Monday, October 12, 2015
I don't understand why there's so much talk about gun control at a federal level. That's absolutely unconstitutional, but not for the reasons people think.
When the second amendment was written, the states very much considered themselves individual entities. You know, that "states' rights" thing? They each had their own government. They were jealous of any power another state might have, and that's why the District of Columbia was created. They didn't want to be completely subservient to a federal government, and that's why many of them insisted on the first ten amendments before they would ratify the new constitution. It was to be a union of states for purposes of defense, trade, major projects and the like, not a homogeneous country with counties or departments, like England or France or whatever. That's why the name is The United States, not just Columbia or something.
The individual states figured they had a right to self-defense, defense from any internal or external threat, whether it be natives, another land-grabbing state, another country, or even the federal government, so they had a right to maintain their own defenders. States had their own militias. Look at the military companies fighting in the Civil War. They fought under the union or confederate banner, but each company carried the name of their state. They were members of their state militias.
So a state is constitutionally allowed to have and maintain their own "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That's what it says. It's plain English and doesn't even need interpretation. It refers to a state (not referring to the federal "state", but to a state as understood then) and its need for defense. A state can define a militia in any way they want. I don't understand why so many people are confused by the "well regulated militia" words in the amendment. It simply means that states are allowed to arm themselves, the federal government can't mess with that, and the states are allowed to define who makes up that militia and how it's regulated. The militia can even consist of every person in the state capable of wielding a club, and at one time, in many states, it was. And the state can regulate that militia any way its people decide.
That means if a state decides everyone in the state with a gun is a member of the militia, they can regulate it any way the people of that state decide.
So gun control is a states' issue, not a federal issue. And the states have every right to regulate guns.
Now that's all well and good and pretty clear. But after the Civil War, in a series of confusing and contradictory decisions, the SCOTUS redefined it as an individual right that even the states can't infringe upon, and that's when it got all messed up.
The Feds were pretty bummed by the whole Civil War thing. The general consensus was that this "states' rights" stuff was a load of crap and had to be stomped a bit. Maybe the states needed to be reminded who's boss.
Sigh.
I also hold an unpopular opinion on the Civil War.
My opinion is that the southern states had every right to secede from the union. The federal government was dead wrong to use force to stop them. That doesn't mean I in any way agree with their reasons for secession, just that I believe they had every right to leave the club if they wanted to. I don't believe the original intent of forming a union was to create a national homeowners' association where the only way to get out is to emigrate or die. Do you suppose that if the northeastern states knew that once they joined the union, they could never ever get out, that they would have joined? Nah. We'd have a country called New England up there in that corner. Those folks were fiercely independent. They'd want the right to take their ball and go home if they had to, to maintain that independence.
The states need some way to control the arrogance of the federal government. Threat of secession is the most drastic option, but other means are built in. Note that it's not the people who elect federal officials, it's the states. The state legislatures actually control who gets elected to federal offices, and it was designed that way. The Electoral College, for example, is very unpopular, but getting rid of it will weaken states' rights and give more power to the Federal government. States are (or perhaps were) not even required to hold general elections for federal offices. They just do it to gauge the preferences of their populace so they don't have a mob burning down the state capitol buildings.
You can take this all as blather, but I hope maybe someone will think about it.
.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2015
Monday, October 05, 2015
5017 No gun for you...
October 5, 2015
Gun control is once again an issue (being diverted to mental health by politicians), and I've been reading some arguments, none of which have any effect whatsoever, of course. I am reminded of my experience with gun control measures.
I spent my high school years on a military base. I used to go to the firing range with the airmen. I got to be very good with a light hand gun. They tested me once, and I scored sharpshooter. Very good. When you're really good at something, you kinda like it.
You know, if you point at something with your index finger, no matter how far away it is you will point directly at the object. Your index finger has excellent aim. So when shooting, if you just consider the barrel to be your index finger, you'll be right on side to side. One test shot will tell you what adjustment to make up or down. Guns are a lot easier than arrows. Arrows don't make good index fingers.
Anyway, in my 20s I missed target shooting. There was also something else going on that made me want a gun, but really, I mainly wanted target shooting. At that time in my life, I wanted to do something I was good at, and have people see me being good at something.
The central NY community I was living in at the time had a few target clubs. There were no public ranges. You needed a membership to shoot anything other than tin cans in a field. So I checked, and all of the clubs wanted you to register your guns with them before they would issue membership. You couldn't join without first owning a gun. However, when I tried to buy a gun, I was told I had to show a gun club membership before they could sell me a handgun. (Or a hunting license before buying a long gun, but again, you had to register your existing gun to get a hunting license.)
I don't know if this was a county law or state law, but it was a very effective Catch 22. I never did get my gun. And I still miss shooting. Damn!
.
Gun control is once again an issue (being diverted to mental health by politicians), and I've been reading some arguments, none of which have any effect whatsoever, of course. I am reminded of my experience with gun control measures.
I spent my high school years on a military base. I used to go to the firing range with the airmen. I got to be very good with a light hand gun. They tested me once, and I scored sharpshooter. Very good. When you're really good at something, you kinda like it.
You know, if you point at something with your index finger, no matter how far away it is you will point directly at the object. Your index finger has excellent aim. So when shooting, if you just consider the barrel to be your index finger, you'll be right on side to side. One test shot will tell you what adjustment to make up or down. Guns are a lot easier than arrows. Arrows don't make good index fingers.
Anyway, in my 20s I missed target shooting. There was also something else going on that made me want a gun, but really, I mainly wanted target shooting. At that time in my life, I wanted to do something I was good at, and have people see me being good at something.
The central NY community I was living in at the time had a few target clubs. There were no public ranges. You needed a membership to shoot anything other than tin cans in a field. So I checked, and all of the clubs wanted you to register your guns with them before they would issue membership. You couldn't join without first owning a gun. However, when I tried to buy a gun, I was told I had to show a gun club membership before they could sell me a handgun. (Or a hunting license before buying a long gun, but again, you had to register your existing gun to get a hunting license.)
I don't know if this was a county law or state law, but it was a very effective Catch 22. I never did get my gun. And I still miss shooting. Damn!
.
Saturday, October 03, 2015
5016 Is it the weather?
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Holding resentment is like
drinking poison
and expecting the other person to die.
It doesn't
work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's beginning to look like Joaquin isn't going to hit us. But right now, and for the past few days and probably a few days more, we are experiencing a Nor'easter. I gather that's what's pushing the hurricane out to sea, so I guess we can't complain much. We're getting lots of rain and lots of wind. I can't hear the wind in the house, but when I go out I can hear roaring. There was a flock some kind of wide-winged soaring bird flying high this afternoon, and they were flying backward! Facing east, but moving west. Weird.
I noticed that sometimes the wind dropped, no movement in the trees, but the roaring went on. I suspect some of the sound isn't wind in the trees at all. I suspect it's surf. Wind kicking the water around. I'm not going to walk to the end of the street to find out for sure.
-------------------------------------
The recent shooting at that college in Oregon. Apparently the guy did it because he wanted to be famous. Get his name known. So, yeah, let's not mention his name. The media says after every instance that they shouldn't make these guys famous, and then they do. Shrug.
I found a very good comment on the Field Negro's blog (I'm not going to link because his commenters past maybe the first five are ... assholes), but this early comment says some of what I'd like to say, so, here it is:
I love the way people like Jeb Bush say "nobody" knows how to fix it, so we can't. Um, Jeb, there are several other developed countries who HAVE fixed it. Listen to Obama's speech and you'll hear about them. Nobody?
I figure one of the first things to do is to get special interest money out of the election process, so maybe our representatives can represent the people instead of _______________ (fill in the blank with the NRA, the Koch brothers, whatever you like, or don't like). Other countries have been able to figure this out. Don't know why we can't --- oh, yeah, look who we're asking to do the reforming.... ne'mind. Hopeless.
------------------------------------------
The green quote at the top is random, but today I read it and think, "Yeah, well, what else can you do?" The whole damn country is drinking poison.
.
I noticed that sometimes the wind dropped, no movement in the trees, but the roaring went on. I suspect some of the sound isn't wind in the trees at all. I suspect it's surf. Wind kicking the water around. I'm not going to walk to the end of the street to find out for sure.
-------------------------------------
The recent shooting at that college in Oregon. Apparently the guy did it because he wanted to be famous. Get his name known. So, yeah, let's not mention his name. The media says after every instance that they shouldn't make these guys famous, and then they do. Shrug.
I found a very good comment on the Field Negro's blog (I'm not going to link because his commenters past maybe the first five are ... assholes), but this early comment says some of what I'd like to say, so, here it is:
Anonymous said...
Well, if it's already been decided we're not going to do anything about access to guns (the NRA appears to have decided this for us), then we're left attacking the motive for using them.
But then, we run up against other complaints from some of the same wingnuts who resist gun control.
If we want to do something about street crime, we've got to create a fairer economic climate so that everyone can earn a legitimate living. That means greater funding of education, industrial policy to develop poor urban and rural areas, better transportation to jobs, labor laws that boost the average worker's wages, etc. It also means reversing "tough-on-crime" [justice system] policy: ending the Drug War, less-punitive sentences for non-violent crime, incentivizing employers to look past ex-cons' records in hiring, etc.
Inevitably, all of that stuff requires higher taxes and lower incomes for rich people and/or being "nice" to criminals, so that's a "no" from conservatives.
On the other hand, if we want to reduce mass shootings, the main avenue is addressing mental illness. Yet, mental health care costs rich people money, so that's out, too.
Thus so we're back to the usual completely ineffective conservative remedies: scold black people, recommend everyone get some more Jesus in their lives, bash immigrants. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Same shit, different day.
I love the way people like Jeb Bush say "nobody" knows how to fix it, so we can't. Um, Jeb, there are several other developed countries who HAVE fixed it. Listen to Obama's speech and you'll hear about them. Nobody?
I figure one of the first things to do is to get special interest money out of the election process, so maybe our representatives can represent the people instead of _______________ (fill in the blank with the NRA, the Koch brothers, whatever you like, or don't like). Other countries have been able to figure this out. Don't know why we can't --- oh, yeah, look who we're asking to do the reforming.... ne'mind. Hopeless.
------------------------------------------
The green quote at the top is random, but today I read it and think, "Yeah, well, what else can you do?" The whole damn country is drinking poison.
.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
4077 Something else to worry about
Sunday, July 26, 2015
An 18-year-old college student has posted a video on YouTube that has had by now a few million views. It shows a quadcopter-drone with a mounted semi-automatic pistol, that fires at targets.
I'm not surprised. Mounting guns on drones is not new. What's new is that this is the small drone that anyone can buy and fly.
You thought cameras on drones were a possible threat?
If you haven't heard of it yet, go to YouTube.com and search for "drone gun". (I'm not including a link because any iterations I link might be taken down.)
.
Interesting fact: A day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An 18-year-old college student has posted a video on YouTube that has had by now a few million views. It shows a quadcopter-drone with a mounted semi-automatic pistol, that fires at targets.
I'm not surprised. Mounting guns on drones is not new. What's new is that this is the small drone that anyone can buy and fly.
You thought cameras on drones were a possible threat?
If you haven't heard of it yet, go to YouTube.com and search for "drone gun". (I'm not including a link because any iterations I link might be taken down.)
.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
3736 More guns
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
A little over two weeks ago I wrote about the danger of blowing off fingers with a 3-D printed gun. How do you test it?
Well, here's how: http://youtu.be/V8iHAS4iGyg (warning, NSFW because of sound of gunshots). Their finger-saver cracked me up. Note that on the first shot, the barrel fell off. Plus, between shots they had to replace parts, including the screws. Note that the trigger changes colors. The guy who made it said in an interview (I believe it was him) that even though the gun had fired ten bullets without exploding, he's still not sure the next bullet wouldn't blow it apart. Story at http://mashable.com/2013/05/20/3d-printed-liberator-handgun.
This was I think the first video posted of a home-printed gun. There are now several on YouTube. I guess folks can stop pushing for background checks. Seems like the horse has left the barn.
--------------------------------
It seems like I have a very unusual bird in the back yard. It's about the size of a robin, solid black with a small yellow bill - typical starling or grackle**, perhaps, except that it had one very long pure white feather down the middle of its tail. Very pretty.
A little research reveals that blackbirds are turning up here and there with either one white feather down the middle, or two white feathers, one on either side, of the tail. Most of the reports seem to be coming from New Jersey. A mutation?
[Actually, it didn't really look like either a starling or a grackle. Tail was longer than starling, and beak was shorter than grackle.]
.
Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to discuss it.
-- Mitchell's Law of Committees --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A little over two weeks ago I wrote about the danger of blowing off fingers with a 3-D printed gun. How do you test it?
Well, here's how: http://youtu.be/V8iHAS4iGyg (warning, NSFW because of sound of gunshots). Their finger-saver cracked me up. Note that on the first shot, the barrel fell off. Plus, between shots they had to replace parts, including the screws. Note that the trigger changes colors. The guy who made it said in an interview (I believe it was him) that even though the gun had fired ten bullets without exploding, he's still not sure the next bullet wouldn't blow it apart. Story at http://mashable.com/2013/05/20/3d-printed-liberator-handgun.
This was I think the first video posted of a home-printed gun. There are now several on YouTube. I guess folks can stop pushing for background checks. Seems like the horse has left the barn.
--------------------------------
It seems like I have a very unusual bird in the back yard. It's about the size of a robin, solid black with a small yellow bill - typical starling or grackle**, perhaps, except that it had one very long pure white feather down the middle of its tail. Very pretty.
A little research reveals that blackbirds are turning up here and there with either one white feather down the middle, or two white feathers, one on either side, of the tail. Most of the reports seem to be coming from New Jersey. A mutation?
[Actually, it didn't really look like either a starling or a grackle. Tail was longer than starling, and beak was shorter than grackle.]
.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
3726 Thoughts on exploding things
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Lots of fuss now about 3-D printed guns.
Ho hum.
The first problem is the printers.
I know some people who own home versions of 3-D printers. The small least expensive ones are more like toys, but cost a minimum of $1500. They don't work as well as those YouTube videos would lead you to think. You have to feed them plastic "ink", and if you think the cartridges for your regular printer are expensive....yeouch! The production machines you see on YouTube are horribly expensive. You're not going to find one in your neighbor's basement.
In some, the base moves, in some the print head moves, in some both move. This gives you a multitude of possible error points - the head clogs, the head burps, the belt moving the head or base slips slightly, and so on. There are a lot of misprints using up a lot of that precious plastic before you get a useable item.
The device has to be fed code describing the part to be printed. That's another big exposure. How much do you trust the folks who produced it? Those plans are also usually expensive, no matter how they are generated.
The second problem is the printed gun.
If the entire gun is 3-D printed, the slightest misprint/glitch could cause the gun to explode in your hand the first time you try to fire it. So how do you test it?
Shooting a standard bullet generates heat. Heat is not kind to plastic. So even if it has been demonstrated that it's well printed from good code with no burps, I would be afraid to attempt a second bullet.
Of course, this is all blather from my own head, and there may be no problem at all.
I wonder if soon we'll be seeing a lot of one-handed amateur gunsmiths.
Schadenfreude. Tee-hee!
--------------------------------
Have you heard about PC-Kus (sheesh - who named that)? The reason your hair eventually turns gray is that you build up hydrogen peroxide, which bleaches the hair in the roots. PC-Kus is a topical cream that converts (breaks up) hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and water, allowing the previous color to return.
(The bad news is that the longer your hair has been gray/white, the less effective it is.)
The discovery was a byproduct of research on vitiligo, a condition that causes the loss of pigment in patches of skin.
Hmmmmm. The water probably won't be too great a problem, but one could hope that the tops of very vain people's heads might explode from a build-up of hydrogen.
More schadenfreude. Tee-hee!
.
Adopt the pace of Nature. Her secret is Patience
-- Waldo Emerson --
-- Waldo Emerson --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of fuss now about 3-D printed guns.
Ho hum.
The first problem is the printers.
I know some people who own home versions of 3-D printers. The small least expensive ones are more like toys, but cost a minimum of $1500. They don't work as well as those YouTube videos would lead you to think. You have to feed them plastic "ink", and if you think the cartridges for your regular printer are expensive....yeouch! The production machines you see on YouTube are horribly expensive. You're not going to find one in your neighbor's basement.
In some, the base moves, in some the print head moves, in some both move. This gives you a multitude of possible error points - the head clogs, the head burps, the belt moving the head or base slips slightly, and so on. There are a lot of misprints using up a lot of that precious plastic before you get a useable item.
The device has to be fed code describing the part to be printed. That's another big exposure. How much do you trust the folks who produced it? Those plans are also usually expensive, no matter how they are generated.
The second problem is the printed gun.
If the entire gun is 3-D printed, the slightest misprint/glitch could cause the gun to explode in your hand the first time you try to fire it. So how do you test it?
Shooting a standard bullet generates heat. Heat is not kind to plastic. So even if it has been demonstrated that it's well printed from good code with no burps, I would be afraid to attempt a second bullet.
Of course, this is all blather from my own head, and there may be no problem at all.
I wonder if soon we'll be seeing a lot of one-handed amateur gunsmiths.
Schadenfreude. Tee-hee!
--------------------------------
Have you heard about PC-Kus (sheesh - who named that)? The reason your hair eventually turns gray is that you build up hydrogen peroxide, which bleaches the hair in the roots. PC-Kus is a topical cream that converts (breaks up) hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and water, allowing the previous color to return.
(The bad news is that the longer your hair has been gray/white, the less effective it is.)
The discovery was a byproduct of research on vitiligo, a condition that causes the loss of pigment in patches of skin.
Hmmmmm. The water probably won't be too great a problem, but one could hope that the tops of very vain people's heads might explode from a build-up of hydrogen.
More schadenfreude. Tee-hee!
.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
3688 Reaction 3
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
So, gun control discussions are now on the front burner. Again. I suppose it might be a start to do something about those assault weapons (hey, Mr. Bush), but even that will be a battle. Given that the opposition to restrictions HAS the assault weapons, it could be a bloody battle. "Cold dead hands" and all that.
I don't see anything being done about handguns. Just ain't gonna happen, folks.
The American culture celebrates --- something --- I don't know what to call it. "Rugged individualism" sounds good, but that's not it. That's just buzz words. Same with "rights" and "freedom". More pretty buzz words.
It's more like a xenophobic, running scared, defensive machismo, hiding behind the pretty "patriotic" buzz words. If you take their guns away, you have castrated them.
Ain't gonna happen.
What scares me the most are the folks who want everyone to carry concealed weapons, all the time. There are actually some schools (guess which state) where teachers are encourage to carry. Ok, if people in the movie theater had guns, or if the classroom teachers had guns, maybe the carnage would have been less.
But!
Think about this --- and think hard about it. There are a few people who decide to commit mass murder. They are rare. One here, one there. It would be nice to keep them unarmed, but we can't. If you're in a theater, or a school, or a mall, there is probably way less than one chance in a couple million that there's a potential mass murderer there with you.
On the other hand, stupid people are everywhere. Assholes are everywhere. You can safely bet that the more stupid they are, the bigger an asshole, the more likely they are to be packing, if they're allowed to, and as soon as they are allowed to. And as soon as you strap a gun on a guy (yeah, I'm biased against testosterone here) he's going to be looking for opportunities to use it. It has been shown in study after study that a person carrying a concealed weapon becomes more vigilant, more paranoid, more nervous. If you're in a theater, what's the chances that you're surrounded by armed idiots and assholes? A hundred Zimmermans anxious for the chance to be a "hero"? Just don't drop anything loud on the floor (or shake your Skittles). "Oops...." And no one will ever again be able to carry an umbrella.
The only solution is to change the culture. Make gun ownership a low-class thing. Sneer at guns. Take the attitude that someone with a gun is less than a man.
That ain't gonna happen any time soon.
.
[P.S. Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun.]
"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired."
-- Robert Frost --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, gun control discussions are now on the front burner. Again. I suppose it might be a start to do something about those assault weapons (hey, Mr. Bush), but even that will be a battle. Given that the opposition to restrictions HAS the assault weapons, it could be a bloody battle. "Cold dead hands" and all that.
I don't see anything being done about handguns. Just ain't gonna happen, folks.
The American culture celebrates --- something --- I don't know what to call it. "Rugged individualism" sounds good, but that's not it. That's just buzz words. Same with "rights" and "freedom". More pretty buzz words.
It's more like a xenophobic, running scared, defensive machismo, hiding behind the pretty "patriotic" buzz words. If you take their guns away, you have castrated them.
Ain't gonna happen.
What scares me the most are the folks who want everyone to carry concealed weapons, all the time. There are actually some schools (guess which state) where teachers are encourage to carry. Ok, if people in the movie theater had guns, or if the classroom teachers had guns, maybe the carnage would have been less.
But!
Think about this --- and think hard about it. There are a few people who decide to commit mass murder. They are rare. One here, one there. It would be nice to keep them unarmed, but we can't. If you're in a theater, or a school, or a mall, there is probably way less than one chance in a couple million that there's a potential mass murderer there with you.
