Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 20 December 2012

Those of you who know me are aware I was, and am, an outspoken supporter of the rights of gays to serve in the military, and to marry, even while I was serving in the military.

Likewise, I was, and am, vocal about the rights of pagans, wiccans, atheists and other cultural groups not favored by the Christian majority.

I support reproductive choice for women.

I support these because it's the right thing to do, regardless of my personal feelings.

I chastise conservatives who would like to forget the rights of certain groups, based on their feelings, including recently, those who wished to blame the gay community for the child molestation at Penn State.

The Heller Decision regarding the Second Amendment is linked below, with an important excerpt:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."

I do not ask that you participate in any activity.  

I do ask that you respect the rights of 94 million Americans who were not involved in the incident at Sandy Hook, and who condemn it.

I ask that you return the favor and defend their rights, regardless of your personal feelings.  It is easy to take the moral high ground for a cause one agrees with.  A true challenge for an activist is to support positions one is not comfortable with.

And I ask that you vocally oppose those who claim any such group of Americans enjoys or endorses violence, claims they are lacking in some moral or intellectual fashion, merely for pursuing their Constitutionally guaranteed and court-recognized civil rights.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 18 December 2012

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html

Because I can do that.

And guns aren't going away.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 15 December 2012

Decades later, we're still having this debate.

First, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court stated we do have a right to keep and bear arms.  So that means, you are proposing to violate my civil rights.  That's a dead end issue right there.  If you're trying to find ways to violate my rights only to a certain degree in certain ways, you have to expect that I'm going to fight you as much as any other activist fighting someone who is trying to violate their civil rights.  Hating me for that is irrational, and unless you hate other activists for protecting their rights, there's a word for you--the same word that applies to anti-porn crusaders, anti-religion crusaders and anti-press crusaders.

But, if you still want to have this debate, take a look at this:

http://mackeychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Smith2.jpg

A Smith & Wesson.  It dates from 1882.  I have older ones, but this should prove the point.  Guns don't wear out easily.

And this:

http://mackeychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AKOAL.jpg

I fabricated this (completely legally) in my garage.  It's a nice garage, but that's all you need. 

Consider this project by another gentleman:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

And it works for Browning 1919A4 Machine Guns, too:

http://mackeychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/browningwhite.jpg

(With a few mods to keep it legal)

Guns are a 700 year old technology.  There are modern machine tools that connect to a PC that will produce just about any automobile, machine or gun part.  The barrel is the hard part, but it's perfectly doable—rifled barrels date back only 500 years.  All that's left is knowledge, and then you run into that tricky First Amendment.

Now, even if it became illegal to do so, the knowledge and tools remain.  If there's a black market for illegal drugs, and there is, why wouldn't there be black market for illegal guns?  Britain has a near total ban on firearms and a ready supply from Eastern Europe.  You don't think Central and South America will be happy to meet our illicit needs?  They already produce of a lot of legal guns for our markets.

But even if you manage that, there are millions of existing guns, almost all of them untraceable, in that I mean the only record is of the original buyer from the original dealer, since 1968.  If you make them illegal, most of them will disappear somewhere, because most people do think that being able to defend themselves is a pretty good idea.  And also:  Black market.

By the way, if you only want to ban certain guns, such as "assault weapons" (Which is a meaningless term, but if it makes you feel happy, enjoy it), we tried that.  First, it had no effect on all the existing ones.  Second, the same rifles kept being made, with minor cosmetic changes to meet the law, because there isn't a workable legal definition of "assault weapon." The courts ruled that attempting to ban by name wasn't workable, by function was too vague, and as long as the silly cosmetic rules were followed, they were perfectly legal, by the millions.

Actually, I MIGHT be able to come up with something that would work to define, say, an AR15 in a way that would legally differentiate it from other weapons.  However, I have no intention of helping you find a loophole to violate my rights, you hater  (That's what we call people opposed to civil rights, isn't it?  Hatey hating haters).

But even if you manage that, and somehow get a Constitutional Amendment AND supporting laws through, then you have the fact that you have to pay for the guns you're seizing—curse that pesky 5^th Amendment. It seems as if the entire Constitution is against you.  And you're right.  It is.

So, AR15s, times 15 million, times $1200 average value = a shit ton of money.  Okay, $18 billion.  EIGHTEEN FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS just for one type of weapon.  Figure an average of $500 per gun times 280 million guns…I'll let you do the math. 

Take a deep breath.

Okay, this is reality vs your desires, as I've discussed with quite a few other groups.  You can't get what you want.  The end.

Guns are here, readily available, they're not going away, and half the country will fight your attempt, so you're not going to get it.

Now, would you care to discuss some rational approach to fighting crime?  May I suggest we scale back the War on Drugs?  Improve help for the poor and improve education?  Aren't those things liberals support?

And tell those profiteering media types to stop glamorizing killers.  The First Amendment is about political dissent, using lead type and sketches.  Certainly the Founding Fathers never foresaw instant downloads of graphic death into every phone, for the purpose of selling advertising dollars.  How can one defend a "need" for that right?

Food for thought.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 14 December 2012

Okay, I didn't want to weigh in on this, but it's hard not to.

This is a terrible tragedy.  The first and most important thing is medical, moral and legal support for the survivors.  If that wasn't the first thing you thought of, you're an asshole.

I was going to leave it there, but I'm being bombarded with angry posts from people. 

Now, it's perfectly understandable (speaking of the public, not the participants) to feel shock, outrage, impotence, fear.

So, the obvious solution is to BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!!  And I'm a lunatic/hater/right wing retard for owning and using them.

Which is the same bullshit we hear every time there's a crime.

Look, some asshole stabbed a bunch of kids in China yesterday.  The worst school killing in the US was in the 1920s and featured home made bombs.  Some other asshole drove his Cadillac into a schoolyard in the 1980s.  If someone wants to kill people, there are plenty of ways to do so.  Whether or not guns exist, killers will.

As to banning, it'll be about as successful as prohibiting booze.  Guns are a 13th century technology.  They can be built in a modestly equipped garage, and they are.  Peasants in Afghanistan make them in caves.  So any talk of banning is ridiculous.

Also, guns are illegal in schools, so this asshole was breaking the law!  Gee, I guess murderous cocksuckers don't care about laws.  How about that?

In fact, MURDER is apparently illegal in the US, and also not well-regarded. 

Guns exist and you can't make them go away.  If guns didn't exist, there are plenty of other ways to kill people, which were used very effectively for tens or hundreds of thousands of years before guns existed.  

Let the families grieve, pray for them if it makes you feel better, and don't attack the 94 million gun owners who didn't kill anyone today.