In light of recent events...

The shooting that took place in Connecticut was an act of pure evil.  The shooter was clearly mentally deficient, as evidenced by his murder of his mother.  This event has sparked outrage all over the nation, as the media has pounced on the fact that the shooter used an ar 15.  This, coupled with other recent tragic shootings involving similar weapons (The Aurora shooting), has the anti gun cultists in a frenzy over so called "assault weapons".  What I'm going to say is currently being echoed across the internet by just about every pro rights organization ever, but I feel like adding my voice to the din. 

First of all, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".  Assault is a verb, and in this case is being used as an adjective, to the discredit of every grade school educated American.  Definitions of  "assault weapons" range from any semi automatic firearm, to firearms with scary looking features like Carolyn McCarthy's "shoulder thing that goes up"...whatever that is. An assault rifle is technically defined as a rifle that chambers a mid size cartridge and fires in fully automatic.  The name is still grammatically incorrect.

Also getting the anti gun cultists knickers in a bunch is the idea that is being thrown around of allowing teachers and administrators in schools to carry guns.  The argument generally goes that teachers aren't trained military or police, so if they were to draw their gun in response to a threat in their school, they would be completely ineffective and would do more harm than good.  I call b.s. Yes, if a teacher were to miss and accidentally hit a child, it would be terrible, but how much worse would it be to sit idly by and let the entire class be slaughtered?  The other half of the argument is that guns have no place in a civil society, and therefore should not be anywhere near children.  History should have taught us by now that humans will always do evil things, and we will always need to have the ability to stop them.  A civil society cannot exist without weapons.  Children should be taught to respect firearms, not to fear them, or live in ignorance of them.

The media is currently pandering to the anti gun furor while columnists post articles questioning the need for "military grade" weapons.  A bill by Senator Dianne Feinstein is planned to be introduced into the house and the senate.  This bill would make illegal the sale or manufacture of "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons".  I will be interested to see how the good senator will define "assault weapons".  The bill will also ban the possession of either proactively. There is no way that this bill will stop future gunmen from committing acts of evil.  Stolen weapons, explosives, large trucks, fire and even knives and axes would be used in a gunless world. 

The only thing that can effectively stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Schools are currently gun-free zones, or more accurately large boxes of victims.  Locked doors and metal detectors and the Sheriff's Department are not going to stop a school shooter before they have their way.  A teacher or administrator with a Glock or a Sig could.

But they're the bad guys!

The education system in the United States could very easily be renamed the "Liberal Indoctrination System".  As a college student at a fairly conservative university, I don't see a lot of the socialist, liberal blather that seems to plague other schools (I'm looking at you, IU).  Even from my classmates and professors, I don't hear much of it.  Being a geology student, I do get earfuls of climate change, but I wouldn't describe it as the alarmism that marks the type of people who use the #sandy hashtag on twitter.

I just started taking classes in the Natural Resources and Environmental Science department.  All I have to say is that I found the socialists.  Apparently, the best (only?) way to take care of our environment is by government regulation and the dismantling of our economy.

But Vol, you say, doesn't the government just screw everything up that they stick their dirty little fingers into!?  I agree, wholeheartedly, but apparently, the future environmental policy lawyers and environmental remediation technicians don't.

The incident that sparked this little discussion happened in a lecture that I attended this morning.  In a class of about 50 students, the lecturer showed several video clips detailing the use of an agricultural herbicide called atrazine.  On one side, we had Syngenta, the company that markets atrazine based herbicides to U.S. consumers. The other videos followed the research of Tyrone B. Hayes at UC Berkeley, who is studying the effect of the chemical on frogs.

Without going into the chemistry and biology of the situation, I'll give a brief overview of the class discussion.  I'll list the information presented to the class.

1. Atrazine is banned in Europe, but not the U.S., U.K., Australia and Canada.
2. Dr. Hayes' study has shown that atrazine affects the hormonal chemistry in frogs, causing demasculinization.
3. Dr. Hayes used to be funded by Syngenta, but when he initially criticized use of the chemical, he was effectively fired.
4. Syngenta funded two privately conducted studies in two different countries on the effects of atrazine on animals.
5. In the EPA's review of atrazine, no human epidemiological studies were considered because of variability in the causes of human conditions.
6. Ultimately, the EPA approved the use of atrazine in the U.S.

The class discussion centered around whether atrazine use should continue, be banned, or continue with heavy regulation.  Multiple students voiced concern that Syngenta was only looking to turn a profit, didn't care about the people or agricultural production, etc.  I was trading comments (or arguments) with a young woman across the room, when I was interrupted by a guy at the table next to me.  In front of the entire class, he exclaimed, "but the corporations are the bad guys!".  All I said was "thanks for showing your inherent bias", and I turned back to my legitimate conversation.

Seriously, these people are looking at the issue from the standpoint that every single corporation is out the get us.  Sure, guys, lets let the government take over and while we're at it, lets go back to till farming and all it's great erosionary benefits.

Yeah, let's talk about gun control.

Reading Material

I keep seeing these editorials in news outlets.  It seems that the anti gunners have been relegated to their cubicles at USA Today and their pages on FaceBook.  This article is berating our two socialist candidates for not sufficiently addressing the issue of additional gun control.  The problem, according to the author is the lobbying done by the NRA.  It is true that the NRA supports political candidates, but how many people cry foul at the donations by unions?  Gun control legislation isn't stopped by the NRA.  It's legitimate grassroots action that the anti gun cultists have failed to garner.

Once again, the author uses the fallacious metric of "gun violence" to demonize firearms.  How is gun violence fundamentally different than any other kind of violence?  The honest answer is that it's not.  It is not okay to just focus in on one type of violence, while ignoring the others.

Now, what about the claim that "assault-style" weapons have no sporting or self-defense purposes.  This is a completely ignorant claim.  Who defines what a "sporting purpose" is?  There isn't a Supreme Sports Council that decides whether an activity is a sport or not, so wouldn't it make sense to default to "If people get together to compete, its probably a sport"? United States Practical Shooting Association, anyone?  Now, self defense is even more obvious! My AK with it's short barrel, red dot and normal capacity magazine (30 rnds) makes a great home defense weapon.  I don't have to worry about working the action like my shotgun between shots.  I would argue that any gun that can fire a projectile has a self defense purpose- that is, you can use it for self defense!

The article ends with a shameless appeal to emotion for those bleeding heart readers out there.  It reads "Prosecution of shooters is of cold comfort to the victims and their families".  How is taking my semi auto rifles going to be a comfort to them?  Is putting a dangerous criminal, who has proven to the world that they are willing to hurt another human being, really less of a comfort than taking away my hunks of steel and plastic?  My rifles haven't hurt anyone, and hopefully, they never will.

First blog post?

Here goes my first attempt at blogging.  I guess I'll tell you the background for my title and URL, since it will be extremely relevant to my actual posts. Let's start with some poetry. As you get to know me, you will realize that this is extremely out of character for me, but I like this poem.

The Elder

By Anson Fogel

How do you want to be remembered? When this life joins the wind.

What did you leave, in these chasms, upon these lives, young and curious?

What did you write? What dust in the rain? Sand in the rivers?

Those you touched, embraced and kissed, loved ... what echoes there?

How will it travel, your wisdom, your story, your suffering and joy?

These walls, silent, deafening, ancient and new.

What did you make them? What did they make of you?

A life running, teaching or learning, what is escape?

What did you find?

Wind, replenishing rain, sun.

Who did these thorns see?

What did these waters wash from you?

The stars, in the abyss beyond, how did they shine on you?

Will you release the storm, the scars, whirling as they go?

Yet holding love, life?

The luminous child, the harsh knowing of age, what did you leave behind?

So there it is. My url, sandintherivers.blogspot.com is a reference to what you or I may leave behind when we go. I can only hope that my "sand" will make this country and the world a better place to live. 

I hope to make this blog about my views on freedom, patriotism and preparedness with other life tidbits thrown in there. Maybe I will get a readership, maybe not. Regardless, I hope to make this a good outlet of the things floating around in my head.