On the other hand, stupid people are everywhere. Assholes are everywhere. You can safely bet that the more stupid they are, the bigger an asshole, the more likely they are to be packing, if they're allowed to, and as soon as they are allowed to. And as soon as you strap a gun on a guy (yeah, I'm biased against testosterone here) he's going to be looking for opportunities to use it. It has been shown in study after study that a person carrying a concealed weapon becomes more vigilant, more paranoid, more nervous. If you're in a theater, what's the chances that you're surrounded by armed idiots and assholes? A hundred Zimmermans anxious for the chance to be a "hero"? Just don't drop anything loud on the floor (or shake your Skittles). "Oops...." And no one will ever again be able to carry an umbrella.
The only solution is to change the culture. Make gun ownership a low-class thing. Sneer at guns. Take the attitude that someone with a gun is less than a man.
That ain't gonna happen any time soon.
.
[P.S. Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun.]
Friday, November 23, 2012
3669 Frustration
Friday, November 23, 2012
I watched "Blazing Saddles" on TV last night. Man, they bowdlerized the "Hell" out of it. Also the "ass", the "rape", the "Mormon", and the "nigger" out of it. Practically every tenth word, and every one of those words was necessary. It wasn't the same at all. Rape? Duh? The line was something like, "I rape and pillage and murder for fun", and it became "I .... and pillage and murder for fun". Since when is rape a worse word than murder?
Oh, well.
I was disappointed because I didn't see one particular scene I remembered that I loved. A bad guy pulls a gun on the hero, a few inches from his chest, and the hero calmly sticks his finger in the barrel. The look of disbelief on the bad guy's face is priceless. "Oh, $#!T ! Now what?!"
So I did some research today, and it turns out that scene is from a different movie. Walter Brennan pulled a gun on James Garner in "Support Your Local Sheriff", and Garner sticks his finger in it.
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065051/]
My research led me to some forums in which people were arguing vociferously a) whether or not you could stick a finger in the barrel of anything smaller than a shotgun, and b) whether the buildup of compressed air thus created would really cause the gun to explode.
I was frustrated because they were so passionate about such a moot point. It doesn't matter whether it would or not. It only matters whether the shooter is absolutely *positive* it will not.
If a guy is pointing a gun at your chest from a foot away, you don't know for sure whether he's going to pull the trigger or not. You lose nothing by sticking your finger in the barrel, either way. He, on the literal other hand, now has a chance, a possibility, of losing his shootin' hand if he pulls the trigger. There's an element of surprise, and that can make all the difference.
So I wanted to ask those guys who insisted the gun would not explode - if you were going to shoot some guy, and he did that unexpectedly, would you pull the trigger without hesitation?
I am proud of myself for stomping my frustration and resisting the impulse to jump into the discussion. I doubt they'd get my point anyway.
.
They told me I was gullible... and I believed them.
------------------------------------------
I watched "Blazing Saddles" on TV last night. Man, they bowdlerized the "Hell" out of it. Also the "ass", the "rape", the "Mormon", and the "nigger" out of it. Practically every tenth word, and every one of those words was necessary. It wasn't the same at all. Rape? Duh? The line was something like, "I rape and pillage and murder for fun", and it became "I .... and pillage and murder for fun". Since when is rape a worse word than murder?
Oh, well.
I was disappointed because I didn't see one particular scene I remembered that I loved. A bad guy pulls a gun on the hero, a few inches from his chest, and the hero calmly sticks his finger in the barrel. The look of disbelief on the bad guy's face is priceless. "Oh, $#!T ! Now what?!"
So I did some research today, and it turns out that scene is from a different movie. Walter Brennan pulled a gun on James Garner in "Support Your Local Sheriff", and Garner sticks his finger in it.
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065051/]
My research led me to some forums in which people were arguing vociferously a) whether or not you could stick a finger in the barrel of anything smaller than a shotgun, and b) whether the buildup of compressed air thus created would really cause the gun to explode.
I was frustrated because they were so passionate about such a moot point. It doesn't matter whether it would or not. It only matters whether the shooter is absolutely *positive* it will not.
If a guy is pointing a gun at your chest from a foot away, you don't know for sure whether he's going to pull the trigger or not. You lose nothing by sticking your finger in the barrel, either way. He, on the literal other hand, now has a chance, a possibility, of losing his shootin' hand if he pulls the trigger. There's an element of surprise, and that can make all the difference.
So I wanted to ask those guys who insisted the gun would not explode - if you were going to shoot some guy, and he did that unexpectedly, would you pull the trigger without hesitation?
I am proud of myself for stomping my frustration and resisting the impulse to jump into the discussion. I doubt they'd get my point anyway.
.
Monday, January 31, 2011
3246 Anthem, guns.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Field's topic Saturday involved renditions of the national anthem, and he touched on Marvin Gaye's and Whitney Houston's. He said, "Whitney wasn't bad, but Marvin's version was transcending."
Now, I dearly love me some Marvin, but I'd never heard him sing the anthem. I do remember hearing Whitney in real time, though. I didn't have the faintest idea who she was then, and I don't watch sports, so I caught it by accident, but I was blown away. I cried.
So I had to go listen to both versions. Yeah, Marvin was good. Marvin is always good. Do love me some Marvin. But once again, Whitney's killed me. I cried again.
---------------------------
Someone on TV said recently that people who want to carry guns all the time feel threatened all the time.
I had to think about that for a while. Based on next to no information, no facts, no studies, I think I believe it. It's been my experience, anyway, limited as it is.
I've known a few people who had permits to carry concealed weapons, and they did strike me as people who always felt threatened. Even walking the same streets as I, shopping in the same stores, dealing with the same people, they saw threat everywhere. I didn't. I don't. I certainly didn't feel any safer with them. I wonder whether carrying a gun made them more conscious of the possibilities, or seeing possibilities everywhere made them want to carry the gun. Chicken or egg. I don't know.
Maybe it has to do with past experiences, their own or something that happened to someone they knew. A kind of civilian post-traumatic stress.
I know someone now who sees the threat of violence everywhere, resulting in a constant alertness, vigilance, and if you knew the stories, you'd understand why. In his case a side effect is not a desire to carry a gun, but to an intense hatred of guns and all those who carry them.
Or maybe it's the political climate. We are being taught by the media that we should fear. To fear "the other", anyone not like us, and that should the unthinkable happen, you're on your own. Nothing has happened to make people feel threatened as individuals - not yet anyway - but "it's right around the corner".
I consider this a political thing because one way to control people is to make them afraid, then convince them that only you can be depended on to protect them.
Theories, anyone?
.
" And above all things, never think that you're not good enough yourself. A [person] should never think that. My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning."
-- Isaac Asimov --
-------------------------------------------------------------
-- Isaac Asimov --
-------------------------------------------------------------
Field's topic Saturday involved renditions of the national anthem, and he touched on Marvin Gaye's and Whitney Houston's. He said, "Whitney wasn't bad, but Marvin's version was transcending."
Now, I dearly love me some Marvin, but I'd never heard him sing the anthem. I do remember hearing Whitney in real time, though. I didn't have the faintest idea who she was then, and I don't watch sports, so I caught it by accident, but I was blown away. I cried.
So I had to go listen to both versions. Yeah, Marvin was good. Marvin is always good. Do love me some Marvin. But once again, Whitney's killed me. I cried again.
---------------------------
Someone on TV said recently that people who want to carry guns all the time feel threatened all the time.
I had to think about that for a while. Based on next to no information, no facts, no studies, I think I believe it. It's been my experience, anyway, limited as it is.
I've known a few people who had permits to carry concealed weapons, and they did strike me as people who always felt threatened. Even walking the same streets as I, shopping in the same stores, dealing with the same people, they saw threat everywhere. I didn't. I don't. I certainly didn't feel any safer with them. I wonder whether carrying a gun made them more conscious of the possibilities, or seeing possibilities everywhere made them want to carry the gun. Chicken or egg. I don't know.
Maybe it has to do with past experiences, their own or something that happened to someone they knew. A kind of civilian post-traumatic stress.
I know someone now who sees the threat of violence everywhere, resulting in a constant alertness, vigilance, and if you knew the stories, you'd understand why. In his case a side effect is not a desire to carry a gun, but to an intense hatred of guns and all those who carry them.
Or maybe it's the political climate. We are being taught by the media that we should fear. To fear "the other", anyone not like us, and that should the unthinkable happen, you're on your own. Nothing has happened to make people feel threatened as individuals - not yet anyway - but "it's right around the corner".
I consider this a political thing because one way to control people is to make them afraid, then convince them that only you can be depended on to protect them.
Theories, anyone?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)