Everybody Comes To Rick's: March 2012

Monday, March 19, 2012

More information to disturb you.

So, yesterday I wrote about HR 347. Hopefully, some of you were disturbed or outraged by this law, which shows that you actually care about where this country is headed and about your individual rights. If so, I've got a few more things coming out of the government that will probably shock and anger you even more. First, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). Under the NDAA (specifically, section 1021), the President has the power to detain, indefinitely, any person deemed a danger to the United States, including U.S. citizens. Also, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that the President also has the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a terrorist threat. Now, this doesn't seem too shocking at first, but who decides whether a person fits the criteria for detainment or assassination? The President himself, along with a few, secret advisors. So, in other words, the President, at any given time, can declare any individual a threat to the nation and have them killed or detained without trial. This is an obvious overuse of power if ever there was one and every American should be scared for their lives. This harkens back to medieval Europe, where kings could imprison anyone they saw fit. Conceivably, President Obama could imprison any blogger (myself included), news anchor, or politician that disagreed with his views or spoke out against him. Now, I'm not saying he will do that or has done it, but dammit he has the power to and that's a problem. This is the United States of America, not Nazi Germany. We are the "Land of the Free," or at least we used to be. Who could imagine that, at one time, the President of the United States would have this kind of power? It is time for us to assert ourselves to our elected officials and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around. This is yet another ploy by our government to silence and control the people, and we should not have to endure it any longer. Please spread this information if you can. I'd post a copy of the NDAA, but it's right around 550 pages. Do a quick Google search and it'll show up, along with a thousand news stories about it. Until next time.

HR 347

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These are some of the first words written in the United States Bill of Rights and the first amendment to our Constitution. Yet, under the Obama administration, a bill, titled HR 347, essentially stating that public protest in the vicinity of any restricted area as designated by the Secret Service, was passed into law. This law gives the Secret Service power to push all protesters far away from any official/event/area and arrest any protesters they see fit. People arrested under this law will see punishments of up to 10 years in prison. Now, I don't know about you, but this definitely seems like a violation of the first amendment. One of the main ways we voice are grievances in this country, and have since day one, is through organized protest. This law intends to keep the protesters so far away from government officials that this method will be rendered useless. No longer can protesters show up at campaign speeches or political rallies to voice their opinions. This law insulates our politicians from any difference of opinion outside of the government. This is but one in a long line of steps the government has taken in recent years to silence and ignore the public, allowing them to pass legislation based on personal gain and gain to their party, rather than gain for America. It is also part of the ongoing campaign to undermine the Constitution and destroy the sacred laws that have governed us since our first days as a nation. What gives our elected officials the right to mute us? They are taking away one of the only methods of change we have. No less, this law was passed through congress UNCONTESTED! Unanimously, with the notable exception of 3 congressmen/women, every representative we have voted this into law. In my opinion, this alone should necessitate a clean sweep of congress with new officials elected immediately. We have a right to be heard, as written by our founding fathers, and no politician has the right to silence us. In addition to all of this, the law was amended to delete the word "willingly" from "willingly and knowingly" in regards to how one can break it. In other words, you could have no idea you are committing a crime and be arrested anyway. The Secret Service can suddenly designate a restricted area and, without informing anyone within that area, immediately make arrests. This is a blatant overuse of power and wreaks of fascism. If you give a damn about this country, please spread the news of this infringement on our rights. This country is slowly being turned upside down by greed and corruption.

