Ammunition Scare? The low-information shooter, letting someone else do the work.

So the ATF is considering an amendment and/or reinterpretation of the 1968 GCA to cover SS109 and M855 as an "armor piercing" round and of course once this news made its way around the internet, Cheaper Than Dirt wasted no time in pricing gouging the ever loving hell out of panic buyers.  Currently on Cheaper than dirt, a 900 round can of 62 Grain green tip is a "bargain" at $840.00, or it would be if it was not already sold out.  Anyone willing to pay that price, well, good for them.  Me, im not willing to give Cheaper Than Dirt any money, especially after their price gouging during the 2013/14 panic buying following Sandy Hook where a USGI mag could be had for the low price of $99.  A quick look at Ammo Seek shows that there are a few people price gouging, but none to the full douchebag level of CTD.

CTD is making a killing off the ammo scare market, supply and demand writ large.  If CTD was a person, he would look like this:

But can we blame them?  Every educated shooter knows that there are many shooters that are of the low-information crowd and are susceptible to easy panic over any little thing.  If the ATF went after the Magpul BAD lever, there would be a run on them (and CTD would sell you one for $200).  If the ATF suddenly decided the sling on a rifle was something that needed to be banned, a CTD sale would run you $400 and grandmothers nationwide would not be able to knit for a lack of yarn (we would also see the birth of a "MOLON LABE" sling market).

The sad truth as it is apparent to me is that the panic buy will always be a thing for the same reason that UTG and Sightmark are in business making cheap accessories that some are willing to put their life behind.  There is a distinct difference between cheap and inexpensive and this difference is lost on the low information crowd.  If the SS109 and M855 is indeed going to be banned from citizen purchase, what does spending $840.00 for 900 rounds of it really do for you?  Sure, it provides you with a much higher resale option down the road, much like "high cap" magazine prices during the AWB but then SS109 and M855 becomes a non-renewable commodity with an ever-increasing price as supply is reduced or removed from the market by ammunition hoarders.  Do you need to sit on a few thousand rounds of ammo?  Absolutely; but why didn't you have it already?  If the SS109 or M855 was the best damn round to have for use on two-legged predators (it isn't), shouldn't you have already built an ammunition throne in front of your DTOM flag?

The low-information shooter would be better served taking an interest in helping to prevent the ban instead of helping the owners of CTD build mattresses out of money to watch Breaking Bad on.  The ATF is still taking comments on the proposed change, its as easy as writing a quick email but I honestly have to wonder how many of those panic buying up the SS109 and M855 are also taking the time to drop a well though out email to the ATF to oppose their latest attempt at a Clinton Era flashback?

If we only depend on organizations like the NRA, GOA or USCCA (among others) to speak for us, we run the risk of getting some of, or none of what we want.  Is it any different than giving a dollar a day to a non-profit promising you letter and pictures from a child in Africa you sponsor? Sure, it will make you feel better the next time you see a commercial with the saddest kid they could find in the village but the amount of direct involvement you have is akin to yelling at the chick in the horror movie to not go upstairs; yell all you want, she wont hear you.  Theres action, and the appearance of action and for some they are one in the same.

Buying up all the green tip you can find may give you an economic edge if such a ban does occur, though what are you actually doing to try and prevent it?  I know, "The ATF wont listen to me."  Perhaps you are right, but the "theres nothing I can do" attitude is not how we are supposed to do shit here in America.  If you are not fired up over the increasingly usurpatious actions of our current administration (and those already passed), then you really aren't on board as a responsible gun owner.  We are not built from men who took the easy road, nor men who huddled in angst under the hopes that someone else would fight their fight for them.  Hope is not an actionable plan, its the same as wishing to win the lottery without so much as buying a ticket.

Did you know:  Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished amateur
rapper who used to dominate Open Pulpit Night at Gadsby's Tavern? 

So send an email; take the time to write out a well composed argument to the ATFs latest bullshit and hit send.  If all we do is share memes and macros with quotes from our forefathers, presidents and Ted Nugent in response to the governments encroachment on our rights, we are yelling our complaints into a well that always says back what we want to hear.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

UPDATE:  PER Cheaper Than Dirt, the Ammunition pricing on 900 rounds of 62 Grain Green Tip previously linked in this blog has been removed and according to CTD was a pricing error, not an attempt to price gouge the shooting public.

ATF: Doubling Down on Stupid

So today I get pinged by a few people on the BATFE taking steps to ban SS109 and M855 5.56mm ammunition because of its armor piercing properties.  I gave the official position a read and have thus determined that the ATF has hit rock bottom on the potato scale and, finding the bottom not low enough, are requesting a shovel to go deeper. Because the individual writing the ATF white paper now found on the ATF site probably got their start writing dramatic romance thrillers, the paper opens as such.

To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by
ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute.

Never mind that most common ammunition available for rifles in the .223/5.56mm family will burn through IIIA body armor like Eric Holder through incriminating memos, the ATF continues;

 The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck (never actually been on one) so I'm pretty familiar with the text of the Second Amendment and nowhere in it does it say anything about hunting or sporting.  The "Hunting and Sporting" clause was added in the rambling text of the 1968 Gun Control Act, a law prompted by the assassination of JFK, signed in by Lyndon B. Johnson and endorsed by then NRA Executive Vice President, Franklin Orth, who was quoted as saying "the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with."  NRA feelings aside, the hunting or sporting purpose has become a catch-all piece of the legislation that the ATF continues to use to address gun control, ammunition and the war against our rights to own so-called "Assault rifles."  Never mind that such rifles are used in as much as 2% of crimes .

Now, the GCA addresses "armor piercing" ammunition in Section 17:

 (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

So...handguns then?  Well due to the new popularity of AR pistols, they are going after some of the most common (and sometimes most affordable) 5.56mm ammunition because, as they put it;

More specifically the characteristics of the handgun or handguns in which a specific armor piercing projectile may be used will generally determine that projectile’s “likely use” in the general community. When the only readily available handgun that can accept a cartridge containing the projectile is objectively and primarily sporting, it may reasonably be inferred that the likely use of that projectile will also be objectively and primarily sporting. Conversely, when a handgun’s objective design is not limited to primarily sporting purposes, such as handguns designed to be carried and concealed, it may be reasonably inferred that ammunition capable of use in such handguns is unlikely to be used primarily for sporting purposes. 

Meanwhile, at Cheaperthandirt.com

As you can plainly see, the ATF is playing it loose and making clairvoyant assumptions with the "intent" of "pistols" that can chamber the SS109 or M855 round.  By defining "sport" and "hunting" they are effectively pretending that "self-defense" doesn't exist; which is strange considering the number of rounds marketed (and designed) specifically for those purposes.  Since the ATF is going the handgun route with their attempt at an ammunition ban, the irony lies in the fact that there are hundreds of handgun rounds designed to do maximum damage for the purposes of self-defense, though they aren't of rifle caliber so they will not penetrate common LE body armor.  Why there has not been more of a fight against the "hunting and sporting" nonsense is beyond me; though I would actually be fine with the guidelines if they read "hunting, sporting or self-defense purposes."  Perhaps its time to start a petition for amending the 1968 GCA and any other nonsensical federal law or regulation that contains that draconian and ignorant phrase.  I cant say for certain, but it appears the ATF has taken a very focused interest in the AR pistol market and are going after the low hanging fruit first, which is both ammo and the Sig Brace.

The NRA is speaking on this, well, they posted a short informational about the pending amendment but didn't comment on what they would be doing to help prevent it and/or fight its implementation.   If you want to get involved (and you should), you can contact the ATF and make comments.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Open Carry; an exercise in common sense, not picking the best seat on the short bus.

So...Kory Watkins is probably one of the more visible open carry advocates, mainly because he can tell you how single pane windows have a different flavor from double pane, oh and because he takes the passion for open carry from reasonable to level-potato.  Of course hes not the only open carry advocate exercising a passion over reasonableness.  My personal opinion right out of the gate is that there is a time and a place for open carry and that time and place really isn't a political stunt on a street corner of a busy suburban street.

Now, we have all heard the now-buzzword-phrase "common sense gun control" and how what it usually means is more restrictive gun laws.  This isn't about that; the 2A community knows BS when they hear it and that phrase is usually attached to lines of thinking like the Second Amendment was written when semi-automatics didn't exist so they certainly didn't have them in mind.  Fair point, assuming men like James Madison and George Mason were not (as far as we know) time travelers and may have not been able to predict advancements in technology when drafting the Second.  To me, that point loses its edge entirely when we look at their intent in the Second which was simply that Madison;  

"did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." -Michael J. Quinlan

And furthermore the Second Amendment originally would have read like this;

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Now debate was had because it was felt that the "religiously scrupulous" text could be used to destroy the standing militia.  The Second went through many drafts and adjustments after that, including careful attention to punctuation and scrutiny over specific words used.  If so much attention went into the structure of what has become the most controversial of amendments, one could safely assume that Madison knew firearms technology would advance and didn't address it because it is way besides the point.  After much debate, our the final draft read as we know it today:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, personally, I always wonder how different the debate would be if "Composed of the body of the people" had been left in, as it identifies every citizen as being supported by the Second and would have gone a long way towards killing the anti-gun crowds tired "They only meant militias" line but that's another conversation.

All this said, we have come a long way since the late 1700s and thanks to the advancements in technology, any one person can have a voice even when they have nothing interesting to say.  Anyone can make a scene and get attention nationwide as opposed to the past when such behavior may have been limited to the local population.  The open carry movement is one such example, as the common sense advocates are drowned out by the ridiculous behavior of the more, well, ridiculous advocates who make much better news copy because of their outlandish and sometimes juvenile behavior because our media is largely driven to report only the spectacle, not the boring actions of responsibility.

Are all open carry advocates irresponsible?  No, I would say not.  I know many people who open carry and they do so very responsibly in environments where open carry makes polite sense.  The mountains of Montana, a ranch in Texas, the back woods of North Carolina and many other situations where ready access to a firearm is prudent and part of a daily routine.  Hunters, hikers, outdoors-men and any number of citizens going about an activity where such behavior is accepted by society.  Open carry as an intelligent and trained decision is wise if the situation calls for it; however open carry strictly for the reasons of a political statement is foolish.  I am not the deciding voice on what does and doesn't make sense, this is merely my opinion but it is an educated opinion.  Society has the right as a collective people to find something offensive, disturbing or scary.  If you want to raise awareness for a right and that right includes the open display of a mechanical device designed to shoot lethal projectiles, one should be prepared for your behavior to offend or scare people.  The way to not offend or scare them is not to act more foolish, more brazen or scream your point more loudly.  I spent some time in Mexico and no matter how loud the tourists spoke English, the Mexicans still didn't understand English because the volume was not the issue, it was the message.  Screaming your point, either vocally or through physical displays of assholery like the Chiplotegate nonsense only serves to scream louder at someone who doesn't speak your language.

When I was in Mexico I wasn't required to know how to speak Spanish, just as the Mexican locals were not required to understand what I was saying.  It was an inability to communicate and it was my responsibility to find a way to get my message across because I needed to.  No volume of voice or pantomime of arms and hands would get them to understand me.  I needed to learn the language.

Is the open carry debate any different?  The general population receives the majority of their firearms education from TV, movies, music, "firearms experts" and journalists who cant remember what helicopter they were on, let alone be bothered to check facts.  In a nation where people usually go with the first Google result as the truth or have such a strong confirmation bias that a reasonable conversation with them is akin to pulling a mattress through a mail slot, we have to try harder to show those on the fence or those against guns that the Second Amendment right is a recognition of a natural right, not a man-manufactured excuse to compensate for the size of ones genitalia.

We live in a low-information society (some people only read these for the memes) and most of that low information is gathered visually, because seeing is the easiest way to observe.  If you don't like, or are afraid of what you see, how much work are you going to put into respecting its message?

Responsible open carry isn't a zero-retention kydex holster; a leg rig at the BBQ joint or two rifles slung.  Can you do it?  Sure; but it may be a bad idea for the same reason that I can stand across from an elementary school with a bullhorn and recite Celly Cell lyrics in between Easy E acapella because society isn't really down with my exercise of Free Speech in that case.

Responsible open carry is hard to define, but easy to practice.  Again, my opinion is that open carry should be for a purpose, not for a statement.  The tired argument of easier access and deterrence goes right out the window when you see how many police officers are killed with their own weapons and how occasionally an open carrier is robbed at gunpoint.  Responsible open carry is having been trained in weapon retention and using a retention holster.  It is a level of awareness commensurate with transporting a lethal device into every environment you go and its presence being obvious.  It is polite difference to those who are bothered by the weapon and a willingness to educate in a reasonable way that goes beyond canned slogans or raised voices.  It is a non-confrontational approach towards a protected right.  Otherwise, you might as well pick up a bullhorn and memorize the lyrics to "Hit the Hooker" before heading out to exercise your First on some 8 year-olds.

Law Enforcement's Divide with the People.

