Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Why Can't I Have a Missile Launcher?

An excellent question has arisen over the recent gun control debate. If semi-automatic rifles are protected under the second amendment, why aren't missile launchers? Why aren't grenades? Why aren't tanks?

It all started to Saint Valentine's Day 1929. On that day Al Capone sent a group of his South Side gangsters down to his rival's North Side gang's business. The South Siders lined up and killed 7 North Siders with automatic Thompson sub-machine guns.

The public was outraged. And instead of going after the real problem, prohibition of alcohol, they went after the guns. The National Firearms Act was passed. This was to protect the public from "gangster weapons", the buzzword the gun banners used at the time to make the guns sound scary and dangerous.

Sound familiar? It should. Today we have "Assault weapons" to make the guns sound dangerous. And we have our very own prohibition of drugs that is to blame for the majority of the murders in the United States.

The National Firearms Act made illegal virtually all military style weapons. Anything that blows up was covered in the broad category of Destructive Devices. This is also why if you want a suppressor (silencer), you need to go through a bunch of red tape.
The National Firearms Act is why it is very difficult to get an actual "Assault Rifle" (Remember that an Assault Rifle is one with a detectable magazine, fires an intermediate round, and has a selector between semi-automatic and automatic or burst fire).

The National Firearms Act is the foundation for all gun control laws since. Everything is based on its president.

So, how does The National Firearms Act square with the Second Amendment? The short answer is... we don't know because a full challenge has never been brought to the Supreme Court. Small challenges have been brought, most notably US vs Miller in 1938. Miller transported a short barreled shotgun across state lines. Short barreled shotguns are covered in NFA, so that was illegal. The state's argument was that short barreled shotguns are not military weapons, therefore would not be in use by a militia.
Interesting argument, because aren't automatic weapons needed by a militia?? hummmmm
Anyway, in district court, Miller won, because... The state's argument was stupid. However, on direct appeal to SCOUS Miller lost because... he didn't put up a defense in SCOUS... No one knows why, they just didn't show up for court.

Since then, the big money backer of cases dealing with the second amendment has been the National Rifle Association. The NRA's assertion has always been around hunting. Therefore their arguments have come from the hunter's perspective. When the founders first wrote the second amendment the focus was on allowing the people to be armed so that they could fight another revolution. They lived through a disarming of the public, and saw what happens when the population is unarmed against an armed, tyrannical government. The second amendment was put in place so that the people could retain the ability to fight.
Of course if you say that now, people think you are absolutely nuts and stop listening to you. The people are used to a relatively benevolent government looking out for them.

In my opinion, the argument should have never strayed away from the military function of the people. All you really need for hunting is a bow and arrow... Or a spear. This is not the function of the second amendment.

So, in fact the right of the people to keep and bare arms HAS been infringed. It has been infringed on so deeply that we are now fighting for the very last gasp of that right left to us.

Think of it like this. FICTION In 1924 it was decided that groups such as the KKK and other racial groups should not be saying what they are saying. An act was then passed to outright ban the KKK and put all forms of speech in to categories.
During WWII, we didn't want people to speak out against the war, so we banned that with another law, that drew on the KKK Act as its justification.
Since then, little laws here and there have been put in to place that restrict the people's ability to criticize ANYTHING that the government does.
A small fringe group of people liked political comedy. So they stuck up for the First Amendment only around the strict confines of Political Comedy.
Fast forward to 2012. A political joke was taken too far and the subject of the joke killed himself and his entire family by pushing them off a building then jumping over the edge himself.
The public is outraged, and serious talk is now called for to finally end this dangerous thing that is political comedy.
The fringe group is hard pressed to come up with reasons for why they need to have political comedy, because they have other forms of comedy out there. There may have been a need for political comedy back in 1776, but the founders never intended for political jokes to be so funny.

See the correlation?

So, after all of that, why can't I buy a missile launcher? Because some gangsters shot some rivals over a few barrels of hooch back in 1929.
The second amendment intends for the people to be as well armed as the government itself. You SHOULD have the ability to buy such weapons. The reason for these weapons is so that you and your neighbors can stage a revolution. That is not a crazy answer. That is a valid reason.
The right to keep and bare arms has been infringed to the point of irrelevancy. The gun nuts are only trying to hold on to the very last bit of their freedom. When this freedom goes, with the anti-gunners saying that it was an archaic amendment, what will happen to the other archaic amendments? Like the fourth amendment? The fifth amendment? The first?
Freedom is a fragile and difficult thing. It forces personal responsibility. That is something people just don't want anymore.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Gun Terms - Quick Reference

Just a few terms that you will be hearing over the next few weeks. The media will almost always get these wrong.

For a more comprehensive look at terms and terminology, check out my earlier posts on the subject.

  • Assault Rifle
    • Rifle that fires an intermediate round, has a detachable magazine and has a selector switch that allows for semi-automatic, and automatic or burst fire.
    • AK-47s with a selector switch and fire the 7.62x39mm round are assault rifles
    • M-16s or M-4s with a selector switch and fire the 5.56mm NATO round are assault rifles
    • AR-15s or AK-47s that do not have the selector switch are NOT assault rifles.
    • AK-47s or AR-10s that fire the 7.62x51mm NATO round are NOT assault rifles, as the round is a full power round, not an intermediate round.
  • Automatic Fire
    • The weapon will fire repeatedly until the trigger is released
  • Semi-Automatic Fire
    • The weapon will fire only once per trigger pull
  • Automatic Pistol
    • A shortened term for an automatically loading pistol.
    • These types of pistols are sometimes erroneously called "semi-automatic" pistols.  While they are semi-automatic in fire rate, the term Automatic means auto-loading.  A revolver can be semi-automatic as well.  
  • Revolver
    • A pistol that has a revolving chamber.
  • Magazine 
    • The place where the firearms stores ammunition.
  • Clip
    • A device that aids in the loading of an fixed internal magazine.
  • Gun Show Loophole
    • It is currently legal for one private party to sell a gun to another private party with out the seller having to do a background check on the buyer.
      These types of transactions typically happen at gun shows, for the same reason that most art sales are done at art shows...  Because that is where the buyers and sellers to to by and sell art/guns.  
    • If you buy a gun from a licensed dealer, even at a gun show, a background check must be done.  However, if that dealer is at the show with their personal collection, and not store inventory, they can sell the gun as a private to private transaction. 

If you want more, check out the link above.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Connecticut School Shooting vs Oregon Mall Shooting

Before I start this, I have to say that the Sandy Hook Shooting has broken my heart. I wept during the President's speech on Sunday (12/16/2012) evening. It was a great speech by the way. President Obama absolutely is at his best when he is speaking from the heart. I really liked that he mentioned we have to change, without outlining policy. Everybody knows what his policy will be, but he didn't use the opportunity to start hammering gun control. Instead he gave a very powerful and heart felt speech as "Consoler in Chief." It was the best speech I have ever heard him present.

As information filters in from the tragedy in Connecticut we are starting to get a feel for the situation inside the school. Adam Lanza, armed with many weapons, came to the door of the school, and found it locked. He shot is way through the glass and entered the school. At that point the Principal and School Psychologist attempted to stop him. He killed them. He then went room by room shooting anybody he saw. One room he entered was full of first graders and two teachers. They were cowering, huddled together. He killed them all. Details are sketchy after that. At some point he entered the office, where the school secretary and another administrative professional successfully hid from him. At some point he entered the classroom of Victoria Soto who had hidden her students in closets. She had no place to hide and was killed.
After about 5 minutes or so, the Police arrived at the school, and Adam Lanza ended his rampage by putting a bullet through his own head.

Jacob Tyler Roberts walked in to a Portland Oregon mall with a rifle under his coat. He went to the second floor, pulled out his rifle and began shooting. He killed two people almost instantly, and wounded a third. At that point his rifle jammed, and he began to work the charging handle. At that point, Nick Meli, a legally licensed and trained armed citizen, drew his Glock 22 and put Roberts in to his sights. Meli did not fire, because of the people running behind Roberts, but Roberts saw Meli, and began to run away. After fixing his rifle, the next shot Roberts fired was in to his own head.

What do we see in these tragedies? The both are startling in their similarities:

