Tuesday, April 28, 2009

My Loaded Burglar Alarm

A friend told me of some B&E's going on in his neighborhood, which is in the vicinity of my house. We live in the country, so vicinity can mean several miles, but you still have to be careful. Apparently the authorities think it may be gang related. It would appear that part of a local gang initiation is to break into a house in the bedroom community in which we live. So last night I loaded my 870 Express burglar alarm. Granted it won't tell me when someone is breaking in, but it will alarm the hell out of whoever it is if I am there to chamber that first round. A pump shotgun makes an unmistakable sound when a round is chambered. I would venture to bet it is universal to anyone, but am certain it is universal to anyone in the US who is in the business of B&E. And my gut tells me I probably won't even have to fire the thing, although I should if not just to clean the dust out of the barrel. I might only get to clean up the puddle of pee (or other excrement) left behind by the thug who thought they had more right to my possessions than me.
At times I wonder how long I will enjoy this freedom. I keep a pistol in my glove box and have 5 rifles, 3 shotguns, and 2 pistols in my gun safe. The burglar alarm stays beside my bed. I have two children. I know it is loaded and they know it is loaded. And I have taught my children how to respect and handle a gun from an early age. Growing up, my dad's guns (which make up part of my arsenal) weren't even in a safe. Guns and ammo were all on the gun rack in the den. I knew well the danger of firearms and the extreme danger of touching them without permission (my dad's foot does not fit in my ass very comfortably). By the time I was a teenager I had earned his respect and trust. I could grab the .22 and go shoot cans without supervision. I grew up with guns and my children have too.

I digress a little. My question is where are we going with gun control and where should we go? The Constitution grants us a right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say what kind specifically, but it does say we can keep and bear arms. The far left liberal masses would love to see all firearms banned. This would surely make the streets and citizens safer. I am certain the gangs would cease there initiation rituals once the law abiding population was disarmed (note sarcasm for those not catching it). And the right wing extremist want to keep any control from happening as there can be no middle ground between left and right and right and wrong. This is why conservative logic is so needed in our society and why we need leaders who exercise some logic.
Do we need assault rifles? Beyond the military and police I would argue no. Do we need armor piercing, cop killing ammo? Again, beyond the above obvious, no. But you should also realize that many of the guns targeted for control that are labeled assault weapons are merely semi-automatic, demilitarized versions of the military weapons. In this case, they may look like a duck, but they sure don't walk like a duck or quack like a duck. Most people have these for display power, not fire power. Should I ever have to defend my 30 acres, give me a hunting rifle. I will say that the compact nature of the assault weapons would be handy if the fighting ever got close, but again, I digress a little.

At the end of the day, we have one major problem. The right and left do not trust each other. And truth be told, I don't blame them cause I don't either. We need some logical controls. There are certain arms we really don't need to bear. But there are plenty of arms that we don't need to ban. The criminals will always have more firepower than the law abiding. This has been the case since prohibition (or before). But they are criminals. You know, THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW. As for me, leave my guns alone.

4 comments:

  1. While I of course believe in the general premise of your post, let me clarify a few things. First, anyone who values their Second Amendment rights should be aware of the bill currently in Congress, HR 45, which, surreptitiously, was put into committee almost certainly with the knowledge and approval of the Obama administration (remember Barry telling everyone during the campaign how he values your Second Amendment rights?) and is now starting though the legislative process. BTW, this bill would make you a criminal, forfeiting your right to bear arms permanently, if you don’t pay to register your entire “arsenal,” and also if you continue to store them as you mentioned you do, or your father did.

    Second, as a former military marksmanship instructor, and a former firearms dealer, let me correct a few misconceptions that the public at large might entertain. We currently have over 20,000 gun laws on the books. I don’t know of ANY gun control law that actually reduced crime. If someone does, PLEASE enlighten me. In fact, in most places where they enact restrictive gun laws, the crime rate goes up. In the places where they allow citizens to have carry permits, the opposite happens. My God, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the logic in this, do you? Restricting firearms does not reduce crime and violence; it only disarms the innocent, leaving them at the mercy of the criminals. In this country there exists a faction of society who has absolutely no access to firearms and is, in fact, monitored 24/7 and yet, they have the highest rate of violent crime, per capita, than any other group. Who are they? The population of the U.S Penal system.

    On the question of “assault weapons,” what exactly IS an assault weapon? Isn’t my fist and assault weapon? How about my car, my hunting knife, my baseball bat, my breath after a night of scotch and cigars? When you let the anti-gun crowd define what an assault weapon is, you open a door that almost never will be closed again, and soon it will actually be some of the things on that list. Don’t believe it? Look at Britain. After banning guns, their crime rate sky-rocketed. They now are considering a ban on certain types of knives, as they are being used in more crimes. What’s next on the ban list I wonder, pointed sticks?

    Anti-gunners are not out to legitimately, or rationally, restrict certain firearms; they want ALL firearms banned. They start with what seems rational. Sure, who needs a military style weapon? Shouldn’t only the military and police have such weapons? No. In fact, when you allow that to happen, you set up a scenario where what the Second Amendment was meant to protect, becomes null and void. The Second Amendment wasn’t written and placed into the Bill of Rights to protect your hunting rights or your right to collect firearms or any other such nonsense. It was put there to protect you from a government who becomes autocratic and restrictive. As a law abiding citizen, your right to bear arms should NEVER be infringed for ANY reason. But, with the help of propaganda, the left has made us feel guilty that we should want to own a firearm, much like they want you to feel guilty if you’re a capitalist. Propaganda like the stuff you parroted about “cop killer” bullets is an example. The bullets you are referring to that were labeled “cop killer” bullets, were Teflon coated to reduce barrel wear. But, because NBC in 1982 ran a special on them saying they could penetrate the soft body armor police wear… well, we know the rest. BTW, find me ONE instance of a cop being killed by one of these bullets and I’ll send you $100. By the way, this isn’t the only time the media, using fear and outright inaccuracies (read lies) was successful in getting some type of firearm or ammo banned.

    I’m certainly not trying to dump on you about your beliefs concerning gun control, as I can see you are headed down the right path, but you worry me a little when you make certain statements like all you need is your hunting rifle to defend your 30 acres. That kind of thinking sounds OK, but it gives credence to the anti-gunners who, remember, aren’t out to be RESONABLE. Also, while you may be content to use your hunting rifle to protect your land, should the balloon go up and you are faced with a marauding group of those gangbangers you mentioned, out after your food, your money and possibly your wife, I guarantee you’ll be wishing you had a nice AK-47 with a couple of 30 round magazines.

    Some of the scariest things about HR 45 are that it totally disregards the Constitution, negates previous laws, totally ignores states rights, and will, for the first time in our history, set us up for confiscation. Why do you think it’s happening now? Maybe everyone should research some of the other things being proposed by this administration, like some of the international treaties they are considering signing which, once signed, our own Constitution will mandates we obey, even if it negates our laws. Gun control is already on the agenda of some of these treaties. Remember, an un-armed citizen is nothing more than a subject.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kind of curious to see the comment you removed. I am aware of the current resolution and did not get into as much detail as I hoped it would elicit some comment and debate if left a little open for such. Thank you for the well related comment. I do not like HR 45 either. Nor do I agree with the current initiative to id tag ammo. I agree with almost everything you said. I will clarify my logic behind the statement that some laws make sense. Maybe cop killer ammo was a bad example, but it got a response. I do not think that it makes good sense to make automatic firearms legal for the general public to own. This is what I would consider, generically speaking, to be assault weapons (i.e. rifles). I know they are not presently legal for general consumption, but that is an example of a gun restricting law that I think makes logical sense. It would appear from your response that this may be another debate in the happening, but that is my position at this time. Our founding fathers had no vision of such a thing when they created the Bill of Rights. My only other disagreements are based on personal preference. As for the marauding group of gangbangers I still prefer my 870 for close combat (assuming we are talking residential style, not military invasion style). And for my kind of warfare in the event of invading armies, I still prefer a longer barreled rifle. Being intimately familiar with an AK-47 would undoubtably change my mind, I am sure. But I am not, probably never will be at this point in my life, and plan on dancin' with the one I brought. I reckon a handful of well placed bullets will be better than 30 reckless rounds fired in rapid succession. Thanks for the comemnts Ben. Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Adams, I do hate to do this to you again, but here goes. (Remember, unfortunately, I have the advantage of having lived and breathed this stuff for over thirty years.) First, automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Anyone can own what’s referred to as a Class III weapon; automatic weapons, short barrel rifle and shotguns (manufactured like that, not cut down with your little hacksaw), suppressors (silencers), and certain destructive devices, e.g., explosive devices, like a hand grenade. The only caveat to this is that you have to live in a state that allows possession of Class III weapons, and you have to register and pay your transfer tax to the federal government, for each Class III device. Here’s the link to the info:

    http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

    Now, to the question of whether anyone should be able to actually own one, let me say this about that: Automatic weapons are vilified by the media as being the epitome of evil, if you’re a gun owner. Why? “Well, because you can pull the trigger and fire so many bullets at one time,” is the usual response. Well, I’ve got some bad news for you then. (Pay attention all you anti-gunners, this is where you usually run into trouble, as you know virtually nothing about weapons, only what you see on TV or hear in the media.) Almost ANY semi-automatic firearm, from a .22 to a .50 caliber, can, with very little effort, be made to mechanically fire fully automatically. In addition, WITHOUT any modifications, I can show you a way to fire almost ANY semi-automatic weapon and get at least a 200-300 round per minute rate of fire, or more. In comparison, a fully automatic AK-47 has a practical rate of fire of about 400 rpm. Don’t believe me. Here’s a link to a You Tube video, or you can simply search out “bump fire” when there:

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=bump+fire+glock&aq=2&oq=bump+fire


    To be honest, firing a weapon fully auto is nothing more than a parlor trick. It looks awesome and sounds cool. Practically speaking, it is next to being useless, unless you need to lay down suppressing fire. Otherwise, it’s not very accurate, and it just wastes ammo. And, ammo can be quite expensive. That’s why the U.S. Military changed the design of the M-16 and took away the ability to fire the weapon on full auto; now you can only fire three round bursts. So, it’s kind of a moot point whether you own a fully auto weapon or not. Most who do, have them for their collectability. If you are a law abiding citizen, and the state you live in allows it, as all should, I don’t see a problem with owning one.

    So, logically, why do you think a law abiding citizen shouldn’t own an automatic weapon? Unless he is a criminal, who we agree doesn’t care what laws you put in place, as a peaceful citizen why should he be prevented from owning an automatic weapon? Before you answer, remember, for almost any answer you come up with, I can probably use the same rationale to ban a lot of other weapons, which fits right into the anti-gunners agenda. The argument that the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the weapons we have today is also a bit specious, in that they weren’t idiots and knew that weapons would be improved upon. Moreover, in their day, they HAD the equivalent of high tech weapons, for instance, rifles as opposed to just muskets, (rifled barrel as opposed to smooth bore) and the famous Kentucky Rifle, which at the time was pretty high tech and would be the equivalent of a top of the line battle rifle today. If they had wanted to, they certainly could have worded the Second Amendment to only give the right to bear arms of lesser degrees, for instance pistols, shotguns or inferior muskets. They didn’t. Why? Because, as I said, they instituted the Second Amendment to be the TEETH of the Bill of Rights, to ensure we had the ability to protect us from an autocratic government; they just fought a war to ensure that. WHY, would they then limit the citizens of their new nation to inferior weapons, instead of the weapons that any government would surely possess and use? Follow the logic.

    Lastly, I’m positive, given a few minutes, I can show you the folly of your tactics, and weapon choices, described in protecting your 30 acres. If interested, just ask.

    ReplyDelete

 



Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic