Assault On Weapon

First off what is an assault weapon? Let’s break it down Barney style, Webster’s says: a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact. Now weapon: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy. Pretty straight forward I’d say, so the true essence of the word is anything threatening that could cause bodily harm. Well that could be my truck when I run some idiot off the road. It could also be my entire body that I have learned to utilize through MCMAP. It could also be the spoon that I use to disembowel you with. Or maybe Janet Reno’s teeth that she uses to eat small children. (She prefers before they’re weaned she says it’s like veal.)What about the internet? How some forty year sitting in front of his computer in his tighty whiteys, poising as some teenage girl to lure boys in to meeting up. How about the whole hacking thing that allows a total stranger to look at those embarrassing photos of you trying to fit into B cup when you thought no one was watching, but you should know better, man boobs that big are at least a D.
The internet is just as threatening as a firearm. But the real reason that they make such a big deal about firearms is because they know that we won’t stand for tyranny, we wouldn’t let it happen before, and I know I would do everything in my power to prevent it from happening now. The whole purpose for the second amendment was so that the people always had a way of defeating tyranny. That was how we beat the British, by the average citizen rising to arms against a common enemy. The whole militia part was because they realized the importance of the people knowing how to use a firearm.
There was a time when the government realized that having the people know how to use a firearm was in no way a bad thing. The Civilian Marksmanship Program was started because they noticed that the people who already knew how to use a firearm were that much easier to train. A good example would be in some long forgotten text in your attic, be careful when you blow the dust off you don’t want to aggravate your allergies. During the Civil War the southern troops were well known for their accurate rifle fire. Why? Because they already knew how to use a firearm, and if they didn’t they didn’t eat, while the Union troops couldn’t hit a barn while standing inside it because they were prim and proper city slickers. If you turn a hand full of pages you will come to the chapter on WWI. In this chapter you will find the story of a long forgotten national hero, named Alvin York. Who single handedly captured thirty two machine gun nests, killed twenty eight Germans, and captured one hundred and thirty two more. By himself! For this courageous act he received the Congressional Medal of Honor. The reason he was so effective was that he knew how to shoot. In a later interview he said that on the numerous attempts that they charged him he would shoot the man in the back of line and continue working his way forward. Just like when he was shooting ducks, because if you shot the one in the front the ones behind would see and then fly away. So at this point some of you, (especially from the west coast) are wondering what this has to do with civilians and guns. Well for starters he was the local deadeye, he would travel all over when shooting competitions, and on occasion they would call him up, he would lick his thumb and rub it on the muzzle then bring his rifle to shoulder and blow Sputnik out of the sky! Yes Rio Linda California that is called sarcasm, but those ducks he shot out of the air back home was done with a .22. For those that are from the west coast this means that only one projectile leaves the barrel meaning that he had to be very good to hit something the size of a duck while flying. Carlos Hathcock is probably the best known sniper to ever live, and he learned how to shoot as a little kid. So the proof is in the pudding as they say.
The CMP was funded by the government as a way to allow people to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship and gun safety making for a better military and less accidents with firearms. Today the CMP still exists, but does not receive a dime from the government, because guns are evil. Oooh I think I soiled myself from all this talk on guns.
They say it’s for our own safety, for the safety of children. Oh really, than why don’t they allow the National Rifle Association’s Eddie the Eagle program into schools nationwide? Here is an excerpt from the NRA’s website: Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.
Teaching children like this does not force a pro gun agenda on them, does not teach them how to use a gun, but how to be safe around a gun. That is how you prevent accidents, through education. They say the streets will be safer once they get all the guns off the streets. Oh really? Firearm registration is rather new and there are millions of guns that are legally not registered that I would like to see be taken off the streets. The fact is you aren’t going to get firearms off the streets ever, and by taking them away from law abiding citizens, you are robbing them of the ability to defend themselves from the criminal that still has a gun. If you look at countries that have banned firearms such as South Africa, the medieval weapons manufacturers are bringing in big bucks, because that is the only way they can defend themselves now. Personally I would rather be shot and die quickly than be hacked apart by a claymore, but that’s just me. So safety; that just doesn’t fly. Remember Hitler, Stalin all those guys, guess what they did? They used legislation to ban firearms and take them from the people. Hitler did that very early on, and after that began to really take control of Germany. I don’t want that happening here, but that is the dark truth behind this madness.
I apologize for going off, but it couldn’t be helped. When I read the words assault weapon in Betsy’s post today I went psycho for a second then regained my composure and let go of a random passerby’s throat, and straitened by his collar for him, then sat down and started this. But using the term assault weapon gives a negative connotation to something that shouldn’t have one. A firearm is not to be feared, but respected. I don’t see what is so shocking about someone having a gun in public or at any time, I probably would’ve suggested something with a little more oomph than a .223 but whatever. If anything more people should carry guns, remember Virginia Tech? If one person had a gun, there would be one dead or wounded instead of having numerous families grieving the loss of their children. Now comes the cold, hard, reality, what’s worth more, one dead psycho crazy guy, or two other lives?
Now as I let that sink in I’ll leave with this important message, from my cold dead hands.

