Friday, June 6, 2008

Gun control is racist, sexist, classist, ageist, intolerant, anti-gay, and wrong.

It seems to me that the only reason to have a gun is because you want to shoot something or somebody. Why should that be anyone's right?[/quote]

Gun control is racist. Google "Black Codes". The first gun control laws were passed to disarm blacks so they could not resist the Klan.

Gun control is sexist. Women have less strength to resist a physical attack, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.

Gun control is intolerant. Using and owning guns safely and legally is a life choice shared by millions of Americans that does no harm to others. By calling for gun control, one equates oneself with those calling to ban gay marriage. It's the exact same language.

Gun control is ageist. The aged have less strength to resist a physical attack, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.

Gun control is anti-gay. People of alternative sexualities are more likely to be attacked by a group of people, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.

Gun control is classist. The poor live in bad neighborhoods, are more likely to be victims of a crime, and cannot pay bodyguards, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.

Gun control promotes patriarchy. A white privileged heterosexual male has nothing to fear from gun control - he is less likely to be a victim of a crime, can pay bodyguards, is strong enough to fight off individual attackers, and is not likely to be attacked because of his sexuality.

Therefore, gun control cannot be upheld by any Democrat like me interested in a progressive, tolerant, and liberal society.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

MYTH: "Check a starter pistol with your camera equipment to prevent it getting lost!"

There's been a few posts on this, some from Bruce Schneier (who I think originated the idea) and it was picked up by a host of others.

Unfortunately, it's completely wrong. Airline policies, TSA regulations, and US Federal Law all prohibit marking or tracking firearms in checked luggage because whatever mark, database, or whatever they use will be used by the unscrupulous to steal the checked firearms.

USC 18 922(e)

No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.
This includes special handling marks, computer tracking, separate bins, etc. Same reason the UPS and FedEx don't mark packages containing guns.

So, sorry. The starter pistol you declare does not decrease your chances of losing your luggage in any way, shape, or form.

The only reason that the TSA requires you to declare firearms is some moron doesn't pack something like a loaded benchrest rifle with a 6-oz trigger that blows a hole in the fuel tank when someone in seat 16A sneezes.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

The National Park Service is reconsidering its ban on concealed carry in parks!


This is a great thing. I usually go to National Forests anyway.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Watching The Brave One. Holy crap. What a great movie, and at least the beginning is a great endorsement of civilian CCW.
I just put the Sig P226 on consignment this weekend. It was my first gun. I couldn't stand the fact that it would start to fail to go into battery after 500 rounds or so. It was too big to carry concealed anyway, I carry the CZ P-01 now.

Incidentally, the Buddhist temple that I go to occasionally bans firearms on the premises. That doesn't make sense to me. Armed self-defense is a profound service to one's Buddha-nature.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

A great exploration of Buddhism as it relates to the armed services may be found here.

It attempts to answer the questions:

Does Buddhism permit the State to build and foster an Army?. Can a good Buddhist be a soldier? and can he kill for the sake of the country? What about the 'Defence' of a country.? When a ruthless army invades a country, does Buddhism prohibit a Buddhist King to defend his country and his people? If Buddhism is a 'way of life,' is there any other way for a righteous king to battle against an invasion of an army.?

Key passage:

From the above it is clear that contrary to the popular belief the Buddha has not rejected or prohibited soldiering as a profession or occupation and the right of a king or a government to have an army and to defend one's country and its people. In the contrary the Buddha has expressly recognized the necessity for a king to have an army and providing protection to the subjects of a country has been recognized as a prime duty of the king .
This blog will deal with firearms, Buddhism, and nonviolence.