Jessie Duff on Gun Misconceptions

     Well FINALLY, someone on television actually gives a demonstration regarding the misconceptions of these firearms:

Preciousness of Life

     Well I am just getting over having had a severe allergic reaction to an amoxicillin pill. Turns out I am very allergic it seems to all penicillin-based medications most likely. This has been a recurring pattern for me each time I have had surgery or received some medication. This represents the fourth time in my life where upon taking some kind of medication (this time for a minor eye surgery), I had a bad allergic reaction. However, this time was severe. I am going to have to get one of those special bracelets that alert medical professionals not to give me certain medications in the event I end up in say a car accident or what have you.

     However, this reaction was particularly severe. I am lucky that the doctor did not tell me to take two pills instead of one, or I might be dead now. The night started off with me vomiting, developing a high fever, and full body rash. I luckily didn't get hives, but it was a nasty red rash nonetheless. My body and face swelled up very badly, and I lost my ability to taste food (which is just now coming back---let me tell you, you don't realize how much you enjoy the ability to taste food until you lose it!). The rash did not really itch much, but I was bedridden for days. I had to go to an urgent care facility where they found I was severely dehydrated from the vomiting, and htey gave me an IV and told me to take Tylenol every four hours to bring down my fever.

     One of the worst parts was how hot I felt. My face felt extremely hot and my head overall felt very hot. This is one of the maddening parts of the reaction. After a few days, I woke up and my head and face felt cool! I literally felt reborn I have to tell you. It was like I had been subjected to the pits of hell and was now being reborn. How nice it was to just lie in bed and feel cool! People sure take that for granted. The rash became very itchy later that day, which was utterly maddening, but luckily the itch died off the next day. I have since been recovering.

     My heart rate has been abnormally high, I am going to have to get this checked by a doctor if it continues into next week. While I have been feeling much more "normal," I have found that my body is still very tired and needs a lot more sleep. It's like I would sleep the whole night, a normal length, and feel very tired upon waking still. Also, my skin has been flaking off. My father did some research and told me I might have a version of what is called Stephen Johnson Syndrome, which is a condition that can be triggered by an allergic reaction to a penicillin that can cause the epidermal layer of the skin to slough off. However, this is a severe reaction that requires hospitalization and treatment in a burn unit. It is believed by many from what I have read that Stephen Johnson Syndrome is itself a lighter version of what is called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, which is a condition in which the epidermal layer detaches completely from the body due to a severe allergic reaction.

     As bad as my reaction was, it could have been a lot worse, so I thank God I didn't have to go through that ordeal and my heart goes out to those that do. For me, it's been more like having gotten a full-body sunburn. Rather than peeling, as said my skin has been flaking off. My head has constant dandriff right now, and my back and arms have especially been flaking. My face was flaking for a day or so and my neck has been as well. My legs are now beginning to flake too, but thus far my chest and stomach area have remained normal. I suppose the rash didn't get those areas as badly.

     It undermines however how precious life and good health is. One moment you are healthy as can be and one pill later and you are on the verge of death. I know it sounds very cliched, but seriously, never take life or good health for granted. Always be cognizant in particular about your health and do your best to preserve it as you age via eating healthy and obtaining basic exercise.

Assault Weapons Ban

     So today President Obama outlined his various proposals on how to supposedly reduce gun violence, including measures such as the Assault Weapons Ban. I felt I should clear a few things up on this particular piece of legislation.

Myth #1: Assault Weapons
     Contrary to what so many in the media and politicians believe, there really is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The term assault weapon was a political term that was created in order to give the gun control movement an "in" with regards to being able to ban what amount to being scary-looking guns. Obviously, saying one wants to ban scary-looking guns would not go over well politically. So the term assault weapon was invented and now they are considered a type of firearm.
    
     What gets a gun the label "assault weapon?" Under the old Assault Weapons Ban and under most of the state bans, it needs at least two of the following features:

Folding or collapsible stock
Flash suppressor
Pistol grip
Grenade launcher
Bayonet lug

Under Dianne Feinstein's new Assault Weapons Ban which she is going to introduce this Thursday (January 3rd), which is much more draconian than the first ban, the term will apply to a gun that has at least one of those features, along with some other features. Thus it effectively will outlaw an enormous number of firearms. It explicitly outlaws numerous firearms and indirectly outlaws numerous others (such as the AR-15) via this method. New York's Governor Guomo just signed into law yesterday a law that redefines "assault weapon" as any weapon with a detachable magazine and at least one military-style feature, so it most likely will outlaw the AR-15. The only way around this I could think of could be what is called the "bullet button," which is used in California AR-15s. Basically, it's a mechanism that holds the magazine in place where you need a special tool in order to detach the magazine from the rifle. This makes it where the magazine is not "technically" a "detachable" magazine. Whether such AR-15s will be able to make it in New York I have no idea, but I have a feeling the politicians will revise the law to include this as well after looking at how quickly they rammed through this gun control legislation.

     Now you'll notice that these cosmetic features do not exactly have anything to do with the actual capability of the gun itself.

If a criminal fixes a bayonet (when has that ever happened?) and then points the gun at you, the bayonet on the gun is not the source of your concern there.

Regarding the grenade launcher, it actually referred to an obsolete WWII-era grenade launcher. But regardless, you can't buy the grenades for any such grenade launcher anyhow, new or obsolete model.

The flash suppressor is a safety mechanism for the shooter that suppresses the flash from the gun shot so that the shooter can see better where they are shooting.

The pistol grip is something the gun control folk have an unusual fascination with. I don't why personally, as a rifle without a pistol girp can be fired just as quickly as one with a pistol grip.

The folding or collapsible stock has to be one of the craziest of these. The stock is the part of the rifle that rests against one's shoulder when they are aiming the rifle. How a stock that can fold to the side on the gun or be adjusted to different lengths makes the weapon an "assault weapon" is beyond me.

     As such, the draconian ban Senator Feinstein and the President is proposing amounts to blatantly infringing on people's Second Amendment rights by taking advantage of a slaughter that happened while doing very little that actually addresses the key issue at hand, i.e. how to prevent future Newtowns from happening. The Assault Weapons Ban is really a very crafty piece of legislation from the gun control perspective. Basically what it allows is for the gun control people to claim a type of weapon exists that doesn't and to call for its banning, and then to act as if they are the adults in the conversation while going up against a bunch of dogmatic, unyielding gun nuts who will not compromise on the most "sane and reasonable" gun control legislation. The reality of course is that such legislation is very unreasonable and lacking in sanity.

     The Republican party itself tends not to help with this as many of the Republican politicians themselves do not understand that there really is no such thing as an assault weapon, which leads to some inane defenses they put up against an assault weapons ban. Milton Friedman once spoke about how with all policy proposals, there are the "do-gooders" and then the people with an agenda. With the assault weapons ban, there are a lot of do-gooders in the Democratic party as well, people who mean well and who just don't know any better. The people with the agenda, who do know better but who purposely mislead the public on this issue are the ones who are the ideologues on this.

Myth #2: The AR-15 is a Powerful Rifle
     The AR-15 is most definitely not a powerful rifle. It is a rather low-powered rifle, to the point that one can't even use it to hunt any kind of large game. It is simply  very militaristic-looking rifle is all. Too many people judge the weapon by how it looks as opposed to bothering to learn about what it actually is. This myth has been repeated in particular by Senator Feinstein. The reality is that the AR-15 is sort of like the Jeep Wrangler of the firearms world: very durable, modular, customizable, useful, etc...but just as the Wrangler is not a vehicle you'd use to tow a trailer or haul a heavy load, the AR-15 is not a gun one would use for any application requiring a powerful gun.

     So why do soldiers carry AR-15s? Because back in the old days of soldiering, soldiers carried what were known as "battle rifles." Battle rifles are bigger, more powerful rifles that fire a full-power cartridge. The militaries of the world realized that most soldiers do not engage one another until much closer than the distances that battle rifles can shoot out to, so it did not make sense to have soldiers carrying such big, powerful, heavy rifles when they could be equipped with more lightweight, smaller rifles, with smaller ammunition, which would also let them carry more ammunition. This was especially important during the Cold War as NATO forces were outnumbered by Warsaw Pact forces.

     In terms of the AR-15 itself, it is actually too weak of a rifle to even be used for hunting any kind of large game. It makes an excellent varmint hunting rifle however (yes people do very much hunt with so-called "assault weapons," contrary to the claims of people such as Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo). It's bigger brother, the AR-10 (from which the design of the AR-15 originated from) makes an excellent general-purpose hunting rifle.

Myth #3: Weapons of War
     This is another oft-repeated claim, that "weapons of war" have no place in the hands of civilians. President Obama repeated this claim today in his speech with the children, where he said something to the effect of weapons of the theater of war have no place in movie theaters. The problem is in defining exactly what a "weapon of war" is. Unless on is referring to something like a machine gun, an automatic fire weapon, there is no such thing as a "weapon of war." A gun is a gun, to put it simply. It isn't as if one needs a special kind of gun to be able to kill a human being. A human being, biologically, is an animal. It's a high-functioning animal, but it's an animal nonetheless. It's an animal with a powerful brain, hands, that is bipedal, can think abstactly, speaks languages, can fashion tools, makes clothing for itself, has developed culture, and advanced civilizations, but it's still an animal.