East German Volkspolizei, 1955

We do not have a systemic law enforcement problem in this country.  We do not see the absolute abuse of power of law enforcement as seen in East Germany, cold war Poland or Iraq, El Salvador, Pakistan, India, or many nations in Africa that have historically seen state-supported and sponsored police behavior that not just bordered on, or was criminal, it violated the very essence of human rights.

Gloria Richardson, for example, was ZFG about Bayonets in her face. 

But we do have a serious and widening divide between the state represented by the police, and the citizenry.  This dichotomy between the "protectors" and the "protected" is not a new phenomenon; we have had public issues with the conduct and use of law enforcement as a tool of the government since the beginning of our nation, from the Reconstruction after the Civil War to the Prohibition of the 1920s and beyond, certain parts of law enforcement have taken it upon themselves, or at the direction of the state, to bend, circumvent or break the law in the name of law enforcement.  As with every new generation, someone looks back to the previous generation to show the progress that we have made.

In his assessment of the police, Bruce Smith wrote  in 1940 that, in spite of the still rather bleak picture, "the lessons of history lean to the favorable side."l He pointed to the fact that the then existing police forces had moved a long way from the past associated with the notorious names of Vidocq and Jonathan Wild, and he suggested that the uninterrupted progress justifies the expectation of further change for the better. It is fair to say that this hope has been vindicated by the events of the past 30 years. American police departments of today differ by a wide margin of improvement from those Smith studied in the late in 1930's. 'l'he once endemic features of wanton brutality, corruption, and sloth have been reduced to a level of sporadic incidence, and their surviving vestiges have been denounced by even generally uncritical police apologists. Indeed, police reform, once a cause espoused exclusively by spokesmen from outside the law enforcement camp, has become an internal goal, actively sought and implemented by leading police officials.

                    -Egon Bittner, Ph.D., The Functions of The Police in a Modern Society (1970) 

Now, the interesting part about this quote is that its from a study published in the 1970s and pays little attention to the abuses of law enforcement during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which should have been fresh in the author's mind yet is suspiciously absent.  I dont believe it was maliciously intentional on the part of the author, rather the public consciousness had not yet shifted to a point where popular opinion was one of total denouncement of the police practices in the south during that time.  Of course not all law enforcement abused their authority during the Civil Rights movement, but many did and they did so in the defense of a law, which may have justified it in their minds.  In hindsight we find their behavior unforgivable.  Hindsight.

So....MRAP?

circa 1920s, long before the Meme existed.

Every generation has its divide with law enforcement and at some point the divide must be addressed.  We are entering our own divide; NSA monitoring,questionable warrants, militarization of police, riot control techniques, enforcement of regulations (as opposed to laws) where force is used and the perceived or actual use of excessive force.  As the government grows, so does its sometimes unchecked ability to change the mission of law enforcement, which is dangerous ground.

My oath as a law enforcement officer is to defend the constitution and through this, the rights of the people.  By arresting a criminal for a crime, I am providing the first step in a remedy to provide the people with a legal solution to a crime committed against the public at large, or an individual citizen, specifically the victim of the crime.  It is my opinion that someone who breaks a law has committed a crime against the people, whereas someone who violates a regulation has administratively wronged the government.  A regulation is a rule of order that has the same power as a law, yet its creation or implementation is often without the express consent of the people and in many cases the violation of a regulation creates a victim in the state where no victim would be had the state not instituted such a regulation.  The often quoted victim-less crime can be found in the mass of government regulations that protect the governments interests, not necessarily the people.  I have no problem with a regulation that serves to ensure the public safety such as the DOT regulations for mandatory safety equipment and function on motor carriers, because an 18-wheeler with substandard brakes is not acceptable on the interstates...but I unequivocally do not agree with an arrest over unregulated cigarette sales or when enforcement of that regulation (where only the state is the victim of violating the regulation) leads to the death of someone.  The nexus of the death of Eric Garner isn't if he could breathe or not, its the enforcement of a regulation where no true victim exists.

This is for protecting and saving lives, not the enforcement of laws and regulations that have no victim.

But this is only part of the cause for today's divide as I see it; the other and perhaps more troubling reason is that some in law enforcement have adopted an attitude fostered by the very nature of law enforcement itself; and that is one of distrust of the public and the belief that a law enforcement officer is not part of the citizenry.  Well, Vox Populi and the law disagrees.  Cops are civilians too, and their primary mission is protection of the people, not protection of the state.  I have worked with many LEOs that "drank the kool aide" and see themselves as separate from the public, the venerable us versus them mentality that is an easy cold to catch because the vast majority of our interactions are with the criminal element, not the honest citizen (which is largely our fault for not taking the time to talk to the people).  If this was simply an issue of semantics in defining terms we could work through it, though the fostered divide leads to a shift in thinking that is very dangerous and that is when the police begin to see Constitutionally positive citizens as some sort of subversive or disruptive group. A more recent example of this attitude was brought to us by the Spokane County (WA) Sheriffs department and a Deputy's remarks when asked why the SO needed armored vehicles:

“We’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, a lot of ammunition.”

Essentially the officer, Deputy Jerry Moffett, appears to have the opinion that a pro-constitution opinion is a bad thing; which bothers me greatly seeing as this same Law Enforcement officer is granted all of his powers of office via this same constitution which he is sworn to protect.  Now, to pour gas on the fire, the Spokane Co Sheriff, Ozzie Knezovich says that the video is taken out of context and that

“The term constitutionalist has a widespread meaning. Some people say I am a constitutionalist,” he said. “But people need to understand that there are people who carry that title who have killed police officers.”

My opinion is that he is confusing "Constitutionalist" with "Sovereign Citizen" and should probably correct the definition in his mind before painting with such a broad brush; after all, law enforcement officers have been murdered by Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Boy Scouts of America Counselors  and many other individuals with respectable monikers, titles or affiliations and there are no law enforcement warnings about these groups.  Unlike the Sovereign movement, a Constituionalist is on the same team a police officer is supposed to be on and that is defense of the constitution from all threats; foreign and domestic.  The Oath I took when I first put on the badge has not changed and I have not forgotten that every aspect of my job as a law enforcement officer is granted by the Constitution; in order to protect the rights provided by the Constitution.

The divide is not an epidemic, at least not yet but it is a problem.  It seems more prevalent than it is do to the magnification by the media/social media, though perception is often reality and the few bad apples mentality is often dismissing the problem instead of addressing it.  As law enforcement officers, we cannot avoid the perception of our actions any more than we can avoid the consequences of that avoidance.  I dont think we "need to open a dialog" because those are platitudes that have as much active use as "hoping for change."  What we need to do is change how we view our daily actions and use officer discretion to honor the color and letter of the law, to remember our oath.  The enforcement of the law is protection of the people and recognizing the defense of peoples rights versus the defense of the governments wants will go a long way towards repairing and improving our relationship

  Our duty is not to administration, office, government, supervisor or shift Sergeant, it is to the Constitution and by that definition and truth, Deputy Moffett is sworn to the same; hes supposed to be a Constitutionalist, too.


To end on a lighter note:

Straight From The Sheep's Mouth: Okay With Being a Victim

Today I read I Was Mugged, and I Understand Why by Oliver Friedfeld and, well....

Oh man, I don't even know where to start with this.  Imagine, if you will, someone so sheltered/ignorant and or idealistic that when mugged at gun point, they direct no anger at their mugger and instead blame themselves because of their "privilege."

Hold on, let me put this in perspective.

Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as “thugs?” It’s precisely this kind of “otherization” that fuels the problem.

Thats a direct quote from  Oliver Friedfeld, a senior at Georgetown University in Washington DC, who, along with his roommate was recently mugged at gunpoint (wait, a gun in DC?)

Take a deep breath.  Okay, Oliver has the opinion that since he has so much, and the criminal has so little, he has no right to blame them for robbing him and Oliver takes this circus-train of thought one step further by suggesting that referring to his muggers as "criminals," "thugs" or "bad people" isnt fair. 

Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.

Once again, Oliver tells us so much about his way of thinking with very few words.  He places trust in a mugger, armed with a gun, and is certain that no harm would come to him.  The fact that he wasnt hurt is somehow justification for the idea that he couldn't have been hurt.  Oliver's wealth of experience in the criminal world comes from...well having relatives in Mexico City, as he says, so he considers himself not "shielded from poverty." So hes basically saying the socioeconomic equivalent of I have black friends.

Honestly, This sort of thinking isn't unique to Oliver and as much as I wish it wasn't, the idea of "checking your privilege" seems to be growing, especially at the college level where academic idealism supplants education and the radicals of the 60's and 70's are now passing along their theories to the students and leaders of tomorrow.  I dont belong to that world, never have so perhaps I cant understand it as well as someone who clocks in every day to learn how they have it so much better than other people because not they, but their parents, grandparents or ancestors put in the hard work to see their family provided for and allow for young Oliver to go to Georgetown and feel sorry for having the opportunity.  Just trying to track that line of thought hurts my head.

yeah, he probably didnt buy that...

Well I have some bad news for Oliver.  Oliver is a sheep, he is the textbook definition of food and his way of thinking isnt going to win over the hearts and minds of the unfairly treated criminals.  Oliver's philosophy creates victims-in-waiting; people who are accepting of being victimized because the criminal must certainly need what hes taking, otherwise why would he be taking it?

When we play along with a system that fuels this kind of desperation, we can’t be surprised when we’re touched by it. Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here. We have a lot, and plenty of opportunities to make even more. They have very little, and few opportunities to make ends meet.

Again, I dont know Oliver but I think it would be a safe bet to say he doesnt know how a shovel works, or how one uses a lawn mower.  Oliver may be totally out of touch with the ideas of manual labor because its looked down on in his world.  Getting a job with a construction company or installing carpet may not be considered a "hand up" in his world.  It may not be seen as worthwhile work, because, you know, Georgetown.  There isnt a single job unworthy of someone to work it.  Oliver makes excuses for those who dont have what he does when in all actuality he probably wouldnt have what he does if someone else had not have worked for it.  The men who mugged him made a choice to take rather than to earn, and who better to take from than someone at the end of a line of other peoples hard work?  Oliver's opportunities were created by someone else.  That doesnt mean he isnt capable of creating wealth of his own, Im sure he is, but to assume his muggers couldnt have chosen a different path, done honest work and built themselves up to a comfortable life is the real "privilege" thinking.

but have no fear, for Oliver really lays down the gauntlet at the end...

The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.

"Reins of the world"?  How does this kid hope to do so when he is obviously accepting of  being a victim?  Oliver actually thinks that he, and those like him, will suddenly find themselves in a position to change the world because they are the first ones to "understand" the criminal?  Well, I have news for him.  Every single senior class since forever has had similar ideas and we still have crime...that must mean we haven't spread the wealth around enough, right?  Or maybe it means that the more our education system produces people not able/willing to fight back and the more these same people push government to support the "less privileged" through entitlement programs, the more we are going to have this problem.  You stop the majority of opportunistic crime by changing the views of honest work, and making the crime so risky as to dissuade those too good to have an honest job from trying to take what isnt theirs.  Ditches need dug, lawns mowed, trees trimmed, buildings painted, cars serviced, windows washed, food cooked, cabs driven, dump trucks loaded, metal welded and bridges built.  Those are all honest jobs, and being okay with working them goes a long way towards not being a criminal.  I guess since everyone in America is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, some people will keep looking down on those jobs.  

Too Busy Working to Riot

I honestly dont have anything to say about the situation in Ferguson that isnt already being said by people far more eloquent than me, so I shall resort to sarcasm and give everyone in the working class world a way to show their solidarity with not being able to find the time to riot for days on end even if they wanted to.  Because nothing says America like stealing shit to show you are upset with a court decision, right?  No, wait...

So here we go....

You can get one here.  Too Busy Working To Riot.

Active Shooter Alarm System: More Fire Alarm than Fix.

A district in Massachusetts this week unveiled the country’s first installation of a shooter-detection system inside a U.S. school that can recognize and track a gunman roaming through the building.

 A Massachusetts based company has developed a shooter detection system for schools.  Shooter Detection Systems has installed the system in one Massachusetts school with apparent plans for more systems to be fielded.  The system works similarly to existing military technology; detecting and pinpointing the location of gunfire and relaying that information to, according to an MSNBC article

...mobile app sends text messages with the school name and exact location of the incident to the superintendent, principal, police chief, and school resource officer. Once alerted, the officials also can track the gunman’s movements.

While this sounds like a super cool use for technology, I cant help but notice the fire-alarm mentality behind it.  Sure, a system that tracks every time a gunshot is fired can be helpful in directing authorities to the location of the shooter so he is given a chance to either self-terminate, surrender or be incapacitated (hopefully in the face) but how useful is such technology on a broad scale against already existing systems such as eyes and ears attached to armed teachers and school LEOS?  Eyes and ears are available at no extra charge with a properly trained and willing armed school employee or a little extra room in the budget to hire a school LE officer and/or private security.  At the cost of this system (the pilot system was free of charge because of course it was) and the cost to maintain it and work out the bugs, the annal salary of an officer (probably more than one) could have been paid and the cost to train and arm teachers would be even less but obviously for some of the country the idea of arming teachers is akin to the idea of doing a gravel slip-n-slide then juggling lemons.

Dont get me wrong, I think this system is a good idea and Im not going to pretend that more shootings are not going to happen because they are.  They are going to continue to happen because we arent trying to fix the problem,  we are fighting against those trying to go after the tools that are most preferable to killers.  I see this as being pissed at a pie for baking after ignoring the fact that we put all the ingredients together and then put it in the oven.  The longer we ignore the mental health issue, the more we will seek reactive solutions that may minimize deaths but are doing little to actually prevent them.

There is a large social issue here that cant be contained or explained in a neat blog posting or even a text book.  Understanding the mind of a troubled person is not my area of operation, I work on positive solutions to mental health failures that are more...direct action in nature, but that doesnt mean I dont think theres a conversation that needs to be had in the 2A community regarding this issue.

Our society is going down the road of explaining our position with macros and memes, Facebook posts and Tweets.  I appreciate succinctness when it has a place but all the likes in the world wont stop school shootings any more than they will feed Africa.

This type of conversation plays on ignorance more than it does good will and directs the conversation into feeling accomplished just by sharing something.  Political correctness is disarming us; not directly, as our recent elections have shown us that the draconian gun control we feared following the New Town shooting is largely dead in all but the most fanatical liberal mind.  Rather, the PC mindset is going to treat mental health as an issue we are not supposed to address for fear of insulting or alienating someone and then treat the result as a fire to be prepared for by putting in an alarm. 

 
Well, just like most fires are caused by mans inattention, so are active shooters.  The signs are often there and in the aftermath there are almost always people stepping forward saying that threats were made or strange behavior witnessed yet that hindsight lesson is ignored.  If we ignored the dangers of gasoline soaked rags left unattended next to a dryer vent I think Natural Selection would have seen fit to remove our DNA from the world; ignoring the troubled kid with obvious signs of violent tendencies or unchecked rage is no different.  In LE we call this a clue and more investigation is probably wise and by "probably" I mean "definitely."

So while this shooter alarm may prove very useful, I see it as taking pride in the fact that the fire department is coming after ignoring the faulty wiring in the arts and crafts closet that went all dark ages on the collection of paper mache Shakespeare busts.

One more tool for a problem society is happy to whistle nervously and look at their feet to avoid. 

Kristen Stewart; how to piss on graves and call it art.

As a personal rule, I try and avoid political diatribe as much as I do puddles of unidentified (or any, really) fluids in public rest rooms.  Its not that im not politically inclined, I am, but its usually because its like arguing feelings over a quarterbacks performance weighed against someone elses feelings on the same subject.  I can bring all the facts I want to the table and the opposing view isnt going to listen because go Bears or some such nonsense.  It has been shown that even when exposed to facts, people holding an opposing political opinion are highly unlikely to change their view point because...you guessed it go Bears.  We believe what we want to believe and the facts be damned.  Now, im sure the Bears are a good team; I honestly dont know because I dont follow football but I do know this; Kristen Stewart is a world class Pinocchio caricature with the political sense of a bi-polar coma patient.  Seriously, if politics was a mountain, she would be the Donner party.

Recently, Mrs. Stewart took a break from acting to speak in the real world and I have to say, if you were going to say it was impossible to be an hours worth of stupid in 15 minutes, I would send you this article along with the Twilight Saga wrapped in a wet news paper taken from her political advisers cardboard box behind Bloomingdale's.  Ive seen stupid in my life, I see it on a daily basis, but she seems to be a dangerous sort of stupid because there's at least 5 or 10 people watching her movies on purpose and maybe hundreds who do so on accident and some of them might believe her nonsense.

See, Mrs. Stewart is making a movie about Gitmo called Camp X-Ray and by making a movie about Gitmo, she has become empowered with a fierce opinion of Gitmo, the Army and the terrorists kept there.  This, of course is nothing new, its common for an actor to adapt the political views of the character they are portraying, or feel that making a movie about a subject makes them more knowledgeable about it because they have, you know, lived it.  Now Mrs. Stewart is doing just that, with her 24 years of hardline socioeconomic and political science experience.  When asked about viewing the detainees as people in an interview with The Daily Beast, Stewart has this to say;

That is essentially so fucking evil, it’s crazy. It’s a ridiculous idea for you to think that you know anything for sure in life—other than to take care of your fellow people. Where the fuck do you get off thinking otherwise? These two people couldn’t be from more different worlds and perspectives, and probably disagree fundamentally on most things, but there’s a through-line for all of us—and that’s what people forget, and that’s what makes people capable of doing terrible things to each other. What makes you different from any other person that walks the earth?

