Now media wants us to take advice on guns from a serial killer? WTF?!?!
-Gary

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/son-sam-david-berkowitz-speaks-daily-news-decries-violence-senseless-prays-victims-notorious-1976-77-killing-spree-article-1.1133269

-edited to add my response to an FB comment on this post in which someone agreed that glorifcation of guns was a problem-

I disagree with the premise that the “glory” of guns is the problem…If we are to advocate the 2nd Amendment, we are necessarily “glorifying” the gun and civilian possession of guns as the ultimate extension of the 2nd Amendment and the freedom the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect. The fact is, our society was formed by armed insurrection and wouldn’t be possible if that single “tool” hadn’t been available to our ancestors.

My issue with the article above is that Berkowitz didn’t commit his crimes because of the glorification of the gun. Berkowitz is exhibiting classic criminal behavior here and the author’s premise is classic liberal drivel. Berkowitz is not accepting responsibility for his own actions and the premise being pushed is that the gun or glorification therein made him do it. At the time of Berkowitz conviction, he said his neighbor’s dog told him do it. So I’m unwilling to accept this logic because it very much in line with the concept that spoons and the “glorification” of food we see with all these “foodie” shows and channels are making people fat.

I’m obviously not saying I like or promote gun violence but, violence is violence in my opinion. The tool used to commit that violence is irrelevant. Violence is either lawful or not. Gang violence is unlawful violence and that violence, regardless of the tool used, must be minimized. But, it is the violence that is glorified. Gangs have always been part of American culture but, for the last twenty-five years, modern gang violence and the “thug life” itself has been glorified in pop culture, movies, and the music industry via “gangsta” rap and advocacy of the “gangsta” lifestyle. Now, life imitates “art” and you have a whole generation of people who think being a drug king-pin or pimp are good things.

Al Pacino’s “Tony Montana” character in the film “Scarface” is an idol to many gangbangers as are many of the Depression Era gangsters like Al Capone. None other than Curtis “50-Cent” Jackson once said as much in an interview and went further by saying the problem lies in the fact these guys always think they’ll get out of “the game” before they die in a hail of bullets or get hauled off to jail for life. Being “young, dumb, and full of ‘you know what,'” they can’t see past their own nose and are only concerned with living in the moment or perhaps the next couple minutes. There is no concern or planning for the future and what’s worse, few place any value on their own life or that of anyone else. Broken families and bad social policies only perpetuate these issues. So if there is one thing we can agree on, it is that fixing families and strengthening of American culture to eschew the “thug life” would be the obvious way of combating this issue.

-Gary

In the real world, bullets launched at living creatures are all charged with the same job.  One way or another, a bullet must penetrate the outer layers and get in deep enough to break load bearing bones, disrupt the central nervous system, and/or cut through the heart, lungs, major blood vessels or other organs.  So to that end, no area of the body makes a better target than a four to six-inch strip down the midline of the body between the head and groin.  This is of course, ideal and things change in the real world such that we aren’t necessarily presented this wondrous landing strip for bullets but, take a moment to think about what lies in this strip of real estate.

If we could see through all the layers, at the center of it all is bundle of nerve fibers known as the spinal cord which happens to smell like “hot dogs” to your truly and is responsible for directing all motor control signals between the brain and the body.  The spinal cord is surrounded and in fact armored by bones and other tissues.  These bones and tissues are the vertebrae and discs that make up the spine or spinal column that resembles a stack of “marshmallows” (vertebrae) with “grapes” (discs) squished between them.  Forming the core of the circulatory system and positioned on either side of the spinal column, lie the large blood vessels or “hoses” that lead to/from the heart and lungs, down the spine past the kidney toward the pelvis where they bifurcate or split before continuing on to the legs.  Regardless of caliber, bullets that penetrate deep enough to hit these “hot dogs and hoses, marshmallows and grapes,” present us the highest probability of incapacitating a threat in the shortest period of time with fewer rounds fired.

So the point lurking here is that what you hit is more important than the caliber with which you hit.  All that matters in terms of caliber is that the bullet be capable of penetrating deep enough to reach these areas.  Modern defensive/duty ammunition in service calibers such as 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are all tested using FBI protocols to be sure their bullets can do just that.  Bonded jacketed hollow point ammunition in .40 S&W dominates in the police market largely because such ammunition does offer advantages in continuing to perform as desired after passing through intermediate barriers like auto-glass, sheet metal, and drywall.  Most of us, if we have to defend our own lives, are not likely to have to shoot through a car or the interior walls of a building to do so.  To that end, for most of us, “nine is just fine.”  Shoot the caliber with which you can deliver fast, accurate, and controlled fire to the areas discussed above.  We recommend starting at 9mm but, few people shot with .380 have ever said, “that bullet isn’t big enough.”  Your mileage may vary.

-Gary

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-urges-tighter-background-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html

“And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms.  And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -— that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage…”

Guess I’m just going to have to come out and say this…He’s LYING!!!! Furthermore, he doesn’t get it.  This isn’t about hunting and recreational shooting.  It’s about protecting the people from a government that has run off the rails and exceeded its authority.  From none other than the Associated Press, here’s how Obama has handled gun rights during his notably short political career:

1997-2004: As an Illinois state senator, Obama supports banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms, including a failed effort to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

2005: In the U.S. Senate, Obama votes against protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. The bill is signed into law by President George W. Bush.

2008: During his first presidential campaign, Obama supports a return to the federal ban on assault weapons, which began during the Clinton administration and expired under Bush. He also endorses requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. The National Rifle Association attacks him as an anti-gun zealot — a stand the group continues to take today.

2008 was also the year he all but called small town folk a bunch of bitter, knuckle-dragging, Luddites for not getting with his program.  Remember that gem in which he said folks get “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…”?  Snobbery runs deep in the cesspool known as Chicago.

Here’s my take.  The President has never believed in an individual right to bear arms.  His beliefs didn’t suddenly change with the DC v Heller decision.  He says otherwise now, only because he thinks it is politically prudent given the clear statement from the US Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to keep and bear arms.  If Obama truly believed the Second Amendment applied to individuals, he wouldn’t have appointed, let alone defended, Eric Holder.  Remember that during the D.C. v Heller case, Holder joined a brief submitted to the Court, in which he and others argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.  How can one truly believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms if they’ve signed their name onto a legal brief that clearly states otherwise?