     And the gun doesn't care whether it is shooting at the animal known as a deer, the animal known as a bear, the animal known as a coyote, or the animal known as a human. It will kill or inflict damage in all just the same. When soldiers shoot at other humans at war, they are shooting at animals. They are just shooting at animals that happen to be the same type of animal they are, other human beings. The practice of adopting military rifles for hunting purposes goes back to the days of the Revolution. Military rifles generally make excellent hunting rifles. And some hunting rifles make excellent military rifles. For example, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps both use variants of what is a very popular bolt-action hunting rifle, the Remington 700, for use as a sniper rifle. The Army's variant is called the M24 and the Marine Corps's variant is called the M40.

     Some people might wonder, "Why are SNIPER RIFLES legal for people to buy. Who needs one of those?" Well the reason is because "sniper rifle," "hunting rifle," are the same gun. If you can use it to shoot a bear from a distance and kill it, you most definitely can use it to shoot a human from a distance and kill it. The term "sniper rifle" is also rather arbitrary, as technically any rifle could be used as a sniper rifle if it will do the job. For example, the "DC sniper" (John Allen Muhammad) used an AR-15 to shoot at his victims. The AR-15 is usually not though of as any sniper rifle.

Myth #4: Automatic Fire Weapons
     Automatic fire weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934 via the National Firearms Act, and their manufacture outlawed in this country since 1986. One can own ones made before 1986, but to do so requires getting permission from your local police (if they say no, that stops you right there) and then undergoing a very extensive background check. There is a waiting period of many months, and the gun itself will cost you a lot of money (perhaps around $10K to $20K) because such guns are so rare. The problem is too many politicians confuse what are semi-automatic guns that look identical to their automatic fire cousins with being actual automatic fire weapons. All guns manufactured in the United States must be manufactured where they cannot easily be converted into automatic fire weapons as well.

     Now in fairness to this, there in recent times has been created a sort of "workaround" to this, which is called bump-firing. Bump-fire mechanisms basically let you fire a semi-automatic gun at a very high rate of speed, to the point that it is essentially the same as an automatic fire weapon. "Technically," such guns are not automatic fire as they are semi-automatics with a mechanism that lets them fire very quickly, as opposed to having an actual automatic fire mechanism inside the gun. But the effect is very similar. Personally, I think such devices are a disaster waiting to happen for the gun industry, because if some maniac decides to use such a device to go on a shooting spree at let's say a crowd, the media is going to focus on this "workaround."

     By having automatic fire weapons outlawed, the gun rights proponents have a good fact on our side. We shouldn't undermine it. We may sometimes have to jump up and down and scream from the rooftops that automatic fire weapons are not legal, and that the ones that are are very regulated, but at least the facts are there. Bump-fire mechanism undermine this whole argument. I would not myself outlaw bump-fire mechanism, but make it where one needs a special permit to acquire one.

Myth #5: The National Rifle Association is Just an Arm of the Gun Industry
     The NRA, usually called "the gun lobby," often gets derided as just being an arm for the gun manufacturing industry, but this isn't the case. The reason is because contrary to what the gun control people want people to think, gun manufacturing is actually not that large of an industry. It is about $12 billion a year. That's pretty puny when one compares it to say Wal-Mart, one company, that has revenues in the $450 billion range. Or Exxon-Mobil, which had revenues in 2011 of about $483 billion. Bank of America was over $100 billion. The major defense companies tend to be in the $30 to $40 billion revenue range. These are lobbies. A little $12 billion manufacturing industry is not going to have anywhere near the financial wherewithall to give the NRA the kind of influence that it has in Washington.

     What gives the NRA it's influence is its membership, over four million dues-paying members, along with other people who send the NRA donations even though they are not members. Whenever politicians talk about the "ultra-powerful NRA," or that they have "run up against the NRA," what they really mean is that they have run up against a large amount of the American people. If the American people sotp funding the NRA, then it will lose its influence. Now it is true that the gun manufacturers give money to the NRA. But by themselves, they are not enough to give it the influence it has.

     This small size of the gun manufacturing industry is actually quite beneficial to those who desire gun control as it presents an ample opportunity to try to get rid of guns simply by regulating, taxing, and/or suing these companies out of existence. Congress actually had to pass a law (to the chagrin of the gun control movement) saying essentially that one cannot just frivolously sue a gun manufacturer because the company's gun was used for nefarious purposes.

     The phrase "the gun lobby" is also misleading as well. Groups like the NRA are not "the gun lobby," they are a lobby for gun rights, to protect a Constitutional right which many are constantly seeking to infringe upon. The gun control movement has lately taken to calling themselves "gun safety" advocates. This sounds a lot nicer then "gun control" which is why they are adopting it. The media have been happy to pick up on the usage of this term however, albeit while continuing to refer to gun rights proponents and groups as "the gun lobby."

     I am hoping that the Assault Weapons Ban President Obama has proposed does not pass Congress. If you care about your gun rights, now is the tie to write your Congressmen, the leaders of the parties, even the President (make yourself heard), and I'll also say give some funds to groups like the NRA as they'll need them to lobby in order to protect our Second Amendment rights.