A History Lesson About Guns... and a rant about the media

This past weekend saw a terrorist attack in Florida.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

It is heartbreaking, and made even more heartbreaking because of the lack of focus and immediate blame shifting of EVERYONE.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/politics/orlando-shooting-gun-control-islamic-terrorism/

There is enough involved to allow BOTH terrorism and Gun laws to be examined. I can understand - and fully support - the 2nd amendment, but the idea of automatic weapons in the 18th century, when the amendment granting irrefutable rights to own firearms was drafted, was unknown. The first "automatic" weapon was a repeating shotgun made in 1887 by Winchester. they further developed and released the first automatic rifle in 1903.

I believe that Americans should have guns, if they are responsible and properly trained. But I also believe that the government can regulate those guns and the people that have them or access to them. This is not rocket science, people. Gun control is not unprecedented and when laws were passed before, we all got along just fine. Let’s have a little history lesson, shall we?

Chapter One:

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (e.g., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel less than 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but with either a smoothbore barrel less than 18" long or a minimum overall length under 26".

Suppressors —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:

Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

AND

Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50" inch, such as 20-gauge or 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any other weapon (AOW)

Firearms meeting the definition of "any other weapon" or AOW are weapons or devices capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive. Many AOWs are disguised devices such as pens, cigarette lighters, knives, cane guns and umbrella guns. AOWs can be pistols and revolvers having smooth bore barrels (e.g., H&R Handy-Gun, Serbu Super-Shorty) designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell. While the above weapons are similar in appearance to weapons made from shotguns, they were originally manufactured in the illustrated configuration and are not modified from existing shotguns. As a result, these weapons do not fit within the definition of shotgun or weapons made from a shotgun.

The AOW definition includes specifically described weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading.

The ATF Firearms Technology Branch has issued opinions that when a pistol (such as an AR-type pistol) under 26" in overall length is fitted with a vertical fore-grip, it is no longer "designed, made and intended to fire ... when held in one hand," and therefore no longer meets the definition of a pistol. Such a firearm then falls only within the definition of "any other weapon" under the NFA.[9]

In 1938 Congress recognized that the Marble Game Getter, a short .22/.410 sporting firearm, had "legitimate use" and did not deserve the stigma of a "gangster weapon" and reduced the $200 tax to one dollar for the Game Getter. In 1960 Congress changed the transfer tax for all AOW category firearms to $5. The transfer tax for machine guns, silencers, SBR and SBS remained at $200.

Chapter Two:

In 1968, the Gun Control Act was passed. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

It was amended in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This enhancement created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers. It also created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited, such as indicted or convicted felons, addicts, non-immigrant visa holders, dishonorably discharged military personnel, people that have renounced citizenship of the United States and those that are under the restrictions of a restraining order for harassing, stalking or threatening another person. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Chapter Three:

In 1986, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was passed. This banned the sale and possession of machine guns. A citizen can still purchase these “banned” weapons, but only with approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). This Act also set it up so that the government could NOT keep a registry of gun owners outside those permitted to have the “banned” machine gun. It further went on to provide a more detailed list of persons that would not be allowed to own firearms from the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Here’s the kicker.

After all of those passed, we did not suffer as a society. We did not fall into chaos.

The media is a cock sucking death-whore that will never be satisfied. They perch like vultures waiting for a disaster or horrific event to provide them the fuel for their fear-instilling shit machine. They do it on purpose. I blame douche-canoes like J. Jonah Jameson. His character in Spiderman was based on the “cutthroat world of journalism”. It is a stereotype – and we all know how I feel about fucking stereotypes! They are such for a reason – because there is fucking TRUTH to the image!! They spin the story to be able to create the most enticing headline. 

And we eat it up like addicted cum sluts at the tip of the cock.

Add to that the influence of “social media” and how every fucking moron has an opinion and they are going to give it to you and they are right and you are wrong and telling them to fuck off is offensive to them and blah bla-blah bla-blah! 

I know. The irony isn’t lost on me. This is my blog – my forum for my opinion. The difference? I could not give any fewer fucks if anyone reads this. This is my cathartic retreat. I have voiced my opinion and frustrations in a place that CAN be accessed by the general public, if they so choose to read it.

Anyway – back to the thunder cunt that is the regular media…

It pains me to see people look at an intentionally misleading headline, like, “Government to Outlaw Guns”, when the story actually discusses how the government is looking at banning assault rifles – a move similar to the 1986 banning of machine guns. Honestly, I see no reason for there to be a social issue here.

