weapons. In essence I'm not.  I just has some concerns about the ramifications of saying the 2nd amendment protects us from the tyranny of ourselves (our government).  As for protecting ourselves from the tyranny of our government? I don't know how that is possible or practical in any real sense.

Why?  That would mean weapons of war in the hands of civilians.  We are talking about AR variants in their many forms which, with the exception of one function (select fire), are basically functionally the same as the weapons you and I carried overseas.  You carried weapons of war. I carried weapons of war.  I'll say it again.  Many of the AR variants sold today by the manufacturers and dealers are functionally the same as what you and I carried.  The only thing missing is select fire.

Even with that function missing, you and I both know just how effective an AR variant is, even in single-shot mode.

Should the general population have access to weapons of war?  I really don't know.  I don't have an easy answer for that.  We could try to ban them, as we have attempted to do in the past.  It didn't work very well.  It especially won't work very well when the technology exists *today* to use 3D modeling software and a 3D printer to "print" an AR lower receiver and large cap magazines.  The latest version of that lower receiver shot over 600 rounds before failure. It cost almost nothing to produce.  *Anyone* with the software, the plans file and a printer could have made one.

Add all the accessory components available over the internet and from local dealers and -- Bingo!  Instant weapon of war.

There are more weapons in currently in the hands of civilians in this country than we have in the hands of trained military.  It's not practical, nor even possible, to collect them all. I don't think it will ever be.  Would you participate in the door to door search and ollection of said firearms?  When, not if, but when the inevitable confrontation breaks out, would you return effective and deadly fire?  That is the situation every front line solider and police officer would face.  The government knows this.

Can the government convince our front line soldiers and police to try to take them away? Can they convince our front line soldiers and police to get into firefights with civilians by deeming them domestic terrorists?  It's possible they can.  Such confrontations always depend on the willingness of the front line enforcers to carry out the orders of their superiors.

Even in your situation, you could not stop Joe.  No one would listen to you.

So we have an uneasy state of balance in this country. There are really more firearms out there already than we can every hope to take away.  They are in the hands of a populace that, to a significant degree, will not turn them in. There is even another significant part of the populace that, dare I say, is actually hoping someone will try.  Those are the deterrent to any real attempt to remove firearms from the populace.

But we also have a problem.  Those same AR variants are falling into the hands of people who are "good guys" on paper. Those good guys are turning out to be not so good.  They are mowing down innocent theater goers, children in schools, with those same weapons of war. Other "nice quiet men" (yes, they are mostly men), are using handguns to clean out coffee shops in Seattle to avenge supposed wrongs.

Now, the pat response to this from some "gun rights" advocates is to have more firearms out there, to arm more people, to arm our teachers, our firefighters, our first responders.  Really?

There has to be another answer to gun violence in this country than "more guns".  There has to be an answer to the Gun Culture in this country, the fear they continue to feed, the violence they continue to dismiss with rhetorical hand waving, and the hand they have in the same violence.  When I say Gun Culture, I'm taking about the people who don't see weapons as a tool but as a hobby, a fetish, a multi-million dollar line of business, and a security blanket.

That same Gun Culture fights, at every front, at any reasonable (yes some are quite reasonable) attempts to regulate the ownership, sale and transfer of weapons.  They see *any* regulation as infringement. I am of the opinion that they are wrong and, the thing is, it helps the mentally unstable, the criminal, the "bad guys" get access to what are basically weapons of war.

This United States of America has a real problem with gun violence.  That problem is fed through a deadly combination of fear mongering, afraid people, opportunistic politicians and capitalists, and entertainment where violence and firearms are the stars, not the actors.

I believe that we have a legal right to have the ability to effectively protect ourselves and others from the imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death.  I believe that firearms are effective and reasonable tools to that end.

I also believe that the firearm ownership in this country is an effective deterrent to outright government tyranny.

But I also believe we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country that cannot be solved with more guns and less regulations.

So, what are we going to do about it?

By the way, thanks for trying to stand up for what was right in Kosovo.  I ran into similar situations when I was in Iraq, and when I was a LEO.  It's sometimes hard to balance your career/safety/paycheck against your desire to do the right thing.  That balancing act isn't always easy.  Thanks for trying.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Weapons of War

There is no sane reason to own weapons of war for sporting purposes.  The AR variants sold to the public *are* weapons of war for all intents and purposes with just one function removed.  The Assault Weapons Ban does not describe cosmetic characteristics but actual functionality. They describe weapons that are directly pattered, if not exactly the same, in all respects but one (select fire), of actual weapons of war issued to our troops and used in theaters of war.

Calling an AR variant a "sport rifle" is like calling a F1 race car with street tires a family car.  It's still a weapon of war, just like the street-tire-shod F1 race car is *still* a race car.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Get a better argument because this one is stupid.

Are you amused by this diversion from the actual discussion of a real problem?

This would be somewhat funny, sortof, were it not for the children they just finished burying in Newtown.

Show me the article where someone killed that may people in a "hammering spree" so easily and it might have a point.

The sheer stupidity of an argument like this is so old and useless for any real work it should be sitting on a porch, rocking in a chair, and telling kids to get off it's lawn.

Yes, people can die from the effects of cars, clubs, bombs, or strangling.

However, nothing, I mean nothing (and I know) beats the efficiency of a firearm. That is why they are used in wars -- to kill the enemy. Of all the classes of firearms, nothing, I mean nothing (or it would be used instead) beats some version/variant of the military assault (yes that is a real term) rifle.

You can have a car, a club, a knife or your strong manly hands all you want.

You wouldn't stand a chance against a reasonable skilled person who was pointing an AR variant at you. 

Like this one...

Posted Image

It can have a high capacity magazine in it, capable of carrying up to 30 rounds.

If I stagger tape a few together, I have an uninterrupted rate of fire until I go through just a little over 100 rounds. That means I can pull one round a second at a target for almost two minutes, before I have to drop this mag and slot another (call that five seconds).

It has an effective (lethal and useful) open-sights range of about 500 yards. Within 100 yards it's very deadly.

Put a 4 power mil-dot scope on one and the person wielding it is even more effective and at longer ranges too.

So make all the comparisons of the lethal nature of cars, clubs, knives, or even 747 aircraft all you want. That doesn't make those comparisons credible.

Almost nothing beats the effectiveness of one of these weapons for killing other human beings.

That's why the military uses them. That's why I carried one in Iraq.

Go find another argument to defend your fears of losing your military toys.

Your current one is stupid.