The Founding Fathers, AR-15's, and Goals

  Following President Biden's SOTU speech, the topic of banning this, that, and the other firearm has come to the fore once again.  Inevitably, this has brought out the anti gunners tossing out their usual talking points.  I've already covered how it's not guns that are responsible for the increase in gun violence, along with other fallacies.  Because of how inane it was, I refused to waste time on one particular claim, but someone pissed me off on the internet and here we are.  

This particular talking point pertains to "assault weapons" (i.e. AR-15, AK47, etc.).  The argument is that when they penned the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned something so vile as an AR-15.  The follow on is that they wouldn't approve of such a firearm being available to civilians.  

Anyone who thinks that possesses zero grasp of the Constitution and the history of the Bill of Rights.  The 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the states to maintain militias, for the sole purpose of preventing a tyrannical central government from overreaching. (I already wrote a lengthy entry on the 2nd Amendment; go find it).  Therefore, the Second Amendment specifically applies to weapons of war, whatever they may be.  It's ludicrous to suggest the Founding Fathers would have confined these militias to using muskets, knowing technology improves everything, weapons included.  

With SCOTUS's latest ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies to personal gun ownership, any ban would be unconstitutional and shot down by the corrupt right wing judiciary. 

And in case you've forgotten, the AR-15 isn't used in warfare; the M4 is, with its three round burst capability.

At this point, I'll once again, ask those who want a ban on AR-15's what they're attempting to achieve.  I've previously pointed out how these guns contribute to a very small percentage of firearm related homicides.  In 2021 (2022 data isn't available yet), ALL RIFLES accounted for <600 homicides, so AR-15's would account for considerably fewer.  

What's really important is how many lives you'd save by eliminating the AR and similar rifles.  Here's a quick calculation with some assumptions:

For 2021, ALL rifles were used in 578 homicides 

Being generous, let's say 70% of rifle deaths were associated with AR's - 405

However, it would be disingenous to say none of those homicide would have happened; the murderer would simply choose a different weapon.  I've used a 50% factor to calculate this difference.

Putting that all together, in 2021, there would have been 202 lives saved if AR-15's didn't exist.  

On the mass homicide side of the equation, those firing AR-15's were responsible for 386 homicides, SINCE 1982.  Obviously, some percentage of these murders would have still taken place, just with a different type of firearm.  Using the same 50% factor as above, 193 lives would have been spared, were the AR not available.  Again, this is from 1982 until now.  

Because everyone likes pictures, the two charts below illustrate two things; in what context gun related homicides take place and by which type of firearm.  Now tell me again how assault rifles are killing so many people in mass shootings.

Banning the AR-15 won't move the needle on firearm related homicides, so what are you trying to accomplish?

In conclusion, I'm not unsympathetic to the cause of decreasing gun violence, but as I've said previously, it's abundantly clear some aren't interested in root causes, but attempting to achieve a pipe dream.  Furthermore, such flawed talking points are useless in changing any minds, because they're flawed.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Classified Documents And You

 Because it's on my mind, below are the answers to the two most common questions floating around regarding classified documents.  

To begin, there is no "Classified" in the code.  The three levels are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.  Those are the public levels; there might be levels where even the name of the classification level is secret.  This post pertains to the first two and somewhat within the context of recent discoveries at the homes of President Biden and former Vice President, Mike Pence.  

Why Didn't NARA Know The Docs Were Missing?

The simple answer is there's no central database that catalogs classified documents and the whereabouts of every copy of each.  It would be an impossible task, considering there are literally billions of these docs and countless copies of each.  This is why no one was aware that Trump, Biden, and Pence still had classified docs in their possession.  Trumps were discovered because a staff member recognized a former President shouldn't have 200+ boxes of the stuff and dropped a dime on him.

A quick example to illustrate how these things multiply:  A CIA task force conducts its weekly review, requiring a number of docs be printed for the forty people in the meeting.  A few get thrown to the Pentagon, DNI, the President, and so on.  There could literally be close to a thousand copies of several classified documents to come from that one meeting.  

Also, there are many folks with clearances outside the US government, which is necessary to actually design and build things like fighter jets.  Every final assembly and many of the subassembly drawings are classified; you can imagine the number of docs associated with that activity.  

Do we have that many secrets to need billions of documents?   

The short answer is no.  The issue of overclassification has been known to the intelligence community for years.  Overclassification is when a document doesn't really warrant to be classified, but is.  For example, a doc that compiles information found in the public domain can wind up as Secret; this happens frequently.  The mindset is better to be safe than sorry.

On the other end of a classified doc's lifespan, the intelligence community isn't the best at declassifying material that's out of date or shouldn't have been classified in the first place.  The process is time consuming, as it should be to prevent material that's still sensitive from being released.  But there are innumerable docs that could be declassified that no one's bothered to do so.  I'd be willing to bet there's still a Top Secret document evaluating the transistor's (invented in 1947) impact on defense strategy.  

Can you remove classified documents from their source?

It depends.  Constitutional officers have a lot of latitude on this versus other schmucks and members of congress.  This means a VP has the ability to remove materials the same as the President. 

A source I've found very helpful is below.

Classified Rules

LGTBQ and You

 This entry will be geared primarily toward the fine folks who lean hard to the right.  Its genesis, however, was my own reflection on the topic.  Because this is a quick and dirty one, don't look for a ton of stats; just logic and common sense.

First, let's talk about why folks are LGTBQ.  The brain is an incredibly complex organ that we still don't completely understand all of its intricacies.  While our DNA plays a role in our physical attributes, most innate behaviors are simply hard wired into our brains.  The majority of our population is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex; makes sense for the whole procreation thing.  However, for just under 10%, their wiring tells them to be attracted to the same sex as they are.  In roughly 1.5% of the population, their wiring tells them they're the opposite sex from the one they were born.  These traits are present from birth and don't just pop up at majority.  

It's really not any more complicated than that.  There are some people with anatomy that's different than their brain says they are.  

What being LGTNQ isn't:
- A sickness:  no matter what the hillbillies in the Midwest claim, you can't teach someone to no longer be gay.  That's called torture.  Again, the whole hardwiring thing.

- A choice:  Folks in the LGTBQ community suffer physical and verbal abuse, are discriminated against, and generally ostracized from society.  Many torture themselves trying to be "not gay" to fit in, but hardwiring... I assure you, no one voluntarily chooses to put themselves through that hell.  

- Grooming straight kids to be LGTBQ:  Honestly, this is one of the dumbest myths going about the community.  It isn't a club that needs new members, people!  For the really dense who believe the myth about recruiting kids because gay couples can't procreate, you may have heard about this thing called adoption.  You know, for all the unwanted babies being born because the mothers were forced to bring them to term?

- Different than straight people:  For the most part, these folks want the same things as straight people.  They want to love someone and be loved back; you know, happiness shit.  

- Pedophiles:  Every legitimate study I found online said the same thing, which is 80% of pedophiles are (supposedly) straight men, leaving the 20% remainder of bisexual and homosexual men.  Don't get me started on clergy, because that's well documented.  As I've said before, I'd consider my kids to be safer with two men in drag than with a clergyman.  

Readers should note the numerous times I've mentioned children, because that's important.  As I mentioned before, gay adults began life as gay children, who go through hell growing up.  

What that means is this:

- Gay and lesbian youth are almost four times as likely to commit suicide than their straight counterparts

- Trans youth are almost six times more likely!!!*

That's what we're doing to our children.  Those who are closed minded and full of hate, give it a rest on the whole "that's a guy in women's clothing".  If that person's brain says they're a woman and she wants to live her life as a woman, let the woman be who she is, and hope for her to find her place.  She's gone through more hell than you, most likely.

For those who continually harp on how they want to protect our children, here's your opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and not be a hypocrite.  

I get it; there's an "eww" factor.  Watching gay men kiss continues to be on the icky side for me as well.  Growing up in a rural environment, I saw the LGTBQ community (they didn't have a name then) as freaks.  But then something happened to me; I grew the fuck up.

No one's asking for you to be enthusiastic with your acceptance.  Only to not hate those who want the same thing as you, but aren't the same as you.

*per JAMA published study

Other helpful studies have been linked below.

Studies on subject