Why I Get Angry…

Recently I had an individual engage me in debate on twitter and he couldn’t understand why I felt like I was being victimized for him saying firearms should be taken from law-abiding citizens.

Today I stumbled across something that put it oh so well. (Emphasis mine).

There is a perception that a gun will turn a sane man, or woman, into a crazed, trigger-happy criminal, or that a gun is a gross over-reaction to the threat of rape. I contend that the gun is a great equalizer. Why do only criminals, police and nut-cases get to have guns? Do we, the potential victims, not get access to these same implements, so that we might properly defend ourselves? In fact, might we have these tools so we no longer have to be victims? Maybe we can take some action in preserving our own safety instead of just staying in well-lit areas and hoping for the best.

The other side of this debate doesn’t seem to understand that they are forcing potential victims to have to be complicit in their own attack.  The arguments are “for the greater good”, often because they think that crime merely exists because of the firearm.  First it assumes that the limitation on access will have an effect on criminal access to arms.  That’s impossible and history in both England and Australia both have proven that. Also it ignores the truth about collective punishment and responsibility.

Further, how do you effectively ban something that can be made from simple materials available at Home Depot and soon will not need much more than the ability to hit print?  What effect does gun control accomplish other than provide methods to prevent the law-abiding from carrying defensive arms?

Honestly, those who support gun control, answer the question, criminals and crazy people can obtain a weapon if they so feel like it, what good do gun laws do?  If someone is intent on killing someone else, they have numerous weapons to substitute even if they cannot get a firearm.  I also love how some people call for “reasonable restrictions on firearms” and then compare it to cars as if they are some how more regulated.

So, let me get this straight:

I could continue but why bother?  The fact is there is law after law that does nothing to stop criminals, but does everything possible to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining effective arms for their own defense.  The idea that cars are some how more regulated than firearms is false.  While they are “registered” that is done as a tax measure as the vehicle is considered titled property.  Further obtaining a license is simple and easy and it is recognized in all 50 states.  I am required by law to muffle my vehicle, however the law prevents me from muffling my firearms.  My license is recognized in all 50 states without question while my CPL is not.  My vehicle is required to meet a minimum standard of safety requirements, read headlights, tail lights, blinkers, seat belts, but the remainder of the car can be left up to my imagination.  Further if I buy an old car frame, some of the safety requirements are lifted.

The fact is, guns are extremely heavily regulated and it is the law-abiding who is on the short end of the stick.  It is the law-abiding who’s access is restricted.  Think I’m pulling your leg?  Let’s as some members of a gang in Chicago (h/t Sebastian).

Another source of stolen guns is “the freights,” Chris said.

He was talking about the freight trains parked on easy-to-access rail yards on the South Side.

“You bust the lock,” he said. “Once you get in there, you may get the wrong thing. You may get shoes or something. You feel me? But you keep trying. We tried it before and we know what kind of containers they in. They’re carrying all type of handguns — in crates.”

Consider that, with my comments from above.  Then consider how hard it is for a law-abiding citizen to get a firearm within the City of Chicago, even post Heller and McDonald.

You can not look at these facts and then tell me with a straight face that gun control has anything to do with “public safety”.  The public is in no way safer disarmed while the criminals are still able to obtain weapons.  You cannot stop them.

So yes, when you go off spouting your mouth about how gun control would help the world, yes I take it personally and yes I will call you on it.  Because the day may come where my wife, my daughter, my son, any of my friends, and lastly even myself may have to call upon my firearm to defend ourselves or our families.  And no one has any business telling me, my family, or my friends what tools we should or shouldn’t be using to defend ourselves.  Firearms and this community do something no other tool or group can.

Most importantly, the act of shooting and owning a gun has a profound impact on the way most women see themselves and the world around them. Shooting a gun is empowering, energizing, stress-relieving and confidence-building. In my experience, women who shoot walk taller and apologize less. They are also sensitive, caring and protective of their loved ones. Women who carry guns have already decided that their lives and their bodies are valuable enough to protect.

To which Mom With A Gun adds the following:

To this I would add only that the above is doubly true if you’ve already been a victim of rape or other violence and you’re trying to reclaim your sense of empowerment, energy, confidence and competence. For twenty years after I was raped, I became meek, submissive, withdrawn, terrified. The worst thing my rapist took from me on that terrible July afternoon was my sense that I was worth defending, that I was worth fighting for. That I was worth the space I took up in the world. That I was anything other than prey.

To which we then look at the comments made by A Girl about this community and the start contrast to our opponents.

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.

No hope.

No tools.

All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependance…

The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.

They have taught me to have belief in myself.

They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.

Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.

This is where I belong.

These are my people.

So yes I take it personal, yes I get angry, and yes the mere suggestion is an insult and a disgrace to humanity.  Only a cold-blooded animal would wish real victims to continue suffering after an attack.  We see how each side of this debate treats victims of violence.  One wants to rebuild them, make them stronger, and faster, because we have the technology.  The other side would rather bury their heads in the sand and use the force of government to make everyone else do it too.

*For those who don’t know, a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and pistol grip are actually safety features.

  • A barrel shroud protects the user from burns from the hot metal of the barrel.
  • The collapsible stock allows the weapon to be easily modified to properly fit the shooter, especially handy when you regularly deal with new shooters of different sizes.  The wrong size can result in injury to the face and shoulders.
  • The pistol grip allows disabled shooters to more easily and effectively hold and use a weapon and depending on the disability prevents injury.
Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Quote of the Day – Say Uncle (8/3/2012)

The real outrage in this is that two elected officials threatened the president under color of law for expressing his views. That’s what you should be mad about. I’ll continue my boycott of Chicago and MA.

Say UncleChick Fellatio
August 3, 2012


[The other day Popehat posted a link on twitter and I had the urge to comment but let it subside.  My main contention with the linked content was this though:

Don’t you dare say that you’re just supporting Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech and religious expression. While there may be some of you who actually do care about the First Amendment working for everyone, I would like to know where you were when:

At which point he goes into a list of places that have been boycotted for their views one way or another.  I have to disagree and here’s why.

I, like most American’s, only become involved when I feel that something affects me.  I didn’t see the LGBT community come and participate with the Starbucks buycott for example.  I’m sure there was overlap as I know that Gay Cynic probably participated but as a whole the groups are not tied together at the hip.  I would in general do my best to support someone, but I will not expend energy in going out of my way as I will with places who forbid concealed carry for example.

What has happened here is that a large number of people are supporting Chick-Fil-A, not because of the owners stance on Gay marriage.  That is an entirely separate debate and my position can be summed thusly:

The state has no business being involved in marriage.  As for the legal rights provided by marriage between partners, who cares if they’re both male or female.  Everyone deserves the same legal rights and it is no one’s business to judge anyone else for their choices.

Moving on though this situation was aggravated by two political individuals.  Namely the mayors of Chicago and Boston.  These two individuals attempted to use the force of state to punish a company and its owner for voicing their opinion.  While I disagree with that opinion, they had every right to say it without the threat or use of force from government.  That is the problem, these politicians were using government to silence speech.  It wasn’t a separate part of the public attempting to shame the company for their opinion, it was the state.  The fact that they were using government to influence or control speech is a blatant violation of the first amendment and is worthy of note because what is to stop either of them saying I cannot conduct business because of my outspoken support of the second amendment?  It doesn’t have to even be about the second amendment though, it could be anything they disagree with.

I am by no means the only one with this view as well.  This is very much a free speech issue because the state should not be allowed to disallow businesses from operation based on the opinions and speech of their owners or employees.

I live in Washington and there is no Chick-Fil-A out here.  Overall I probably wouldn’t go if there was, but given the behavior of a few tyrannical politician’s I would give patronage just to show my support.  That’s exactly what those politicians did by doing that.  They drove people to patronize that business merely because the government was intimidating them. -B]

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

SSCC #358/#359–Chicago

He bashed Luis Cordero Jr. over the head with a revolver over and over, cursing all the while, according to Cordero, his girlfriend and witnesses.

Then it was Cordero’s girlfriend’s turn for terror.

“He put his gun in my mouth and said: ‘You better shut the f— up, bitch, or I’ll blow your brains out,’ ” the girlfriend, Heather Rzany, told the Chicago Sun-Times.

The man with the gun wasn’t a gangbanger, an angry relative or an armed robber.

He was an off-duty Chicago cop, far outside his Englewood district, getting involved in a noise complaint being handled by a private security guard on the Northwest Side, Cordero and Rzany allege. And now he’s being sued for brutality and investigated by the Independent Police Review Authority.

No worries though because this is in a place where despite Heller and McDonald it is still increasingly difficult to obtain a firearm.  So the probability of either of these citizens putting up a fight against this anointed tyrant was nil allowing him to operate without fear.

Now why would I put this in the sponsored count though?  Simple, because of the following:

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, accuses an on-duty officer who responded to the beating of letting Gofron walk away — and of failing to document his name, badge number and where he worked.

Yup, it’s handy when your buddies can try and cover for you.  Isn’t Chicago great?

State Sponsored Criminal #358: Chris Gofron

359: Jason Burg

Because being a cop means you can get drunk while carrying a gun and do what ever the hell you want.

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

Mayor Daley, your ignorance is showing

An officer was shot and killed during a robbery attempt today in Chicago. Mayor Daley is using this opportunity to say that a stricter handgun ban would have prevented the shooting.

The 30-year-old officer was shot as he left his father’s house on the South Side early Thursday morning by would be robbers.

“If this person didn’t have this, never happened,” the mayor said, holding up a handgun on display for the news conference.

Mayor Daley, how is it a criminal is going to obey your law? Aren’t criminals defined by the fact that they break the law?

“Access to guns in America, everybody can have guns, doesn’t matter who they are, doesn’t matter if they have a criminal record, or not, they have access to guns and that’s the most frustrating issue.”

They have access to guns in your view because they can break the law and steal them. How do you believe we should solve this issue? By making good disarmed victims for the criminals to prey upon. Smart thinking there, where did you get your degree, Head Up Rear University? Mayor Daley has a city with crime completely out of control with some of the most strict gun control in the country. However instead of blaming crime on his failed policies and admitting he was wrong, he just continues to create excuses.

It is most ironic that it was the officer’s father who carried a firearm that dealt with the threat.

In the Wortham case, the officer’s father, a retired Chicago Police officer, rushed to his son’s aid. Using his own handgun– retired police officers are allowed to legally keep their weapons– he shot two of the suspects, killing one of them.

It’s amazing what can happen when one is allowed to defend themselves. The retired officer was allowed to carry a gun. So instead of being dependent upon his phone and the police department; he was instead allowed to be self-reliant. As such, he survived and was able to shoot two of the suspects. Mayor Daley, I suggest you remove your head from a particular body cavity, stop acting like a bigot, and take a serious look around. Your policies are killing your citizens, not firearms. What are the real reasons behind your incessant disarmament of honest law abiding citizens?

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.