Armed Protesters at Obama Speech

About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style [AR-15] rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday -- the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters . . . didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the [AR-15] . . . told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

In spite of the fact that I completely support the Second Amendment and firmly believe that Americans should exercise their rights (or otherwise lose them), the fact that people are bringing guns (loaded or otherwise) to a presidential event is slightly disconcerting. Considering the pre-existing tensions and disputes over the current administration, throwing guns into the mix would not, in my opinion, calm the situation.
On the other hand, props to those gun-toters for fearlessly exercising their rights. I also highly suggest reading the article in its entirety.

In Other News

Freedom of Speech? Not in College!

According to FOX News, "last October John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a 'relevant issue in the media,' and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns." To make a long story short, Wahlberg (23 years old) was called to the police station that evening, and the cops asked him about his registered guns. Since Wahlberg lives off-campus (a whole twenty miles off campus, to be exact) and keeps his guns locked away like any normal and responsible gun owner, no one pursues further action. "According to The Recorder, Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police" (FNC). "'It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well-being of our students, and the campus community at all times. As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials" (FNC).
Also, "in 2007 . . . a student at Hamline University in Minnesota was suspended after writing a letter to an administrator arguing that carrying concealed weapons on campus may help prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. The student was allowed to return only after undergoing a psychological evaluation" (FNC). And last year at Colorado College, "campus administrators denounced a flyer as 'threatening and demeaning content' because it mentioned guns . . . the students who produces the flyer were found guilty of violating the school's violence policy, which was added to their school records" (FNC).
"Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police." Prof. Anderson called the police because a student mentioned concealed carry, thus endangering her? If a German or a Palestinian mentions the Holocaust (well, maybe not the Palestinian) and a Jew happens to be in the classroom, is the aryan or Palestinian going to be taken to the station and investigated? If I create a flyer in an attempt to bring awareness to the Mumbai bombings, am I going to get a slap on a wrist and a black mark on my record because of the word "bomb?"
The college I currently attend is not located in a reputable city, and late-night trips to Wawa will most likely result in a mugging. There have been a few instances of sexual assault and quite a few muggings -- college does not equal immunity. One evening, a friend and I were walking back to our dorms after a late-night study session, and, while walking through an isolated tunnel all alone, were approached by two men who were supposedly looking for their puppy. We decided not to help them find their puppy.
I carry pepper spray at all times (it's attached to my lanyard, and frequently dangles out of my coat pocket because I have so many other keychains and paraphernalia that there's no room left for my pepper spray or my hands), and have a back-up in my dorm.
Speaking of dorms, sometimes the sensor (which only acknowledges IDs of students living in a particular dorm) malfunctions, and on days when students return from breaks, the doors are not locked at all. There's also an unspoken rule that people hold the entrance doors open for others. I will admit that we are entirely too trusting. Most students do not lock their doors at night, and I'm guilty of shouting, "Come in!" whenever someone knocks on my peephole-less door.
Also, parts of the campus are not well-lit at night, especially the crucial call boxes or "blue light system" (though this is to updated in the future). The buildings, aside from dorms, do not require IDs to gain entrance, and with the overnight program (which enables a student to host a prospective student and take him or her to classes the following day), people can randomly appear in classrooms.
Therefore, it is the student's right and obligation to be proactive in regards to safety. In lieu of concealed carry, pepper spray, mace or tasers can be easily obtained; however, a police officer I spoke with told me he doesn't recommend that people carry pepper spray or mace. Some colleges and universities may offer self-defense or RAD (Rape Aggression Defense) classes. Gyms may also offer classes, and martial arts schools definitely do. However, if you are ever confronted by an armed aggressor, I suppose you'll probably be shot before you can reach your mace, and I don't think even a ninth degree black belt can stop a bullet. In which case one of your thoughts might be, "Gee, I wish I'd been packing heat."
If you'd rather not have to consider that thought, check out Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
But, I believe the main point of the article is that "'colleges and universities are dedicated to the free flow of ideas'" (FNC). This clearly was not the case in regards to Wahlberg, and indeed it is not the case in other colleges, as well.

If anyone has information on "tea parties," (the political sort, not the high tea variety) please let me know via comment or e-mail at licentialoquendi@live.com.

HR 45

Both OpenCongress and Govtrack.us include information on HR 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009), which, in case you didn't feel like reading the entire bill, means that . . .

Applicants for a firearm license (no more than $25) need:
(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;
(2) name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;
(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;
(4) a clear thumb print;
(5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;
(6) certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination;
(8) authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;
(9) date; and
(10) signature.

Sale/Transfer of firearms will require that a record is issued to the Attorney General "or, in the case of a licensed dealer located in a State that has a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of this Act, to the head of the State agency that administers that system." The record will include:
(1) the manufacturer of the firearm;
(2) the model name or number of the firearm;
(3) the serial number of the firearm;
(4) the date on which the firearm was received by the transferee;
(5) the number of a valid firearm license issued to the transferee under title I of this Act; and
(6) the name and address of the individual who transferred the firearm to the transferee.

There is a universal background check requirement, which makes it "unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person other than such a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with subsection." HOWEVER, the aforementioned "shall not apply to the infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other."

If a child under the age of 18 gains access to firearms, the owner will be fined, imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Failure to meet the licensing requirements, sale or transfer requirements for qualifying firearms, or failure to maintain or permit inspection of records will result in fines and/or imprisonment up to two years.

I don't even remember how old I was when I first shot a gun. But I'm pretty sure it was a .22 and I hit the target (of course, it was probably only about 25 yards away, if that). And I remember taking Hunter/Trapper Safety Ed. with my neighbor (I only missed one question). I got my hunting license as soon as I could (I still have yet to hit anything other than trees), and hunting with Dad and Papa has given me lots of amazing memories. I would hate for my children to be denied those memories because of this bill.

By the way! This pertains to handguns and firearms with clips, but excludes antiques.

Guns for Roses

SC cops seize 75 guns in first 90 minutes of "Guns for Roses" program

If my significant other ever gave me a rose and a gift card that he'd gotten in exchange for one of his firearms, I'm pretty sure I'd leave him.

Surge in Gun Sales

According to an article on FoxNews.com, Obama is driving a surge in gun sales. While I admit that I am a bit worried about gun rights and the loss thereof, part of me wonders if gun owners and organizations are exacerbating the issue. According to the article, "in June [Obama] said he agreed with the Supreme Court when it overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban" and he also "stated during the final leg of the campaign that he believes in the Second Amendment, and 'I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away.'" Then again, he -- like any other politician -- made promises, which he recently admitted to being unable to keep (though at the very least, he admitted it and he did so early). Perhaps Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt. Shortly prior to the election, Conservatives claimed that the huge mess regarding the economy was the doing of the Liberals, in order to shift attention to Obama and his economic plan, as opposed to the war. Perhaps now Conservatives are using the same tactic to raise suspicion of Obama.

Or maybe a little suspicion is healthy and perhaps a history lesson, as well.

Reloading & Qassams

Yesterday, the Standard-Journal published an article regarding a bill "currently in state legislature" which "would require all bullets and cartridge cases to be marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database, therefore, reloading would be outlawed."

QassamCount enables Facebook users to donate their status to raise awareness about the number of rockets that have hit Israel. Updates are provided on either a live or daily basis, depending on the user's preference.

B.H.: We're just like Germany, 1935.
D.G.: No, you mean 1931.
B.H.: The National Firearms Act wasn't passed until 1935.
D.G.: You're right, but--
D.J.: Anyone for '34? '33?

B.M.: I thought we had a motley crew over here. And then I looked over at your table.