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon.

It must be capable of selective fire.

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle.

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

And it should have an effective range of at least 330 yards.

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such. For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.

Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.

Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun and rifle cartridges."

Fun (disputable) fact: The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to "assault rifle"), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44.

Anyway…

The gun is not the issue. The gun didn't anyone. The person wielding the gun is SOLELY responsible for the deaths of these people. Having said that, I am not opposed to “assault rifles” being banned like the machine gun was in 1986. Assault weapons are obviously two powerful of a weapon for the general public to have, like the machine gun.

If I am wrong, please give me a realistic reason to own an assault rifle.

This is completely irrelevant to the issue in Orlando as the AR-15 is not classified as an assault rifle.

And all of this is irrelevant as restricting weapons sales will not keep criminals from obtaining guns. Just look at Paris.

I Have Found the Gray Area

So everyone that knows me knows my opinion on illegal immigrants. For those of you that don't know my stance, I refuse to call them "undocumented workers" because they are criminals that broke the law from the moment they stepped onto US soil. They are given close to a free ride with benefits and other allowances even though they are here illegally. They are ILLEGAL.

Having said that, this story was run on the news last night.

No one asked me my opinion, so I will offer it with no regard to you, the reader. If you do not want to hear it, leave now.

Larissa Martinez came to the United States with her family in 2010 on a tourist visa. She and her family immediately started the process for citizenship. They have been waiting ever since, but her tourist visa has expired. This means her and her family are technically here illegally. That is the fact.

BUT

(and it is a big but)

They came in with documentation and started the process a long time ago to remain here legally. The only reason she is currently technically illegal is because our system is fucked up. The process for citizenship should not take 6 years. In her story, she mentioned that the officials are working on cases from 1996 at the moment.

Let that sink in for a second.

CASES FROM TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO!


Her unique situation - and there may be thousands or more in this same situation - presents a gray area that people are neglecting to acknowledge. They did everything right. They filled out the forms and started the process that I can only assume is done with 19th century technology. I can apply for a house loan and get told if I am approved or denied in a month, for crying out loud.

She is not "illegal". She is at the mercy of an antiquated procedural cluster fuck that has prevented her and her family from pursuing the American Dream. There is no reason for the process to be as it is. Along with the reforms in all other aspects of our fucked up government, this should be completely overhauled.

I am not a heartless bastard. I am not unreasonable to the plight of immigrants. I am only saying that labeling her as an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant" is unfair and not entirely true. They did all that they needed to in order to legalize their status. It is now up to the government to get their shit together and stop using these stories as fuel for the fire to continue to divide the country.

In the upcoming election, shit will hit fans. We need the media to bring us together, as a nation, instead of driving us apart.

Move the fuck on

There has been a great hullabaloo about the image from the X-Men movie, X-Men: Apocalypse, that depicts Apocalypse choking Mystique, It is a pivotal scene in the movie. Here is the billboard:

A bunch of people felt it was promoting violence against women. Ok, I can see that, I guess. So they let the movie studio, 20th Century Fox, know very vocally on social media. Fox heard, and responded. They started the process to remove the print adds (including billboards) immediately and issued the following apology:

 "In our enthusiasm to show the villainy of the character Apocalypse, we didn’t immediately recognize the upsetting connotation of this image in print form. Once we realized how insensitive it was, we quickly took steps to remove those materials. We apologize for our actions and would never condone violence against women."

That seemed enough for most of the public. But a reporter, Sabina Ibarra, wrote a piece you can read here. In that story, she latched onto the fact that it was a male villain fighting a female hero. She used this as an indication that we, as a society, have come to look upon violence against women as "normal" or "accepted". She says:

"Mystique leads a charge against Apocalypse after he takes Charles Xavier (Who also gets his ass kicked in a scene too, why wasn’t that used?) and ends up in the position in question."

My answer: Not because it is a woman being beaten by a man, as she clearly wants the reader to infer. The image is visually stunning. It grabs attention. You look at it. It does it's job. Yes, they could have used Professor X getting beaten, but then you would simply complain about "violence against the handicapped" (or Differently Abled People, or whatever PC bullshit you want to insert there).

A followup story was done after the apology that can be read here. This story is more complaints about the actions and apology from the studio not being enough.

I think that the image was in poor taste and their actions to rectify it and the apology WAS enough. They were looking at the image from the contextual view of its place in the entire film and the tension it brings to that story. In print, it comes off very badly. 

 

However, with that being said, I feel the story that was written by Ms. Ibarra was very slanted in its complaints about women being subjected to violence from a man and needing men to rescue them. No one seemed to mind this dynamic in any other films (if they did, I did not hear about it much, if at all). It came across to me that she (the reporter) was using this thoughtless mistake - which is all it was - in marketing to be a gateway to complain about the roles female characters have in the overall story. Using this film as an example, how many times do the male characters get beaten by the forces of evil? Does a female ever save a male? In previous X-Men films, that particular dynamic was established. I have not yet seen this movie, but I have been looking forward with great anticipation to seeing it with my son. I do not feel that the exposure to scenes such as this - with the full context of the movie in its entirety - would give him the idea that violence against women is acceptable under any circumstances.

 

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the villain of the movie is an embodiment of evil. His actions against men AND women alike are expected and a lesson insofar as violence in general is a "bad" thing. He's the bad guy... what were you really expecting?

 

The print ad and billboard are not acceptable. They saw the error (after it was pointed out) and rectified it. Furthermore, they made a public apology that, to me at least, seemed very sincere. The issue has been resolved. Now we, as a public, need to let it go. If we don't, we are simply teaching the very same people that it is acceptable to hold a grudge and try and get "damages" out of the entity that is guilty of nothing more than poor judgement.

 

It was an oversight... a mistake. They fixed it. Now we need to move on.

Can We End Racism?

A list of the top 10 cities in which to live in America was published on Facebook by a friend of mine in Denver because Denver was selected as number 1. A "friend" of hers commented within minutes: 

"These places are so incredibly white......."

After a few questions to find out more about her point of view (like, "Do you know this because you have seen these cities dance?"), I asked the title: Can we end racism. She never responded.

Let me answer my own question: No. We will never be able to end racism until we can get narrow minded people that exist on BOTH sides of the issue to stop current behaviors. I absolutely HATED the "Black Lives Matter" bullshit parade because that is putting up a barrier. It creates division.

Simply put, LIFE MATTERS.

People that only see skin color are racist. Period. That means YOU are racist. Your very first statement was of nothing but color - and only ONE color, by the way. The Latino population of Austin, for example, makes up 30% of the total (and that is only the “documented” ones), but your statement leads me to believe that races other than black or white are not of consequence to you. Plus, the obvious disdain that you have toward white people because they appear to you to be more successful is completely backwards. The same opportunities are available to everyone. Don't cry and whine and complain about growing up in the 'hood and being oppressed. It is bullshit - especially from people under the age of 40. Those people have been brainwashed by the families that raised them. I am seeing black and Hispanic leaders in ALL industries and can see that they worked hard to get there.

Work hard. You’ll get there. Don’t give up and don’t give in.

In short, all of the people I know and all of my family and friends could not care any less about your race or ethnicity. 99% of those same people feel equally as apathetic toward your religion (there are a few that blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a minority of them). We are all grownups and have come to realize that the excuse is getting thin. The people I hear most often actually BEING racist are the black people themselves. Don’t believe me?

What would you do if I started the United White College Fund?

How about the big to-do regarding the name of the Texas town called White Settlement?

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, why do you care about EITHER of these things? They do not impact your life in ANY way. Is it because you see an opportunity to express some kind of bitchy little complaint over hurt feelings or the fact that before the 1960’s and 70’s, racial tolerance was unheard of? Are you really so fragile that something that is part of AMERICAN heritage from the establishment of the community can damage your own self-worth? White Settlement is not even related to the black people, by the way. It was a way of distinguishing between two settlements in the area, one by white people (because they were the ones that actually settled it) and the other by Native Americans. These Race card playing moronic asshats are getting all up in arms over something that never even had shit to do with them to begin with. But, just like the “Confederate Flag” issue, someone saw it or heard about it and decided to make a stand. They TOLD everyone to be upset, and like sheep, they got upset.

In TODAY’s world, the strength of character of the individual is what matters most, not their skin. The only people that are playing the Race card are the ones that use it to lead to the Victim card. And those people are the ones that have their hand out, waiting for someone else to give something to them rather than going out into the big mean world and EARNING it. That is true of ALL races.

Call me racist. I couldn’t give a fuck less what you think. Why? Because you know nothing about me. If you did, you would see I am the LAST person that could be called racist. Or maybe I am racist – but not about the color of skin, but the integrity of character.

It just so happens that the people that do not have this integrity are being led by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. There are people of races other than black that are led by these two charismatic (and racist) blowhards. I hate them, too.