  • Both shooters used AR-15 style weapons
  • Both shooters illegally possessed their weapons
    • Roberts stole his rifle from an acquaintance
    • Lanza murdered his mother and stole her rifle.
  • Both shooters had several hundred rounds left un-fired on their persons.
  • Both shooters were intent on killing as many people as possible.
  • Both shooters killed themselves on the first hint of resistance.
So, what is the big difference between the two? In the Oregon mall shooting, an armed response was immediately available through an armed citizen. Though he did not fire, Roberts knew that someone else in that mall could throw bullets back at him. Roberts immediately ended his own life. Would an armed citizen have made a difference in the CT shooting? What if the principal was armed and could have threatened or shot Lanza as he forced his way in? What if one of the teachers in the first grade class room could have shot Lanza as he burst in and began firing? What if Victoria Soto, after hiding her students, could have taken a defensive position behind her desk, and shot Lanza as he walked in? A phrase you will hear over and over again over the next few weeks will be, "If this xxx legislation could save just ONE child, it will be worth it." Well... allowing legally armed citizens to defend themselves has proven time and time again that it would saves lives. Had the principal been armed at the door of the school, this tragedy wouldn't have even gathered national attention. Remember the Colorado Springs Church shooting? No?? Because an armed citizen, Jeanne Assam, took down the shooter before he could kill more than two people. This phrase will be used time and time again, along with references to the dead children as emotional tools to remove our freedoms. This solution will be regarded as nuts by most in the media and in the general public. People just don't want to think about their children going to school where there may be guns around. However, when someone intent on killing as many people as possible comes in to that same school, only one thing can stop them. Another person with a gun. You call the police, because they will come with an armed response. But, they are several minutes away. They won't get there in time. The armed citizen is already there, ready to respond, because, quite literally, their life depends on it. The general mindset is that the average person is not competent to handle a gun in the outside world. Or that the normal person would just start spraying bullets around during a confrontation. This just isn't true. Check out the CATO Institue's white paper on the defensive use of guns "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens" At the end of all of this, the problem isn't the gun, it is the people pulling the triggers. They wish to be immortalized somehow. Their lives are unfulfilled, and they lash out in such a way as to "show" everyone who hurt them. They are throwing their final temper tantrum.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Reflex Holographic Sights... Where Have You Been My Whole Life???

I have zeroed my iron sights on the SCAR 17s, and I noticed right away that I would want to put some accessories on the rifle. First and foremost, I didn't like gripping the magazine or the Picatinny rail system that runs the length of the barrel. The rail system is difficult to grab and is very uncomfortable. Using a standard magazine hold was more comfortable, but... The SCAR uses a reciprocating charging handle. And that handle reciprocates right above the magazine... And if you get lazy with your thumb and let it creep up off of the magazine when you take a shot... OUCH!!!

So, I talked to several friends who use their their rifles for a number of different ways. One guy uses his rifle for hunting, one guy uses his exclusively on the range, and the other two... well... They hunt people. One being a member of a Midwestern State Patrol SWAT team, and the other a Special Forces Operator who is back, hopefully for good, from his second tour in Afghanistan. The guy who hunts uses a SCAR 17s, and the SOCOM guy had a SCAR-H mk17. The difference? Well, the 17s is the civilian version of the rifle, made in Belgium by FNH. It is a semi-automatic only rifle. The H mk17 is the military version of the SCAR made in the USA on contract from FNH by Bushmaster. It is a selective fire rifle with the option of semi-automatic and automatic fire settings. The other two guys use the M&P AR-15, both in semi-automatic. I asked them what they thought of my gripping problem.
Both the Hunter and SOCOM guy used a vertical fore-grip on their SCARs. Both saying that they liked the fore-grip because it allows you to very easily keep the muzzle under control much easier than the standard magazine hold.
The SWAT team guy liked the fore-grip for his AR-15 as well. He and the SCOM guy could not grip the barrels of their rifles because they hang so much junk off of the rail systems of their respective rifles. Flashlights, both UV and viable light, lasers, backup iron sights, you name it they hang it off their weapons. The fore-grip is necessary, because having all of that stuff hanging off the rifle shoves the Center of Gravity of the rifle forward. You can't use a magazine hold because the weight will pull your shots will be consistently low. The fore-grip fixes this issue.
The Range guy... He just uses the magazine hold. Not helpful.

Then an unexpected question was asked... What am I using for optics? I replied that I really didn't want to buy optics now, because I haven't really tried any out, I didn't know what to buy, and I didn't want to dump a bunch of money in to something that I could just use my iron sights to do. Iron sights came with the rifle, I have them zeroed, why would I need to buy something else??
Every one of the guys said that I needed to look at some optics for the rifle. They all said that the new sights have revolutionized shooting. No one uses iron sights anymore, said the SWAT and SCOM guy. You can't get on target fast enough, they give you a headache, and you have to have your face in a very particular place on the rifle to use them properly.
Great... What should I look at. SOCOM, used to the taxpayer funding his optic choices said Trijicon's ACOG/RMR combo. He liked the TA31F-RMR model. With the .308 Ballistic Reticle.

Wow... That costs as much as the rifle. I said.
Yeah, he replied, but you can use it in any situation. Long range you can use the ACOG for 4x zoom, and for close up you use the Reflex holographic sight.
But... It costs as much as the rifle.

The hunter uses a Mark 4 MR/T from Leupold. It is a 8x zoom.

Holy crap I said... I don't need that much magnification... And the thing costs a thousand dollars!!!!

The SWAT guy said he likes his Eotech XPS3 Holographic Reflex Sight.

He said that his main concern was close quarters combat and he liked the reflex sight because there was no magnification, he could keep both eyes open his head mobile, and still be able to put his bullets on target. He had his optic zeroed at 50 yards, because he wouldn't ever be shooting any farther than that. The snipers handle those shots. But... it costs $600!!!!

The range guy had a very simple Leapers UTG SCP RD40RGW A red dot sight.

It cost him $35 at Cheaper Than Dirt. Now we are talking!!

So, taking all of this knowledge, I started thinking about what the mission of my rifle is. Mostly, I will be shooting at ranges. I MIGHT go pig hunting with it, I MIGHT do some three gun training, but the vast VAST majority of my shooting will be at a shooting range. That means my maximum range will be about 150 yards. So, I don't need any thing with any type of magnification.
I will be doing most of my shooting "Off hand." Meaning that I will be shooting from a standing position. So, the biggest thing for me will be reacquiring the target shot after shot.
Also, I didn't want to dump a bunch of money in to an optic that I had no idea that I would like. I have never used a modern optic and I didn't know what to choose.

Where does that leave me? Some where between the SWAT team guy and the range guy. No long range shots, easy target acquisition, no magnification, and under $50.

Getting on to Cheaper Than Dirt I started looking for inexpensive Reflex Holographic sights. And I found the perfect one. The Sightmark Sure Shot SM13003B Holographic Reflex sight. Only $40.

Now... A little bit about reflector or reflex sights. Essentially they are a little heads up display. They have their own light source a mirror and the reflector screen where the image is projected. They are called "holographic" because the image is made by refracting a laser beam.
These types of sights have been used on aircraft, anti aircraft, and artillery guns since the 1940s. There is nothing new about the base technology. What is new is that they have been miniaturized to fit on to a personal, portable weapon.

Now... Anytime you are dealing with optics you have to talk about "parallax." Parallax is the difference in the in the apparent position of an object viewed along different lines of sight. For instance, hold out your arm, close one eye and sight directly down that arm on some point on the wall. Now open your other eye and close the original one. From the view of your other eye you are no longer sighted directly upon the same point. This makes a big difference when we are talking about gun sights. When looking down iron sights, the aim point seems to change according to where you hold your cheek on the butt stock (called the cheek weld). So, when you zero your iron sights you have to find the exact same cheek weld EVERY time you aim. Any deviation to this cheek weld, and your shot will be off. It is one of the frustrating things about trying to get consistent accurate shots with iron sights. It is also why shooting is a perishable skill. You forget where that cheek weld is, and you need to find it again.

The Reflex sight is essentially "Parallax free." What that means is that the holographic image, called the "reticle," will be on the bullet strike point, no matter where the shooter is looking at the reticle. The cheek weld can be different each time, and the aim point will be where it is zeroed. It takes a lot of the guess work right out of shooting.

One of the things you try to do in tactical shooting is to aim with both eyes open. You do this to keep aware of your surroundings, maintain depth perception, and to prevent blurred vision in the closed eye. Using iron sights, keeping both eyes open is very difficult. The image of your sights is blurry, or split or any number of problems. It gives you a head ache. The reflex sight is designed to be essentially ignored. You bring the weapon up and just look out on to your targets as you normally would the projected reticle simply shows up in your plane of view as if it is floating in air.

I bought the Sightmark and put it on my SCAR along with an inexpensive fore-grip. The "bad ass" factor of the rifle went up about 10 points.
I took the rifle to zero the sight. The difference in shooting with the reflex sight and without is a night and day difference. It is like going from a black and white 10 inch television to a brand new High Definition 70 inch TV. It absolutely redefines shooting. I the ONLY thing I have in my experience to compare the difference to is going from flying the traditional "steam" instruments in the airplane to a glass cockpit. Like flying with just a paper map and a compass to moving map GPS. After taking the first look through that sight, just as just as I knew I would never fly without a GPS again, I knew that I would never shoot iron sights again. The optic is an absolute necessity after the very first shot.
However, the sight is designed with the iron sights in mind. If you run out of battery charge, you don't need to remove the optic in order to use your iron sights. You simply flip up the sights and aim through the viewing screen just as if it wasn't there. Very cool!!

The only regret I have in my purchase is that I didn't buy something more robust. When I break the Sightmark, and I will break it, It is just that flimsy, but what can you expect for $40??, I will look in to getting the Eotech that my SWAT buddy likes so much.

My SCAR 17s with the fore-grip and Sightmark Sure Shot Reflex Sight

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Warren Buffet, and the Tax Me Please Crowd

A lot is being said about raising tax rates on the wealthy. Many people cite Warren Buffet as saying that the tax rates on the wealthy should be raised. A man that I greatly admire, George Takei, wrote a blog post on how he should be taxed more.

Takei, and others, say that they should be taxed more to avoid the "Fiscal Cliff." Others, like the President, claim that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. Still others say that they should pay more because they won't notice it.
The other side says that taxing those who make over $250 will hurt businesses. They say raising the tax rate on Capital Gains will discourage investment.
While history, and simple mathematics, side with the latter, I tend come at this from a very different angle.

With me, the freedom angle always comes first. For those of you wealthy wanting to pay more... Nothing is stopping you. You may donate as much money as you want to the Federal Government. They will take it. When you pass laws raising tax rates, however, you are removing the freedom of those who do not wish to donate their money to the Federal Government. You are putting a gun to their head and compelling them to remit their property. This is not freedom.

Next, is simple mathematics. If those making over $250K a year were taxed at %100 of their income, it wouldn't even solve the current budget deficit, let alone make a dent in to the federal debt. In other words, additional revenue will NOT solve the problem. The problem is a spending one. We spend too much money. Plain and simple. Cuts, real cuts, not just cuts in increases, need to be made across the board. Entitlements, Defense, Government Operations, you name it, it can be, and should be cut.

There is no Fiscal Cliff. If there was one, we have already jumped over it with Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. We must come back to baseline. We must cut the government.

BUT... we won't. It will continue to grow. President Obama is not Bill Clinton. When Clinton lost the house and Senate back in 1996, he changed his way of governing to allow for changes and cuts to be made. The President is more of a hard core socialist liberal, and doesn't have such a need for everyone to like him. He is more of a narcissist who thinks everyone likes him just because he is who he is. The President will not give up the fight for higher tax rates. He doesn't need to. The Republicans, will cave in the end. They don't have the intestinal fortitude to continue the fight. There will be some who will continue the fight, but they will be labeled crazy, and on the fringe.

The math doesn't work. It doesn't pass the freedom smell test. Congress will do it anyway.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

SCAR 17s First Dance

Ok... So I bought the rifle. I spent too much. The money was in no way justified in any situation. I just have a very expensive toy. Not as much as most motorized toys that I have owned, but pretty close.

Here are the specs:
  • 7.62x51mm NATO (308 Win.)
  • Semi-auto only
  • Short-stroke gas piston
  • Rotating, locking bolt
  • Hard-anodized monolithic aluminum
  • MIL-STD 1913 accessory rails at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 o’clock positions
  • Adjustable folding front and folding/removable rear iron sights
  • Hammer-forged, chrome-lined, fully free-floating
  • Telescoping side-folding polymer stock
  • Adjustable cheekpiece
  • A2-style pistol grip
  • Ambidextrous safety lever and magazine release
  • Charging handle may be mounted on right or left side
  • Enlarged trigger guard for easier access when wearing gloves
  • Composite polymer trigger module
  • 10 or 20-round capacity
  • Steel or aluminum body
  • Low friction follower

The iron sights are variable for both windage and elevation, so... You need to get an initial zero on them when the rifle comes out of the box, just as you would if you had an optic or scope or something.

I was excited to shoot it, so I forgot all of my tools... No matter, I would shoot it to see where the sights were and to get a feel for the .308 round.
I have shot large caliber rifles before, along with shotguns of just about every gauge, and of course handguns in various calibers. One thing is universal about big calibers. RECOIL. How that recoil is handled is generally dependent on the shape of the rifle, and how the rifle handles the gas. Traditional stock rifles tend to recoil upward and back in to the shoulder. This is due to the barrel being right about even with the grip on the stock. Modern rifles drop the grip down in to a pistol grip, moving the barrel up a bit so that the recoil goes directly inline with the shoulder. Rifles, like the SCAR, also add a muzzle break on the end of the muzzle to diffuse the gas and greatly reduce muzzle flip. The result is that the recoil on the SCAR goes almost completely backward in to the shoulder. The major problem with high caliber semi-auto weapons is that follow up shots are difficult to place because the muzzle flip draws the rifle so far off target. When the recoil goes directly in to the shoulder and the break prevents muzzle flip, you can place follow up shots on target very easily.

The SCAR's muzzle break and design makes the recoil very manageable, and very easy to put back on to target. I burnt through the big 20 round magazine in very short order.

The action is so smooth that when I went through my first magazine, I checked to see if the rifle malfunctioned when it stopped shooting. The mag goes dry that fast. About my only complaint was that I shot through the 60 rounds I had with me so quickly. I am going to spend a TON of money in ammunition with this gun.

I shot some nice groups at 25 yards, telling me that the rifle is very accurate. However all of my groups were low and to the left... I need to bring the gun back and adjust the iron sights to get a true zero.

There are a few things that I know I will have to do to the rifle. I will need a front grip. Doing a standard magazine grip is actually a little dangerous with this rifle because it uses a reciprocating charging handle. If your thumb is in the way, the charging handle will break it. Doing a standard front grip is a bit awkward and uncomfortable.
I also know that I want to put some sort of optic on it. Optics are cool, and the new ones have variable power scopes so that you can choose your magnification with the push of a button.

So what will I end up with?? Something like this:

Only my rifle is black.

Bob Costas, Piers Morgan, and Gun Control

Bob Costas took the opportunity, with God Bless America playing in the background, to call for the banning of handguns. He spoke of how guns "Don't enhance our safety, exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us to embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it."

Really? If that was true, why are not the streets of 39 states flowing with the blood of thousands of shootouts? Why did the violent crime rates of EVERY one of these states drop after the implementation of Shall-Issue CCW laws?

You see, Costas, and many like him, believe that gun owners need some sort of psychological crutch. They believe that you purchase a gun as this crutch. You need it to fill some sort of insecurity in your life. You couldn't possibly enjoy sending bullets down range in to the same hole over and over again. You want to go out and be John Wayne. Your thoughts of defense against people who want to do bad things is only a veneer for insecurity. That is why, without a gun, no one would ever approach a car in a connivance store with loud music playing. Why would you? Without guns, people never look for conflict. Would, as Costas said, these two people be alive if a gun was not available? If Jovan Belcher wanted to hurt or even kill someone there is very little anyone could do about it. He was a giant man of enormous strength and athletic ability. Not to mention a finely tuned aggressive instinct. Mr. Belcher could use any weapon he wanted to to kill his girlfriend. If no weapon would have been available, he could have just as easily used his body to do the deed.

Inanimate objects like guns, rope, knives, cars, etc can not do anything on their own. They are inanimate. It takes a human will to move them, use them, kill with them. It is the human being that decides. It is the human being that acts.

The next person to show a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution, and of the Framer's reasoning behind the Second Amendment is Piers Morgan. He took to Twitter to have the following exchange with Carol Roth:

Morgan touts out the old and tired argument that the Framers only had muskets in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. First, at the time, the musket WAS the military weapon of its day. In many cases in early American history, the individual was better armed than the regular army. This is beside the point... During the framing of the second amendment individuals could not only purchase the military arm of choice, they could also purchase cannon and other artillery pieces that the military used. In the beginning of The war of 1812 The United States Navy mostly consisted of Privateer ships, or armed ships that were owned and operated by PRIVATE citizens. These we not just merchant ships, some were full on Ships of the Line purchased and used to escort merchant fleets. To say that the Second Amendment was only about muskets shows a complete disregard for the history that the Amendment was drafted in.

Other than the history, how can we tell what the Framers were thinking? Hummm... FROM THEIR OWN WRITINGS!!!!!!!! Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all wrote that the Second Amendment was written for self defense of the individual against crime, invasion, and the GOVERNMENT. Madison went on to say that the individual should be able to obtain whatever weapon the military had in its arsenal.
These were men who were deeply distrustful of standing armies. It wasn't until after The War of 1812 that a standing American army was even proposed. These men believed that it was the job of the militia to defend American soil. To do so required the weapons that would match whatever military attempted invasion.
So, if the Framers had their way, they would not be working to limit guns, they would be pushing the extreme position that individuals should own tanks, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Would You Let Jesus Inside?

So... Let me get this straight... You are asking me if I would let a white guy with a beard, long hair, wearing robes and sandals, and claiming to be Jesus Christ in to my house... In Oklahoma??

No. No I would not let Jesus inside... I would call the Police and be waiting with many guns just in case Jesus tried to force his way in.