NationStates Jolt Archive

WARNING: ALLANEA DOES NOT ENDORSE OR AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE

"Patriotism For Dummies"

by Mike Magnum

Howdy folks.

You know, ole' Mike is about the flag-wavin'est SOB you're likely to meet. Old Glory flies proudly on the mast outside of the Gun Store and Liquor Emporium, waves majestically from my front porch. But there's nothing that bugs me worse than people who throw around the word patriotism while showing that they don't have a goll-durn clue what the word actually means.

For example, the last few years I've been seeing herds of mental midgets showing their "patriotism" by wearing flag-themed shirts, pants, shoes, ponchos, hats, conventional AND chastity belts, backpacks, fanny packs, overalls...heck my nephew's prom date showed up at the door with a dress made of the flag President Taft commissioned in 1912 and a matching do-rag modeled after the Betsy Ross original! Now you're probably saying to yourself "what wonderful god-fearing Americans," but there's just one little problem. Flag etiquette states, in no uncertain terms, that you are never, EVER supposed to wear the flag. No images of flags on t-shirts, no clothing made out of flags...nothing. Don't believe me? Ask the rules.

But say what you will about most of these hombres...at least they're well-intentioned for the most part. Sadly, there's a groups of rascals who are doing everything except flip lady liberty the bird while whizzin' on the constitution...and they're doing it to prove how patriotic they are! Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

Who are these punks who wrap their contempt for our American way of life up in the flag and claim they're doing their patriotic duty? Color me shocked, but it's the NRA crowd.

It all began when .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle maker Ronnie Barrett decided that he wasn't content just selling his big ole' guns to the military and law enforcement; he wanted to make sure that even suburban pigeon hunting enthusiasts and would be urban snipers had access to his battlefield weapons from sea to shining sea. Just another freedom loving capitalist looking to make a buck, and you know ole' Mike can sympathize with that. But when the LAPD got behind a new campaign to keep these bad boys off the civilian market in California, ole' Ronnie pitched the biggest fit I've seen since I took away Junior's .357 Magnum after he took pot shots at his sister. When the LAPD's boys in blue mailed Barrett a sniper rifle to repair-that they use for crime-fighting-he mailed them back a letter that showed all the emotional maturity and intellectual ability you'd expect from a five year old kid coming down from a sugar high. But don't take my word for it. Ronnie made his point abundantly clear:

Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

How do you like that! It's like Lockheed Martin telling the Air Force that if they don't let them sell F-16s to whatever eccentric billionaire has the bones to buy one they won't service the government's planes. Or Rocket Launcher manufacturers saying they won't sell them to the U.S.A. until there's one in every pot...take that Chicken! See for folks like me, who really love this country, we realize that we're not going to agree with everything that our government does. But that doesn't mean we show contempt for it. It doesn't mean we endanger police officers by not servicing their gear because they have the stones to disagree with us.

But the worst part is some folks are following ole' Ronnie's lead and mistaking patriotism for sedition. Like the folks at the Folsom Shooting Club.

Unhappy that the State of California passed a bill calling for the placement of serial numbers on bullets to give police officers another tool to help investigate gun crimes, the fine folks at Folsom could have addressed their concerns in another way. They could have voted for candidates who were against the measure. They could have held a rally opposing the bill. They could have camped out in front of the Capitol making their displeasure known. Never mind that this shooting range doesn't manufacture bullets, which sort of dampens the potential economic impact of the bill on them...it's their right to express their political beliefs. That's what America is all about!

Instead, they did their impersonation of Ronnie Barret and said that if law enforcement was going to have the audacity to try and improve their ability to enforce the law, they were going to grab all their toys and head home to cry. In a letter to the Attorney General of California the president of the club made his message abundantly clear.

"The Board of Directors of the Folsom Shooting Club (FSC) has directed me to advise you, in writing, that Department of Justice staff, while acting in their official capacity, are suspended from using the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center (SVSC). The FSC is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB 352 and SB 357 while using our facility."

That's right ladies and gentlemen. They don't want law enforcement using their shooting ranges to practice because they're afraid they'll simultaneously advance this crime prevention measure. Apparently the California Department of Justice has been holding most of their meetings on the bill at a shooting range. Don't they have an office for that? While I can't see the advantage of drafting and discussing legislation someplace where people are shooting incredibly loud firearms constantly, I guess those guys have more highly attuned hearing that yours truly.

Best of all, the gun industry's argument against the bill isn't so much that it would be ineffective, as it is that the bill would cost the gun industry money. Ole' Mike personally believes in law and order, and that can only be achieved when our boys in blue have the tools they need to fight crime effectively. And frankly, I trust the police to tell me what will help them lock up people who break the law a little bit more than I trust people with no law enforcement experience...but I guess I'm old fashioned that way. I learned that lesson the hard way when I had my dentist perform an appendectomy on me...

It's a disturbing trend folks. The same people who wrap their belief that every man, woman, and child should have the constitutional right to drive a tank down main street in the flag subvert the very democratic principles they argue provide that right! For the gun industry to hamstring our fine police officers because they think they know better than cops how crime should be solved isn't just stupid logic...it's border-line treason.

So if you're a real patriot, like Mike, do your part. Don't stand idly by while morons like Ronnie and his chums at the Folsom Shooting Club tell the government to go to hell while trying to pass themselves off as true patriots. True patriots support their country, the laws of the land, its military, and its law enforcement officers whether they agree with them all the time or not. True patriots recognize that if they don't like the direction the country is headed, they can change it. But more importantly, true patriots realize that there is a country chock full o' people who may or may not agree with them. They don't try and blackmail the government to get their way. Too bad the gun lobby has pumped the notion of patriotism so full of buckshot that it's virtually unrecognizable...



Until next time I remain your humble servant,

Mike Magnum

WARNING: ALLANEA DOES NOT ENDORSE OR AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE

Mike's an idiot. Blindly supporting the government...brilliant guy.

The government should be questioned at all times. Anything the government does the populace should be able to do as well, otherwise, you get rulers, instead of civil "servants". Yes, this can be scary, especially when it comes to topics like nuclear weapons, but what really gives Bush any more tactical fortitude than any other US citizen? He missed most of his military time! And even then, no offense to those who "truly" served (excelling and trying at all times), you get more rocket scientists and analysts in the private sector than in the military. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of smart folk in the military, but no more than anywhere else. The point is, you know politicians are liars, cheats, and swindlers--all of them. So why trust them any more with a nuke than your neighbor? There is nothing stopping someone from ordering a launch once.

I don't know when the servants became the rulers, but damn, everyone in the US seems to be buying into it, believing that the government "knows best". And following the "rules".

If you can't think for yourself, get the fuck out of a free country because you HAVE to think to be free and responsible. The brain must engage. If it's too tough, go be ruled somewhere else.

The one thing you can't do in a free society is legally vote someone else into servitude--and that's what blindly OBEYING the government allows.

Yes, Ronnie Barrett was right to withold service and sales to California. If they want draconian law, time to take their supply of tools away, so they can't force a police state on the citizenry. The citizenry rules in the US, not the government. And that's DEFINITELY in the RULES (see the Constitution, Mr. Magnum, you dolt).

"Patriotism For Dummies"

Enough said!

Whoa Whoa Whoa. So there should be any army/police caliber weapon on the shelves? I know there checks and what not but there is always the FIRST crime. Submachine guns on playgrounds sound like a good idea. Why stop there...we could load up on SAM's for duck hunting. Have top mounted machine guns on our SUV's. It is ridiculous. The reason they have guns is because most criminals already have them, most illegally, and they need to be stopped when they break the law. If you release massive powerful weapons onto the free market all hell will break loose.

And why would anyone oppose the serial number idea? So the police can find it easier to solve crimes. How is that bad or infringing on rights. If you don't kill anyone, or commit a crime you don't have to worry about it.


Should all people have guns? No. Should law-abiding responsible citizens have guns? If they want. Will it solve problems if we go with the latter? No, but it would lessen them.

Inbred Hicks: Fighting for guns, beer, my half-sister, and the American Way!

Whoa Whoa Whoa. So there should be any army/police caliber weapon on the shelves? I know there checks and what not but there is always the FIRST crime. Submachine guns on playgrounds sound like a good idea. Why stop there...we could load up on SAM's for duck hunting. Have top mounted machine guns on our SUV's. It is ridiculous. The reason they have guns is because most criminals already have them, most illegally, and they need to be stopped when they break the law. If you release massive powerful weapons onto the free market all hell will break loose.