Read the bill here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112rdGK21::

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Playing Soldier

Ok, so I know I've posted quite a bit about guns lately, but it's been coming up a lot and I keep hearing circular and assumption based logic (a<b b>c therefore a=c...wait, what?) to defend disarmament/over-regulation of firearms. For today, however, I'm not even talking about real firearms, but rather toys. In a recent argument, I was sent a link to this webpage "proving" that toy guns are a danger to our children.

http://www.irol.com/avc/fact_sheet_about_toy_guns.html

So, I humored myself by giving it a read. My with nearly EVERY instance here is either A.) Parenting, in the case of children being involved, B.) Common sense when it's an adult involved or C.) Over zealousness on the part of police. This site states that children can't tell the difference between a real gun and a fake gun, which may be true for many, but I know this was not true for me when I was a child. If a parent let's their child play with toy guns, they should make sure to give that child the common sense necessary to NOT pick up a foreign, gun-like object and ASSUME that it's fake. Hell, the first entry is about two kids bringing pellet guns into school and being suspended...Okay? Where's the issue here? Two kids got suspended for doing something wrong. I don't see how this is even a valid argument. It's like saying "A man yesterday was pulled over for breaking the speed limit." Yeah, no shit. Also, a fair number of these are instances like numbers 3 and 5, where a grown man is waving around a fake gun, in public, in a threatening fashion and, of course, he gets shot by police. Well, again, no shit. Police are trained to treat any gun, real or fake, like a real gun. Anyone brandishing a fake gun in public and acting as though it is real deserves what they get. There are also a decent number of reports of children being shot and killed by police because they had toy guns. Now, there isn't enough detail to tell the exact circumstances, but this seems like it could have been remedied by simply talking to the kid and getting him to put the gun down instead of immediately shooting. Let's be honest, you're average 8-12 year old isn't looking to go shoot someone, so I think it's safe to assume that the gun is either fake, or the child thinks it is and means no harm in carrying it either way. Some of these cases, though, involve the child POINTING the gun at a police officer in a deliberate fashion. Remember what I said about parenting and common sense earlier? Please, make sure your kid is smart enough to not point a toy gun at a cop before getting them one. There are also several like number 22 which make little sense in an anti-toy gun argument. The entry tells of a kid in a school-yard being shot by a pellet gun from across the street. So what? Yes, the kids who did it should be held accountable, but pellet guns usually will leave about a quarter inch bruise, which is hardly a serious injury. Hell, they could have thrown rocks and the kid would've been hurt more. Back to the police, there are a number of cases, like 26 and 45, where the gun is not being brandished or handled, but is stored (in the first case in a child's waistband, the second stored while riding his bike). What ever happened to "freeze!" Both suspects were shot immediately because they had something that might be a firearm. Do police no longer stop a subject to investigate?

Now, what is my point here? We are increasingly becoming a nanny society where, instead of holding people accountable for their actions or teach them responsibility, we want to confiscate or outlaw anything that they could conceivably misuse to hurt themselves or others. I spent most of my childhood playing with toy guns, playing cowboys, cops and robbers, army, spies etc. From what I can tell, it didn't turn me into a psychopath who wants to shoot anything that moves. I've never shot someone, I've never intentionally harmed someone if not in self defense. Hell, I'm an actor and I can probably link that career choice back to the play-acting I did as a kid WITH my toy guns. Toy guns and airsoft guns are not the cause of any of these events. Irresponsible people are the cause. So, let's instead of banning a plastic, children's play thing, reinforce the message of responsible parenting, common sense, and reason. Putting a child in a cushioned box with little to no access to the outside world will make that child dumb and naive. Let's not do the same to our society at large.

P.S. If you click on the link at the bottom of the "fact-sheet," there's a quick visual quiz to see if you can tell the difference between a real or fake gun. Despite the intentionally horrendous picture quality, it took me about 4 seconds to pick out the toy. Your mileage may vary.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Come To Joe's

Despite what the title may imply, Joe's, in this case, is not an eatery, but a Barbershop near Logan Square in Chicago. I actually went here for a project for a writing class, but also because my hair was getting a little on the long side and needed a trim in a bad way. Normally, for lack of a decent barber nearby, me and my buddies go to The Barber College and get $8 haircuts that take about an hour and normally end up mediocre, but my project gave me and my room mate, Greg, to take the 20 minute train ride up to Joe's. First off, Joe's looks the part even from the outside. The shop is a small, old, brick building with barber poles all over it. The inside of the place is cluttered with all sorts of retro and vintage paraphernalia and nearly every inch of wallspace has some sort of vintage photo or ad. One section even has a bunch of ponytails on the wall. I asked one of the barbers, and he said they were from the 80s when guys came in to get their long hair cut short. Joe himself is a stand-up guy who seems like he's been doing this near forever. He's got all sorts of stories about growing up in the 50s and music and all that jazz. Better still, he gives a damn good haircut, and he does it fast. His hands are like lightning with a pair of clippers, and he get's it right every time. I didn't catch the names of the other two barbers there, but they were both great guys too and both knew what they were doing. Greg just needed a trim, so he was done in a few minutes. I took a little longer because I opted for a pompadour and the fella doing the cutting styled it a bit for me too. By the way, for any of those who like Layrite Pomade, Joe's carry's it, original and super hold, for $15 a tin. Actually, most of anything you get there, including a haircut, shave, or t-shirt is $15. Now, was the haircut here worth the extra $7 plus tip over the Barber College? ABSOLUTELY! Hell, Greg and I have made this our new go-to place in the city to get a trim, despite the ride and extra cost. I'd highly recommend Joe's to anyone in the area who needs a decent barber. Their website is http://joesbarbershopchicago.com/. Also, I brought up Layrite so I'll put a plug for them too. Layrite, while on the expensive side, is a great product. It has great hold for a tall pompadour and washes out easily with water and shampoo. Also, it's got a great vanilla scent that drives girls wild, just saying. You can pick it up at Joe's (or their website) or get it from the source at http://www.hawleywoods.com/.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

To arms!

So, as many of you may have probably noticed, I'm a strong proponent of the second amendment so I figured I'd talk a little bit about gun control and such. I know I'm about to stir up a hotbed of controversy and I'm probably gonna catch a lot of crap for this, but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

First off, I'm going to address the now-defunct Assault Weapons ban. Now, first of all, it is defunct as a FEDERAL law, but many states still have similar restrictions on firearms. So let's start with the basics.

So, what is the difference between the above two weapons? They have the same receiver, take the same ammo, and fire the same magazines. Both are semi-automatic only, but the rifle above is legal under the AWB while the bottom rifle is not. So what are the differences? The stock. The shape of the stock, which is of mostly cosmetic value, is the only reasoning behind the ban. Actually, nearly all of the criteria for legality, according to the assault weapons ban, are cosmetic. So what makes a rifle an "assault weapon?"

Flash hiders/Flash suppressors or the ability to attach one
Pistol grips (hence why the thumbhole-stock AK above is legal)
Folding or collapsible stocks

As well as some other, more sensible things like grenade launchers (no one needs an underslung grenade launcher). But for the most part, these are COSMETIC changes. The AWB is less about limiting dangerous weapons than it is about limiting weapons that "look scary." This is a bit like outlawing racing stripes because they make a car LOOK like it can break the speed limit. Now, I'm sure most of you will agree that this is pretty stupid.

So, automatic weapons. The general argument against automatic weapons is that no one needs one, which is true. However, keeping with the car metaphor, no one NEEDS a 527 Chevy engine in a 1960s era muscle car, but people in this country are allowed to have hobbies. Obviously, it's a bit of a stretch to compare a firearm to an automobile, but the thought processes are the same. Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed with the use of handguns, usually not fitting the federal definition of "assault weapon." These are cheap, easily available guns, not expensive collectors items. And make no mistake, most popular automatic weapons are VERY expensive and not terribly disposable, the last thing you want to commit a crime with. Furthermore, most automatic weapons used to commit crimes are semi-automatic weapons, illegally modified to fire full-auto. Why? It's cheaper, easier, and less suspicious. This leads into my next argument against gun control in general; people who own guns legally are the least likely to use them to commit crimes. Yes, there are cases of hot-blooded murder but, let's be honest, if you're mad enough to murder someone, not having a gun handy will not stop you. At the end of the day, people are responsible for their actions, not the inanimate objects they use to commit them. If you deny a mugger a gun, he will use a knife OR he will acquire a gun illegally. By restricting firearm ownership, you only limit the use of them in violent crime, not the crime itself. You end up treating a variable as opposed to the result. The only thing you end up hindering is self-defense and hobbyists, not exactly the most dangerous crowd.

Now, I know this probably will convince no one who is anti-gun, but it's late and I needed to rant. Goodnight all. See you in the morning.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Party Lines (also firearm eye candy)

So, I hate to talk about politics on my birthday, but it's been coming up a lot lately. Let me start by saying that I identify with neither the Democrat or Republican Parties. I am a fairly moderate conservative (a comment that gets me attacked by conservatives for "not being conservative enough" and liberals for "being a conservative asshole") with some liberal views. Now, lately I have seen and heard a whole lot of name calling from both sides of the fence. Liberals will claim that all conservatives are crazy and conservatives will respond in kind and this goes on for hours. The plea I make to all people of any age, gender, race, creed, or political affiliation is this: WE ARE ALL PEOPLE!!! Listen, if you have a cause, there will be radical crazies involved. Conservatives have their share of gay hating, gun loving, racist bigots while the liberals have gun hating, anti-capitalist, anti-constitution nuts who'd love to see a communist America. The fact that these are, by and large, the most vocal and visible members of their respective groups does not help matters. Having talked to many people, I've just about figured that most well-adjusted, informed, sane individuals fall into around a 60/40 split. That is to say that on the political spectrum, most people will register at about the middle with a slight lean toward either liberal or conservative. So, most who consider themselves conservatives, are closer to 60% conservative, 40% liberal, and vice versa. So, the people you are slandering out there and calling "sinners" or "capitalist pigs" are much closer to you in opinion than you'd probably like to believe. I consider myself a conservative on most issues. I am a strong advocate of the second amendment, I believe that capitalism works when you let it, and I believe in our country having a strong military and the balls to use it. However, I believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry. I am pro-choice, but anti abortion (by which I mean I am against abortion, but I don't believe it is the government's place to intervene). My opinions, like those of most people, are too varied and complicated for me to paint them in black and white. By hating and villainizing those with a different political identity than you, you are buying into how the politicians want to play the game. If you're a conservative, but you think the democrat candidate is better than the republican, why not vote for the person you think would do the better job? If you're a liberal, but the republican candidate really appeals to you, then vote republican. The idea that all republicans and all democrats are exactly the same and have the same agendas is the greatest conspiracy theory ever conceived. I am not a fan of Barrack Obama, but not because he is a Democrat and CERTAINLY not because he is black (I have been called a racist simply for criticizing President Obama...I really hate people sometimes). I dislike him because I don't see him as a strong leader and I've failed to see many of his promises fulfilled or any positive change come from his presidency. I also count several violations of the constitution made by his administration, but that's a whole other can of worms. On the flip side, the candidates that the Republicans are pushing are some of the biggest crazies one could ask for (Romney, Santorum, and Perry? Come on, can we get a sane human being here?). I believe the Herman Cain scandal was manufactured to get him out of the running (notice how quickly the women disappeared once he dropped his bid) but whether by the Repubs or Dems I can't be sure. The politicians want us to play this game and we are falling into the trap like blind mice. So, do me a favor if you vote this year. Listen to the person you're voting for first and, more importantly, watch to see if they put their money where their mouth is. Don't vote for someone because they say a lot of nice things and they're with "your party." Do it because they've shown that they can get the job done and save this country from the hole it's falling into. Anyway, that's my two cents. Take it as you will.

Oh, and since it's my birthday I'm going to reward myself with gunporn (aka some of my favorite firearms)