I guess she doesnt realize that there are hundreds of thousands of veterans who have fought these now-detainees and "know for sure in life" that they are, in fact, not the friendly and misunderstood person her Gitmo detainee buddy is in her upcoming film.  I think she also fails to realize that for those people in the real camp X-Ray (not the movie set she came from) disagree fundamentally means jihad and the chances of leaving a political debate with a Jihadi with your head still attached to your body is entirely dependent on if you shot him in the face or not.  She must also have a greater appreciation for the situation than the families of 9/11, London Bombing, Madrid bombing or many other terrorist attack victims because she...pretends...to...be...people?  Wait, that actually doesnt make any sense at all.

I don't personally know a single Camp X-Ray detainee, and guess what, neither does she.  But I remember 9/11, I remember the wars that came after it and I remember a few funerals.  I also know that those being held in Gitmo are in fact people as she describes them; they do have hopes and dreams, only those hopes and dreams include subjugating or killing people just like Stewart.  but since Stewart is playing a soldier, a guard at Camp X-Ray and

She really gets swept up in all the post 9/11 patriotism and signs up for Gitmo duty, only to find that it isn’t what she thought at all.  She’s simple, not very smart, and really socially inadequate—but a good person. So, if you can sign up, put a uniform on, and erase yourself, you don’t have to consider yourself anymore. You can take the individual out of it and say, “Well, this dignifies me. I’m good because of this.” And when that doesn’t end up being true, you actually have to contend with who you are. All she wants is to think, “They did 9/11, they’re bad, fuck that, I’m going to do my job and I’m going to do it well.” But then she gets down there and just can’t accept it; she can’t conform to that.

I suppose the deeper issue here is that Mrs. Stewart seems to think that we are all on equal footing and therefore all deserve the same chance.  This is a wonderfully Utopian and socialist view of the world but it isnt actually true.  This is participation trophy mentality.  Some people are actually better than others, perhaps not as a whole but in areas of their life they outperform others or dont, you know, behead people for having a different feeling about something.  I would venture to say that someone who doesnt target innocent people for mass murder is actually better than someone who does, thats sort of how the social contract scale works.  Stewart's world view seems to be shaped, or guided by the fact that she pretends to be other people for money and in this case she is pretending to be an Army solider who befriends a Gitmo detainee who shows her the error of her ways.  Could this happen?  Sure.  It does, in a script. Real-life isnt that simple and you dont get into Gitmo for doing good things.

no meme here, just showing what Stewart seems to have missed recently

Gitmo detainees are human beings, ill agree with her on that; I don't agree with the dehumanization of them like we have done (and has been done throughout history) with the Japanese in WWII or the Germans every time we fought them.  I think everyone needs to see just what kind of humans Jihadis are; which is to say, fundamentalists that would probably rape and behead Stewart on film if given the chance.  There is great danger in forgiving someone who has no intention of forgiving you and Hollywood is very quick to forget that this war isnt one of socioeconomic differences, its a war against idealism and religious fanaticism where out enemy has divine permission to lie, cheat and murder until all infidels are dead or converted.

In a weird sort of way it must be nice to tear an entire situation down and rebuild it into a simple script where there is a clear protagonist and an antagonist, a set run time and a conclusion that is certain.  Well, we dont really have that; what we have is a reality where Kristen Stewart is willfully stupid about the caliber of people being held at Gitmo and what fuckery they got involved in to be detained there.  She also seems to be purposefully obtuse about jihadis in general and her "research" into the subject matter of the movie revolved around the controversial detainment facility instead of, oh, I don't know, what caused such a detainment facility to exist in the first place.  If a doctor did the same thing he would only examine patients after they had died and question what right we had to not respect the disease that killed them.

 In keeping with a Greek Tragedy level of stupidity, im sure we can expect her to make a few more films like this, and if not her than someone else in Hollywood will because who needs actual reality when you can script it?  Maybe we can see her take on the role of one of Osamas wives who gallantly stands up for the hardline beliefs of her dear husband by showing us how a double tap of 5.56 represents American Imperialism and her CNS failure is the heroic resistance?  I dont know, we may have to tweak that one a bit to really show the humanity of the Jihadi.