Really? So, with an increase of 100 million guns in the US in the last 15 years, why has the crime rate involving them dropped (started falling before any kind of "assault weapons ban" was in)? An average hunting rifle will go through just about any level 3 or lower rated kevlar vest....much more dangerous and effective than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Also, in the US, the supreme court has ruled AGAIN that the police are not responsible for protecting PEOPLE. So yeah, I'd really rather we had a method of defense against those criminals that already have weapons. It's far from ridiculous--thinking that the police are there to protect people is being very short sighted, and would be very surprising in a legal sense.


And why would anyone oppose the serial number idea? So the police can find it easier to solve crimes. How is that bad or infringing on rights. If you don't kill anyone, or commit a crime you don't have to worry about it.


Because though you may purchase a firearm or bullets for said arm, you may not be the final owner. Also, if you keep a list of who has what, it makes it very easy for a government to know who to hit first, when they decide they don't want a republic anymore. The 2nd Amendment was born because we were under a monarchy--we wanted to make sure we weren't ruled again. It's a very slippery slope. I'm not a toad, waiting for the water to become hotter and hotter, until I don't have any rights left.


Should all people have guns? No.


I'll agree. But you have to be proven to be irresponsible FIRST before infringing rights.


Should law-abiding responsible citizens have guns? If they want.


Again, I'll agree, but citizens are to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty.


Will it solve problems if we go with the latter? No, but it would lessen them.

According to the Constitution, we're already going with the latter, but there are those that seem to think proof needs to be provied ahead of time--guilty until proven innocent. That's not how the US works--as written anyway.

Inbred Hicks: Fighting for guns, beer, my half-sister, and the American Way!

Actually, the inbred hick (Mr. Magnum) was fighting to keep the guns out of the hands of the citizenry, and wanted us to lock-step with the government's wishes. So he was only fighting for some of what you stated...

Actually, the inbred hick (Mr. Magnum) was fighting to keep the guns out of the hands of the citizenry, and wanted us to lock-step with the government's wishes. So he was only fighting for some of what you stated...

Maybe not this guy, but I know there are plenty out there.

So all those guns come out and there are also many more people in the 15 years, also many more gun regulations. You are only looking at one statistic. I can show you any kind of statistic it doesn't mean they correlate. I am not advocating the destruction or the inability to get guns, my dad has rifles as do I, but getting submachine guns is a really bad idea.

So no serial numbers because if we fall into a dictatorship the governament knows who to "hit first." So your name on the registry won't give them a clue? Even if....IF your purchase 2,000 boxes of bullets for each gun you have. Why would the government hit YOU during a change of government. Well, I won't use you because it seems like an attack, is this person in a militia because then I can see the dictatorship wanting to take them out, but even if all weapons were released, do you really think any pockets could adequately resist a push by the military?

Police are not supposed to protect people IN THE CONTEXT of job. Such as making sure people are ok and what not. But they do have to preserve life of the innocents, if they didn't then they wouldn't protect witnesses or rape victims as is customary. If they weren't supposed to protect people why is a hostage situation such a problem? just go inside that guy killed them not the police, not their fault, they shouldn't protect them.

also many more gun regulations

Well, actually, in the last 20 years we've seen:

1. The repeal of any form of checks on purchase of ammunition.

2. The legalisation of concealed carry.

3. The replacement of the five-day waiting period with an instant check system.

4. The sunset of the AWB.


Finally, the original article refers to something (.50 Caliber rifles) that has NEVER yet been used in a single homicide in US history.

Those are true but there have been other gun reforms on who and when to sell to, there can be no doubt that it is harder to get a gun now then before (harder not hard.)


And are you referring to the original article that started the thread? (i am just unsure if I missed something.

Those 'reforms' did not actually affect most people - in fact, it's easier today to get a gun then ten years ago, in 1995 (no AWB, and no five-day waiting period). I believe that asides from people who were convicted of domestic violence crimes, everybody else is finding it easier to get guns.

Yes, I am.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/allguns.sized.jpg

So all those guns come out and there are also many more people in the 15 years, also many more gun regulations. You are only looking at one statistic. I can show you any kind of statistic it doesn't mean they correlate. I am not advocating the destruction or the inability to get guns, my dad has rifles as do I, but getting submachine guns is a really bad idea.


Why? Seriously, why? Because of what someone MIGHT do? Using that logic, we should remove all weapons of any sort from everyone--just because of what they might do. I would like your logical reason for why a submachine gun should be banned, but not a bolt action rifle that can fire much further, with better accuracy, and MUCH more penetration power.


So no serial numbers because if we fall into a dictatorship the governament knows who to "hit first." So your name on the registry won't give them a clue? Even if....IF your purchase 2,000 boxes of bullets for each gun you have. Why would the government hit YOU during a change of government. Well, I won't use you because it seems like an attack, is this person in a militia because then I can see the dictatorship wanting to take them out, but even if all weapons were released, do you really think any pockets could adequately resist a push by the military?


You're the type to give up just because someone else says that something is impossible? That's the impression I'm getting, though I may be misinterpreting.

If it were so tough to beat the US military, the US military would have been out of Iraq or Afghanistan a long time ago. Yes, 80 million infantry can take on an army of 500,000 (probably less, since a good half would rebel as well). Point is, don't give the government a list of people with weapons because they will be attacked first.


Police are not supposed to protect people IN THE CONTEXT of job. Such as making sure people are ok and what not. But they do have to preserve life of the innocents, if they didn't then they wouldn't protect witnesses or rape victims as is customary. If they weren't supposed to protect people why is a hostage situation such a problem? just go inside that guy killed them not the police, not their fault, they shouldn't protect them.

See, there's the point--they are upholding the law, not protecting people. Legally, they CAN just let the victim be killed and then shoot the murderer. That's the problem! The DO NOT have to preserve life. They may have rules on use of lethal force with the perpetrator, but they have zero obligation to protect the victim during the incident.

Those are true but there have been other gun reforms on who and when to sell to, there can be no doubt that it is harder to get a gun now then before (harder not hard.)


Where? In Wisconsin, you can make a completely legal sale to a private buyer--no paperwork, no background check, no nothing. I don't know where you're from but laws will vary from state to state. Tell me again how tough it is to buy a gun...


And are you referring to the original article that started the thread? (i am just unsure if I missed something.

Yup, it mentioned .50 caliber weapons--Barrett's specialty.

So the problem with serial numbers on bullets is that you don't want anyone to be able to tie a specific bullet to a specific person?

Kind of reminds me of the huge American flags you see on factories with the giant holes in them with smoke pluming from its top.

Why? Seriously, why? Because of what someone MIGHT do? Using that logic, we should remove all weapons of any sort from everyone--just because of what they might do. I would like your logical reason for why a submachine gun should be banned, but not a bolt action rifle that can fire much further, with better accuracy, and MUCH more penetration power.I don't want to get sucked into this conversation, but there's an obvious answer to that. Accuracy is the key factor. You are more likely to hit someone exactly where you're aiming with a rifle, thus less likely to unintentionally kill an attacker when you might be simply trying to disable them and less likely to shoot so far off target that you hit some random bystander.

If everyone only uses accurate weapons, death caused by them is more likely to be intentional than accidental.

So the problem with serial numbers on bullets is that you don't want anyone to be able to tie a specific bullet to a specific person?


Let's see.

1. The huge COST of them.

2. The way this would scre over any reloade. (What are you going to do about reloading?)

3. The fact that I don't want anybody to know how much ammunition I am buying?

Well I am from PA and we have a clearance thing (at least my dad has to wait when he buys rifle, swords are more my thing). But aren't their registries that list gun ownership and serial numbers? Besides that I am unsure of the case in question but if a bullet has a serial number on it it can be traced to the box, box to the store, store to the region. This would give police an idea of where the person was at the time of purchase. If you buy with your credit card, you know it is tracked anyway but if you need THAT much ammunition at once and are worried about serial numbers, the upc's on boxes or at least the box names are on your credit card bill and that can be accessed through the PAtriot Act.

The US army is hard to defeat, they are the most technologically advanced in the world, the problem with the middle east is it is EXCRUCIATINGLY hard when your enemy has "homefield" advantage. Look at Vietnam, the american revolution, DESTRUCTION of the roman army marching into germany.

Again in case anyone knew didn't read before. I don't mind people having guns I just think that greater knowledge of WHO has them should be there.

But aren't their registries that list gun ownership and serial numbers?

No, at least in theory - the FBI runs them, and is required by Federal law to destroy transaction records within 24 hours.

the upc's on boxes or at least the box names are on your credit card bill and that can be accessed through the PAtriot Act.

The Patriot Act does not mention or grant access to credit card bills. You'd need a court warrant and a suspicion of an existing crime, like murder or robbery. Moreover, why the hell use a credit card unless you're ordering it?

So the problem with serial numbers on bullets is that you don't want anyone to be able to tie a specific bullet to a specific person?

Bingo. Just like I want the government out of library records.

If a person purchases a box of bullets, 99.99% (or more) of the time, the bullets won't be used illegally.

Tracing everyone's actions is not the government's job.

Let's see.

1. The huge COST of them.

2. The way this would scre over any reloade. (What are you going to do about reloading?)

3. The fact that I don't want anybody to know how much ammunition I am buying?
So this is all more important than greatly increasing the chance of catching a murderer?

Also, as to point two, you'd just reload normally. How the hell would it make it impossible to reload?

I don't want to get sucked into this conversation, but there's an obvious answer to that. Accuracy is the key factor. You are more likely to hit someone exactly where you're aiming with a rifle, thus less likely to unintentionally kill an attacker when you might be simply trying to disable them and less likely to shoot so far off target that you hit some random bystander.

If everyone only uses accurate weapons, death caused by them is more likely to be intentional than accidental.

Heh. Never fired a select fire weapon, have you? Those rifles are as accurate as any semi-auto out there. How many fully auto weapons have been used in crimes in the US? What percentage? It's VERY low, from what I recall.

You're still going off a potential, rather than an actual--NOT enough of a reason. You have to prove why it's dangerous, not why it MIGHT be dangerous.

Anything can be dangerous if used in certain fashions. You have more people killed with knives than with fully automatic weapons in the US today. You're picking the wrong target, if you're trying to reduce deaths.

Well I am from PA and we have a clearance thing (at least my dad has to wait when he buys rifle, swords are more my thing). But aren't their registries that list gun ownership and serial numbers?


Like I said, that's state to state--and it varies widely. Registration is not present in Wisconsin. Nor several other states. www.packing.org would give you a better idea of the actual laws across the nation.


Besides that I am unsure of the case in question but if a bullet has a serial number on it it can be traced to the box, box to the store, store to the region. This would give police an idea of where the person was at the time of purchase. If you buy with your credit card, you know it is tracked anyway but if you need THAT much ammunition at once and are worried about serial numbers, the upc's on boxes or at least the box names are on your credit card bill and that can be accessed through the PAtriot Act.


Don't get me started on the removal of rights authorized by that damn Patriot Act.


The US army is hard to defeat, they are the most technologically advanced in the world, the problem with the middle east is it is EXCRUCIATINGLY hard when your enemy has "homefield" advantage.


Kinda like my backyard would be homefield? So, you're admitting that the citizen wouldn't have as difficult a time as you originally suggested?


Look at Vietnam, the american revolution, DESTRUCTION of the roman army marching into germany.


Yup. It's very tough, regardless of technology level. If you are out numbered 100 to 1, it's going to be a bad day for those on the 1 side.


Again in case anyone knew didn't read before. I don't mind people having guns I just think that greater knowledge of WHO has them should be there.

We know you don't mind some people owning some types of firearms. But why should the knowledge of who owns weapons be available to the government--or anyone else for that matter--as the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from taking over and ruling?

So this is all more important than greatly increasing the chance of catching a murderer?

You're ASSUMINg this will increase this chance. Which you have yet to prove.

lso, as to point two, you'd just reload normally. How the hell would it make it impossible to reload?


reloading - professional term for making custom ammunition at home.

Note: Rifles are not used commonly in murders in the US. You're at a lesser chance of being murdered with a rifle than a knife.

.50-caliber rifles havE NEVEWR been used in a murder so far.

So this is all more important than greatly increasing the chance of catching a murderer?


Infringing the rights of 80 million people to catch 1 person? Yeah, it is more important that those 80 million still have their rights intact.


Also, as to point two, you'd just reload normally. How the hell would it make it impossible to reload?

There are complications. When you buy bullets in lots of 1000, it becomes difficult to track. Also, there are several reloaders that cast their own bullets. Bullet serialization wouldn't work, just like "ballistic fingerprinting" doesn't work. There are too many exceptions and factors.

Real American patrotism is this:

The resolve to defend the ideals of the American republic, its Constitution, its principles from foriegn or domestic threats.

You can wave the flag all you want, but if you don't know which is the Constitution and which is the Declaration of Independence, your more than likely just nationalistic. If you also ignore one of the Bill of rights such as the 2nd, and claim to be a large supporter of the first, your also more of a nationalist if at that.

*agrees with the above poster*