atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#3747: Well, that went about as well as usual.

So yesterday I called the prospective employer at which I interviewed last week, to ask if they'd made some kind of decision yet.

They had: they had decided to go with an option that didn't require hiring another IT guy. And in the "pitcher of warm spit" department, I was told I would have been their pick for the position had they actually decided to hire someone.


To be fair, it wasn't solely up to the guys who interviewed me; there was a committee involved and the committee decided it was easier and cheaper to go another route. But it still leaves me on the street trying to find a job. Argh etc.

* * *

This AoSHQ ONT begins with a 3D printed gun roundup. You can make your own guns using modern prototyping technology, and it's fun to do...but it's illegal to do it for fun and profit.

* * *

A good point heads up this AoSHQ post on civil rights:
I don’t “need” my AR any more than Rosa Parks “needed” to sit in the front of that bus. #NRA
— The H2 (@TheH2) January 17, 2013
You don't "need" your 30-round magazine any more than criminals "need" freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. You don't "need" your "shoulder thing that goes up" any more than an arrested person "needs" the right to remain silent.

...shall I continue, or has the point been made?

* * *

Same vein, crushing dumb arguments in favor of gun control. He starts with the reductio ad absurdum they love to haul out:
The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
The way to crush this stupid argument is not to accept the premise and say, "Oh, no no no..." but to give counter examples. The Framers also didn't write the First Amendment with the Internet, laser printers, copy machines, fax machines, computers, cell phones, television, and radio in mind. So if you favor limiting the "right to keep and bear arms" to what the Framers had to hand, do you also favor limiting the "freedom of the press" to what the Framers had to hand?

If not, shut up.
The limits of the Second Amendment is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple: Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.
I do, in theory, support the idea of citizen armies armed with nuclear weapons--that is to say, the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment, and not the official US Army.

Individual ownership of nuclear weapons--that's problematic, but perhaps not as problematic as you think. A nuclear weapon is an expensive piece of hardware, requiring expert assembly of precision components which themselves are made out of precious metals. (Priced plutonium lately?) Who but government will be able to afford to "keep and bear" nuclear warheads? It's not something you buy on a lark, and the maintenance of a nuclear warhead is similarly prohibitively expensive. Their scarcity is itself a barrier to individual ownership; the same way you'd be leery of a neighbor bringing home a 2,000 lb bomb--and it would be obvious--you'd worry about the rich guy across town bringing home a 120 kiloton Trident warhead.

But speaking in more practical terms, I support the free carry of machine guns by citizens. This isn't as insane as it sounds; if you've ever fired a full-auto weapon you find that keeping it on target is very, very difficult, and professional soldiers rarely use "full rock-and-roll" mode because that empties a 30-round magazine in perhaps five seconds. You only use full auto for suppressing fire, not for shooting people; given a machine gun, a maniac would probably hurt fewer people rather than more...and he would face the possibility of his victims being similarly armed.

And "spray-and-pray" is expensive. Ammunition does not grow on trees; if you have to buy your own shells you rapidly learn not to go hog-wild with the happy button.

* * *

And ultimately banning guns doesn't work, as Vox Day points out. Liberals like to make fun of the "if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them" thing, but it turns out to be true--and because they can't debate the point, they belittle it.

Yet every time a gun ban is emplaced--every time--it brings with it a concomitant increase in violent crime.

Point this out to a liberal, and he claims its because guns are available somewhere else. The only way to ensure an end to violent crime is to ban guns everywhere, so that only governments have them.

Of course, then you get Lenin and the Kulaks, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Hitler and the Jews.

* * *

Vox Day looks at the European Union and compares it to how things are in the United States.

* * *

So it's Thursday again, and I have choir practice tonight. Whee!

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment