Santa Barbara Shooter: The Evil is in the Man, not the Implements

OK now that time has passed for the dust on this to settle I'll put in my input.

Again we got a disturbed individual in Elliot Rodger who went out on a GTA-style rampage. Several people run over, 3 dead from stabbing, 3 dead from gunshot.

Could more laws have prevented this?

In a word... no. California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. We have "assault weapon" bans, we have universal background checks, we have 10 day waiting periods, we have magazine limits, and getting a Concealed Carry Licence in this state is next to impossible depending on the county.

The thing with laws is they are a part of the social contract, as such they're only terms of a contract. To enjoy the benefits of a civil society and government benefits (like a fire department) you give up certain things.

Contracts are broken all the time, and the social contract is no exception.

Laws do nothing to physically stop someone from committing crime. Sure laws can set the punishment for violating the social contract, but they do nothing to stop someone from breaking the contract if they decide the punishment is worth it or they can duck the punishment. So ultimately what this means is that laws are only as effective as far as people are willing to obey them.

Words on a piece of paper do nothing to stop someone who decides to go against them no matter how much money or good feelings went into putting those words down. Anything else that happens beyond that becomes damage control. And that's what police are, they're society's damage control agents. They can't act until there is reasonable suspicion, therefore they are a reactionary unit.

Given that condition what can be done? Hide and pray until damage control arrives? Or become proactive in your own defense. Do I think this could have been prevented with more lax laws? Yes I do, this could have been stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun. The rampage started with a stabbing.

But why won't more control laws prevent this? As I said, once someone decides to ignore those laws, they mean nothing. It's already illegal to drive like a madman and hit people with your car (didn't stop that other lunatic that thought he was the Angel of Death and intentionally plowed his car into a crowed in Santa Barbara). It's already illegal to stab people, it's illegal to carry a loaded weapon on your person in California without a CCL, and it's sure as hell illegal to shoot at people. Even without more laws this guy is already a multiple felon, looking at a life sentence and possibly the death penalty. Another law is not going to do anything.

Cars, knives and guns have no will of their own. They cannot act on their own. A car will not decide to drive into people on its own, a knife will not decide to shank someone on its own, and a gun will not shoot anyone on its own.

The Evil is not in the objects, it's the heart of Man.

Let's take a look at this kid (I refuse to reffed to him as an adult.). He has a 100+ page manifesto you can check out here if you're so inclined.

Going though this tale of sein kampf, nothing really seems out of the ordinary aside from having a rich and privileged background. Though I need to point out, for one reason or another he was a scared kid, every year of school he was scared to go. He was the kid who got bullied in high school is freshman year (yeah but who doesn't get it from the sophmores when you're a high school freshman?). There's really nothing out of the ordinary, for a teenager, though seems to be on a more intense scale. Though he singles out an event where he was bullied by a girl at summer camp.

All the weirdness really started when he was 17. He started to get jealous of people living life. Of people doing what he simply put didn't have the fucking balls to go out and do. His obsession over sex drove him into hating people that were getting laid because he wasn't. He pretty much started turning into Lil Adolf at this point, talking about wanting power just to impose his own warped ideology and what not.

It's just one story of being friendless after another with a generous heaping of sex obsession. Eventually we start to see things like this.

It's not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls have never been attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice, a crime, because I don't know what you don't see in me. I'm the perfect guy, and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentleman.

And things like this:

On the day of retribution I will enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB, and I will slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see inside there. All those girls that I've desired so much, they would have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them. While they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes. I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true Alpha Male.

To sum it all up he was an entitlement mind little bitch, who essentially shot up a part of Santa Barbara because he couldn't get laid. Why couldn't he get laid? Well as I mentioned this guy was scared of his own shadow. He was scared of going to school, he was scared of interacting with people. He mentions sitting around in a Barns and Noble just hoping people would come and talk to him. He just expected things to just happen to him, and that just ain't life. It also seems his mind was poisoned by images portrayed by the media since he had this idea that he was entitled to sex. He talks about punishing women. Punishing for what? For not sleeping with him. Sorry kiddo but you got to make thing happen.

A good friend of mine had her take on this over a text convo she gave me permissions to post up.

Fuck those guys, who say that they deserve a woman's body, why say that because women deny a man access to our most personal selves we are souless succubuses, who demand that women be tools for their amusement because they want us to be. Fuck those guys so much. And if they do get sex it should be a dildo to the ass.  

********

And you know what drives me nuts about those guys? They have literally nothing appealing about them, but when they aren't appealing to women it's the woman's fault. Instead when women get turned down, they blame themselves, and it's still the woman's fault. What the fuck is that 

And you know what? She's right. What did Rodger have to offer a girl, or to anybody when he isn't even willing to go out and for himself, live the life that he wants to live?

Do I think he's an evil person? Yes I do, not evil as in born with malice, but evil as in corrupted. His own fear is what stopped him from living the life he wanted. This is by his own admission. Sure life as a teenager is hard, I've been there, we've all been there at some point. But for one reason or another (I say upbringing) he never really developed the skills to deal with life after that girl bullied him.

Speaking of fear, considering he claims to be a big Star Wars fan, how did he not take what Yoda said about fear to heart:

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

What happened here is exactly what Yoda cautioned against. His fear of others, lead to anger over his inability to do the same thing. This Anger and envy of people living life lead to hating them for doing what feared to do. And hate lead to this. He went from an insecure kid who became warped and twisted. There was evil here, but that evil was not in the car, millions of cars out that haven't been involved in crime. There are billions of knives out there that haven't been involved in crime. It is said that private gun owners in the U.S. is one of the world's largest standing armies. That's millions of guns that haven't been involved in crime. The evil wasn't in these objects, but in his heart.

Now to bring things full circle.

Do you think this guy, and other like him care about what the laws are? No... hell no, they don't care. So what would passing more laws to do stop this? How can we stop this?

The ones who can stop someone like this are people, not words on a piece of paper. People with the will and the means to stop someone when they go off the rails like this. You can't prevent behavior when a person decides the law doesn't apply to them.

He became a monster when fear corrupted him and he went out and acted out in malice, without giving the laws a thought. And so I'll leave on this quote from Alucard/Vlad Dracula (Hellsing) if you want to know what would prevent this from happening again somewhere:

It takes a man in order to kill a monster!

A tale of two RoboCops

No I don't mean Alex Murphy and John T. Cable.

Just by making that reference I think it can be said I'm a big fan of the franchise. I've seen the three original movies, two of the TV series, and grew up on the cartoon.

And now we have a new one, so how does an old fan like me feel about it?

Well I liked it. Just as you can like both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger's Joker, it is possible to like both.

*Spoilers ahead*

The main underlying theme of RoboCop is humanity, what makes us human. Verhoeven and Padilha's RoboCops are essentially two approaches on the same topic. 1987 RoboCop is about a man trying to reclaim his humanity, where as 2014 RoboCop is about a man trying to maintain his humanity.

In a sense when people say "there is only one RoboCop" they're right. While both movies take different paths, the end destination is the same. Alex Murphy is still a man, RoboCop might have a mechanical body, but the man is still there.

Alex Murphy and Alex Murphy

Probably the most obvious difference between Alex Murphy (1987) and Alex Murphy (2014) is that the former is dead and the latter seriously injured. Whereas Murphy (1987) was brought back from the dead, Murphy (2014) was more like Darth Vader in that the mechanical body served as a mobile life-support system.

In RoboCop (1987) for a good portion of the film Murphy is a brain in a case and nothing more than an organic CPU. When he's revived, he isn't reffered to by name, he's called "RoboCop" or rather Crime Prevention Unit 001, as his full designation. As the movie goes on more and more of Murphy's memory and personality emerge. By the end once he has taken his helmet off and the audience sees his face again, his movement has become much more fluid coupled with his facial expressions, he looks less a hulking robot and more a man in an armor suit. At the film's conclusion the OCP CEO asks him "What's your name?" to which Murphy replies simply with "Murphy". By the end of RoboCop 2, his restoration seems complete when he remarks to Lewis "Patience Lewis, we're only human."

Where as in RoboCop (2014) Murphy never has his memory blanked and people still reffed to him by name. His face was never really concealed from the audience. Yes he has the visor but when he was revived as RoboCop, the audience saw Murphy's face, not the iconic red visor. In 1987 Murphy's family had moved on, in contrast in 2014 Murphy's family is still there and they are still trying to hang on to each other, he's trying to keep his family while they're tying to keep their husband and father. In the end he has his true, long awaited reunion with his family.

The Execution

In the execution, Padilha stayed respectful to the source material unlike say, Paul W.S. Anderson with Resident Evil or Uwe Boll in your pick of any of his video game based movies.

From the start there was a lot to be said about Murphy's new black armor. People generally saying "that's not RoboCop" and in a sense they were right. I'm not sure if it was an intentional stroke of script writing genius or a just a fluke, but when Murphy is revived in the re-imagining of the blue-silver armor he asks "What kind of suit is this...?" to which his physician Dr. Norton replies "It's not a suit, it's... you."

One will also notice that when Omni starts to screw directly with Murphy's brain, he is the black armor. In a sense the black armor is not him, it's not Murphy. When he starts acting like a robot because his brain chemistry has been screwed with, to the point where he ignores his wife, child and partner, he's is in the black suit. As with the original, his personalty starts to re-emerge when he starts encountering elements of his own (here attempted) murder. In this case his first act of hanging on to his humanity is to investigate his own attempted murder. At the end when he has over come everything Omni did to try to make him into a robot, and he finally has his reunion with his family, he is back in the blue-silver armor. Another notable thing between the two bodies, is that the black armor bears the logo of OmniCorp while the blue-silver armor only has his badge engraved on.

And of course, he still retained the heavy thumping footsteps, which is about as iconic to RoboCop as Darth Vader's mechanical breathing.

Omni did what they could to suppress Alex Murphy and ultimately failed, the man prevailed.

I also enjoyed the numerous references to the original. There was a subversion of the "I'll buy THAT for a dollar!" tag line. This time around Alex retains an organic hand, a nod towards Bob Morton ordering the surgeons to remove Murphy's left arm in 1987. There were other smaller ones I can't remember off the top of my head without watching it again, but they're there.  

But...

The 2014 isn't exactly perfect. The concept was sound but there were a few things in the execution that could have been better. While a lot of attention was paid to Murphy and Norton, there was less to Murphy's wife and his partner Jack Lewis wasn't any better off.

I can see they wanted to place more emphasis on Murphy's humanity, what they should have done was spend another 30 min to flesh out his relations with his partner before and after becoming a cyborg. For instance when they meet again after Murphy's procedure, they exchange a few words and a joke, no fistbump or secret handshake between the two.

Also 2014 lacks a charismatic villain. While Sellars is obviously the stand in for both the main villain of the original, Dick Jones, and partly for Bob Morton as the initiator of the RoboCop project, a part that was done very well, who's the stand in for Clarence Boddicker? Boddicker seems to have been split of into two, hardly memorable villains, the criminal Antoine Vallon who is cahoots with at least three corrupt officers, and Rick Maddox.

Vallon was almost just a cardboard cut out, the biggest role he played was being responsible for the car bomb that crippled Murphy. His last moments were hardly memorable compared to Boddicker.

Maddox by contrast, arguably isn't even really bad. An asshole, yes, but at the end of the day he was really nothing more than a mercenary on OmniCorp's pay role, just a guy doing his job.

By contrast to both, Clarence Boddicker was a through and though bad guy, and he knew it, not only did he know it, but he loved it. Even the lettering to the billboard advertising his car, the 6000 SUX could be read as GOOD SUX if you squint your eyes a little. He was mean, vicious, violent and had a dark sense of humor, show on one instance when he blew up a member of his own gang's car because he had the audacity to buy a 6000 SUX as well. Boddicker was loud and in your face and you couldn't help but laugh along with some of his twisted humor, he was the sort of villain that the audience loved to hate. Maddox by contrast was really nothing more than, as Murphy put it "...a little asshole..."

All and all, the concept was sound, I liked what they were going for, but in the execution there was more they could have done.

Other thoughts

Both movies were clearly products of their time. Which is one of the reasons why I like the new one. It wasn't just trying to copy the 1987 movie, but instead was it's own narrative on the same themes and topics. Though this time around, I actually found this incarnation of Alex Murphy to be just a tad more likable. Yeah I said it, I liked this Murphy more. 1987 Murphy was just a straight shooting cop doing his job. Nothing wrong with that. Though 2014 Murphy, with police having a more and more negative image due to corruption and police brutality in our modern times, this Murphy refuses to let a case go involving crooked cops, "they're either dumb or dirty!" he says. He is the cop we all want today, the one who'll clean the streets AND clean house.

And being a product of it's time, I actually do like the redesigns. I like Murphy's "it's you" suit. It was sleek but still looked like the original. While it was sleeker and more lean looking, Murphy was still taller than everyone else, he still had a presence. The I liked the black armor as well, not as much as the blue-silver one, but I liked it since it reminded me of an Evangelion unit from the Neon Genesis Evangelion anime series. I liked how it looked different because it wasn't him so to speak. It differentiated Murphy the man, from OmniCorp's efforts to turn the man into a product. The sleek stealthy redesign of the ED-209 was also welcome in my opinion. If ED-209 was made today it would look like that as opposed to the blocky version we saw in 1987.

Watching the fight between Murphy and the ED-209s I couldn't help but think of another cyborg, Jack "Raiden" from Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear Solid video game franchise. Murphy's battle with the ED-209s was a little reminiscent of Raiden's battle with the very ED-209 esque Gekko cyborg anti-infantry units.

At the end of the day, it is a good movie on it's own. And yes, you can like it and the original 1987 film at the same time.

Just because you call him "Your Honor" doesn't mean he's smarter than you.

I think this might help some people feel a bit better if they read this before a pending court appearance. Just because s/he sits up there and everyone reffers to them as "Your Honor" doesn't mean they're smarter than you.

Take the case of Judge Robert O'Neill of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Basically this guy just doesn't know what he is talking about. 

In his decision here he goes on to talk at length about semi-auto civilian market AKs. He goes on about so called "assault weapons". 

Although James acknowledged the "fully automatic nature of a machine gun renders such a weapon arguably more dangerous and unusual than a semiautomatic assault weapon, that observation does not negate the fact that assault weapons, like machine guns, are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and likewise fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use

I've explained all the technicalities in previous entries already. The technology behind the AK is over 100 years old. Semi-automatic technology has been in use for over 100 years in the civilian market. As I said, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" meaning that semi-automatic rifles ARE in fact in common use by law-abiding citizens.

This is the Browning 22, it is a semi-auto rifle designed by John Browning, and produced in 1914.

Conceptually they're the same as the semi-auto AKs. A part of the energy used to propel the bullet is used to cycle the action and automatically load in the next bullet. So what does this all mean then? It means that Judge Robert O'Neill is dead wrong when he says these guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens. They've been in common use for decades before his parents even thought about having him.

So when you walk into a courtroom as a new lawyer, or some other capacity, don't feel intimidated by the judge. Odds are he's probably just as dumb as you.

The Two-Party System: Divided we have Fallen

Partisanship

Polarization

Party-line

We've heard the terms before, and they all relate to the same thing. A toxic political Us against Them mentality that's been poisoning American politics. It's become so inflamed and extreme that people think of themselves as Democrat-Americans and Republican-Americans as opposed to just Americans. They hold to their Party like a religion, with politicians held up as if they were clergy.

The Two-Party System is probably one of the worse, most damaging thing in American politics. It is a system hijacked by special interests, big money, and the two main Parties that play in this sandbox.

For one thing the Two-Party System only serves to divide us. Those at the top use it to pit the rest of us, the middle class, the lower class, the whole 98% of us against each other, while we're all robbed blind. Instead of ganging up as 98% on the politicians and demanding they do something about the economic mess we're in, as Iceland's government had done, we're all distracted with bullshit on TV and when we're not, we're at each others throats instead. All the while the middle class continues to shrink while the rich at the top get more of the pie. Big banks like HSBC get busted for laundering money for criminal organizations and man posing as Attorney General, Eric Holder refuses to press charges, and we as 98% of the people do nothing. Too busy at each others throats playing this rigged partisan game of "my Party can beat up your party!" Our politicians have stopped representing us and are pretty much bent on ramming their special interest agendas up our collective asses. We've been divided and we're being conquered.

"There is no civility, only politics." - Chancellor Palpatine

“The Republic is not what it once was—the Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good.” - Chancellor Palpatine

While referring to the Galactic Republic in it's final days, Palpatine may as well have been referring to the American Republic. In our poisoned political landscape everything is political. Neither side is any better than the other. Democrats will use gun violence to push their political agenda one day, while the next Republicans will use abortion to push their own political agendas. In the end they always win and we always lose.

And the reason these two parties can walk all over us? Well, who else are we going to vote for? Even if one Party were to lose the House, or Congress, or the White House, they'll be the dominant Party again in 10-20 years. There are no other viable parties, so they just need to sit there and wait. It's a rigged system and no matter what the two Parties will ALWAYS win, because they will ALWAYS be in power.

Which goes to the next issue. Because they are always in power, these so-called representatives don't have to represent any of us. They just need to look just slightly better than the other guy and into office they go.

As bad as it sounds this is damaging on an even deeper level. Consider this, there are also the same people the decide what school curriculum are. If I had to pick one class which I valued the most it would be my Logic class taught by Dr. Danny Weil. Logic and Critical Thinking are the classes that will teach you to think and see though all the bullshit. And that's a good thing right?

So why did I have to wait till college to take these classes? Why aren't they offered in high school?

Because the Parties do not want thinkers. They want good wind-up automatons that will parrot and spread the Party Line. They do not want radical thinkers who will question the status quo paradigm and ultimately threaten their power. They want a dumb, dim-witted and easily distracted populace, that shies away from politics, and at most the extent of their involvement serves only to further the Party Line. Do any of you really think that Republicans care about an unborn baby when they couldn't give two shits about a poor underprivileged kid? Do any of you really think Democrats care about gay people when they've hemmed and hawed about it only making a decision when and election was coming up? Sure there are members that are sincere such as Elizabeth Warren, but those are few and far between, And so the Two-Party System continues to perpetuate itself.

On an another level, the whole concept of a Two-Party System in a nation as large and as diverse as the United States, is completely nonviable to begin with. This country was set up as a Republic, a representative democracy. But with such diverse a population as the United States has, it it impossible for only two national parties to represent all the different myriads of views. What Party is someone supposed to vote for when they support gun rights AND gay rights? The result is these people are marginalized and even less inclined to vote. Which of course is what the Parties want, because then it culls the number of potential voters down and the percentage of their automatons, the ones who mindlessly vote down Party lines, increases amongst the population which actually votes. Further cementing their positions.

Maybe in a smaller, more homogeneous society, two parties would be enough. Like in a country like Japan that is very homogeneous and where conformity is desired and rocking the boat is frowned upon. But in a country like the United States where you have people from literally every part of the Earth where there are people, each bringing with them their own values and ideals, how can two parties ever hope to represent even most, let alone all these different diverging groups? It can't, it's impossible. Furthermore, how can you have a representative democracy, when much if not most of the populace isn't represented very well? You can't, the republic won't work. Well ok it might function, but it'll function about as well as a Ford from the '90s will after it passes the 10 year mark.

Lastly, what happens when one of the Parties becomes so weak that the other has a super-majority. The majority becomes empowered to do what ever it wants, IE adopt and even more hardline adherence to the Party Dogma. Until that Party inevitable falls from grace, it in fact becomes a de facto one party state. We can see this happening in California, it is the "tyranny of the majority" that people such as John Adams feared. Had there been a third or fourth "liberal" party to siphon away voters from the Democratic Party, they likely wouldn't have such power in this state.

What is an assault rifle?

I'm going to hit this one again, because it bears touching back on given that Congress is going be to looking at a set of new gun laws in the following month. The situation is probably one of the most polarized, if not MOST polarized in American politics, and emotions are still running high. While Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban is on life support, New York City mayor and billionaire Micheal Bloomburg and his lobby group Mayors Against Illegal Guns continues to push for an "assault weapon" ban and Bloomburg himself is pouring his own personal fortune into it.

You can't be emotional and rational at the same time.

Before you address an issue, you need to understand the terminology and all the technical details in the issue itself and in any satellite issues. Here the main issue is gun violence while the satellite issues are the types of guns.

Ever since Sandy Hook, American politicians can't seem to open their mouth and not have "assault weapon" come out of it at some point. But also none have seemed to define what an "assault weapon" is. Why is that? It's because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", it's a hollow, politically created term, with no definition.

But there is such thing as an assault rifle. The U.S. military defines an assault rifle as:

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

But aren't assault rifles and "assault weapons" the same thing? No, and here is why. First I'll start with a short explanation of the assault rifles history. "Assault rifle" is derived from the German "Sturmgewehr", the direct translation is "storm rifle". It was a term Hitler coined for the StG-44, the rifle considered the first true assault rifle.

During WWII the Germans were looking for a gun with the rapid fire and mobility of a sub-machine gun (a machine gun that fires smaller pistol ammo) with the power of a rifle. The Germans were finding that their 9mm sub-machine guns like the MP-40 lacked the range to "storm" or "assault" a dug in enemy. While at the same time while their bolt-action Mauser K98 and semi-auto (one shot, per pull of the trigger) Gewehr 43 had the range but lacked the rate of fire for the task.

The idea here is that with rapid fire and long range, infantry can advance on dug in defensive positions, using the rapid fire ability to keep the defender's "heads down" as they advanced on or stormed/assaulted the enemy positions and took the positions. Hence "assault" rifle, a rifle used to "assault" or "storm" enemy defensive positions.

The key characteristic of the assault rifle is this "select-fire". Basically the rifle has multiple modes, it can go "full-automatic" IE machine gun, and/or "burst-fire" where it shoots two or three rounds per trigger pull, and semi-auto where it only fires one round per pull. In contrast rifles like the AR-15, while they might LOOK like the M-16/M-4 in military service, they lack that key feature of full-automatic/burst-fire. If we go back to the purpose of the assault rifle, to storm enemy positions, they lack this key feature, and thus are unsuited to "assaulting" or "storming" these dug in positions. Hence the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.

Another characteristic of the assault rifle is that it fires an "intermediate" powered cartridge. Basically if the bigger .30-06 that hunting rifle and rifles like the classic M-1 Garand fire, are full powered rounds, an intermediate powered cartridge like the .223 are medium powered. This was an idea the Germans came upon in an attempt to reduce recoil in full-automatic fire.

Now that we are clear on what an assault rifle is, we move on to "assault weapon." What makes an "assault weapon" different from a non-assault weapon? Mechanically, as in the working parts and functioning, nothing.

Lets do a compare and contrast with a few.

This is the M-1A, it is a civilian semi-auto version of the military's M-14 family. The M-14 family is an evolution of the classic M-1 Garand of WWII. Classic piece of Americana. The M-1A is pretty conventional, in California where there is an "assault weapon" ban, this rifle is perfectly legal. Functionally it is semi-automatic only and incapable of the full-auto fire the M-14 is capable of. It is gas-operated meaning it uses some of the gas produced from the gunpowder's ignition to cycle the action and load the next round automatically.

This here is the M-1A SOCOM II version of the M-1A. Like the M-1A it semi-auto only and uses largely the same gas system as the one above, and legal in California. Same rifle, just a little more "tactical" with accessory rails for optics, flashlights or what ever else makes you happy. 

Finally this is the same M-1A with an "EBR" (Enhanced Battle-Rifle) style stock that mimics the M-14EBR/Mk.14EBR stock that the military uses on their updated M-14s. Like the two above it is semi-automatic only, using the same gas system. It might look radically different  but mechanically, and functionally these three rifles are largely identical. They even fire the same caliber.

But this third rifle is an illegal "assault weapon" in California. Why, when mechanically and functionally it is the same as the other two which ARE legal? Yes it has accessory rails but so does the M-1A SOCOM II set up. Because with the EBR stock the the M-1A has a pistol grip AND a detachable magazine. But is that what determines lethality? Cosmetics?

Lets take a look at another rifle.

This is the Ruger Mini-14, looks a bit like the M-1A doesn't it? Should look somewhat familiar if you're a fan of The A-Team. It is a semi-auto only rifle derived from the M-14 and something of a cousin or a little brother to the M-1A above. While the M-1A is chambered for the larger 7.62NATO (a full-powered round like the ones mentioned earlier), the Mini-14 uses the smaller .223/5.56NATO. The Mini-14 in it's standard configuration is legal in California. Looks pretty convention doesn't it.

Let's compare the AR-15 to it. This is the AR-15 in one of it's MANY configurations. Thanks to politicians it is the quintessential "assault weapon" and today even surpassing the AK-47 in infamy.

Like the Mini-14 above, the AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire. It fires the same medium powered round as the Mini-14. Mechanically they are different in that they use different gas-systems. But functionally they are the same, one pull of the trigger will only get you one shot. However like the M-1A with the EBR stock, in it's factory configuration the AR-15 is illegal in California.

The AR-15 is interesting in it's design. The rifle is actually really two main parts (an upper reciver and a lower reciver) that can be swapped out and mix and matched. Now keeping in mind that the AR-15 in it's standard configuration, like above, is an illegal "assault weapon" in Ca, lets take a look at this rifle.

Remember what I said about mixing and matching parts? Well this rifle has an Ares SCR lower receiver, with an AR-15 upper receiver. This rifle is legal in California. The rifle's upper half, with the firing mechanism is an AR-15, the lower half is functionally the same as the lower half on an AR-15. The main difference is the buffer tube that is inside an AR-15's stock is replaced with a design from an semi-automatic shotgun and the bolt carrier group (the part that grabs the bullet and detonates the primer to make the gun shoot) has been modified to accommodate the changes. The rifle is still gas operated, it's still semi-automatic only, and yet it's the one that's legal under an "assault weapon" ban. I'm sure you can tell why, but can you tell me how that makes sense?

Finally this is the Russian Saiga Rifle. The Saiga Rifle is to the AK-47 family what the M-1A is to the M-14 family.

Just like with the M-1A, the Russian Saiga uses the same operating principals as it's parent rifle. But like the M-1A, the Saiga is limited to semi-automatic only. But again, guess which one of those set-ups in the picture is legal in an "assault weapon" ban state, and which on isn't, despite being "the same under the hood".

All of these rifles are functionally identical, only one shot per trigger pull. All lack the ability for full-automatic, hence they are unsuited for "storming" an entrenched position, because they lack the rate of fire needed to "keep and enemy's head down". Remember what I said earlier about the German's not being satisfied with their semi-automatic Gewehr 43? About how it didn't fire fast enough to storm a dug in position? Well, that's the same thing with these semi-automatic rifles. Therefore they are certainly not assault rifles, despite looking like them. Does it make sense that these rifles are largely functionally identical, but several are illegal "assault weapons"?

As an aside, semi-automatic technology has been around for over 100 years. The classic M-1911, the handgun seen carried by U.S. soldiers in just about EVERY WWII media, is named that because it was adopted by the military in 1911 AD. The Mauser C-96, the pistol that the prop for Han Solo's blaster pistol was made from, goes back even further to 1899. The direct gas-impingement system used in the AR-15 first showed up in the experimental Rossignol ENT developed by the French in 1901. Yes operating principal of the AR-15 is literally 116 years old. The technology has been around for over 100 years, yet only in the mid to late '90s did we see a peak in violent crime. So what changed between that other 80 or so years and the '90s? It certainly wasn't the gun that had changed...

But I digress.

Again is that what determines lethality? Appearance? If it looks scarier, does it make it more dangerous? Just because I put on a cop's uniform doesn't make me a cop. Politicians will refer to these as "weapons of war" but by and large these rifles are unsuited for modern warfare. Mechanically, they are different from their military counterparts, their military counterparts have the mechanical parts to allow full-automatic or burst-fire capabilities. You will likely NOT find an AR-15 in any nation's (that isn't some two-bit, tin pot, 3rd world dictatorship) armories. You will find M-16s, M-4s and possibly some variant of the AR-10 in a marksman or sniper role, but you're not likely to find an AR-15. It would be comparing me in a cop uniform to an actual cop. I just look like one, while the actual one was trained to be a cop.

To further clarify things, here are a few videos that demonstrate the difference.

Officer Leroy Pyle of the San Jose PD (retired) does an excellent job here of demonstrating how a rifle can look different, but have identical working parts. The video is quite a bit old, but no less valid today.

Here we got Youtuber the "Bigshooterist" he's a bit less... well... "diplomatic", than Officer Pyle, but he makes very valid points, on how semi-automatic firearms are not the same as the military's assault rifles.

Here's one more from Bigshooterist, he goes to make the same point as Officer Pyle, when he took apart the Mini-14. Here Bigshooterist does the same thing, but goes a little more in-depth into the function and appearance. If you're a fan of The A-Team, you'll probably recognize reconfigured Mini-14 at the end.

To put it bluntly there's a lot of bullshit, and that's what it is, all this noise that people like Gavin Newsom and Dianne Feinstein, or celebrities like Amy Schumer or Stephen King, make over guns is pure undiluted bullshit. Politicians don't know what they're talking about, people in the media don't know what they're talking about, and most actors don't know what they're talking about. It's like a big hype machine for something, but no one really knows what that something is, despite everyone talking about it. Hope this cuts though all that bullshit, cuts though all the emotions and brings out the facts of the matter.

King Football dethroned! Stubenville Rape Crew found Delinquent/Guilty! - The Aftermath

Lets get something straight, these two boys committed a heinous crime against someone. What they did to her, all in the name of fun and games will follow her, her family, and her friends for the rest of their lives.

It was a decision they made.

They are not deserving of sympathy.

And yet that is what the lamestream media is doing. CNN correspondant Poppy Harlow had this to say about the verdict.

"It was incredibly emotional—incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart."

But what about the girl, Poppy? What about her huh? What about how women who've been raped go though years of therapy and have flashbacks? Or how about how some women who've been raped suffer from PTDS? But no, lets feel sorry for these two football players even though they got what they deserved. At least these two were able to watch their own destruction. Her life fell apart and she didn't even get to see it first hand. But Poppy isn't the only one to sympathese with these two  rapists.

Enter Candy Crowley...

"You know, Paul, a 16 year old now just sobbing in court, regardless of what big football players they are, still sound like 16 year olds," Crowley said. "The thing is, when you listen to it and you realize that they could stay until they're 21, they are going to get credit for time served. What's the lasting effect, though, on two young men being found guilty in juvenile court of rape, essentially?"

Aww boo-fucking-hoo. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to do it. Hell even a few party goers said it was wrong, and yet they did it anyway. They must face the consequences of their actions. Call it discipline, call it being a man, call it reaping what you sowed. Who gives a goddamn about their "promising futures"? They made the decisions to carry out the act that took it away from them. No one took their promising futures away from them. To paraphrase Biff Tannen, they took their entire lives and flushed it completely down the toilet, and they did it by raping a 16 year old girl. Nobody nuked their futures or crushed their dreams but them. The legal system did it's job, at this trial the system worked. 

Then lastly there's Paul Callan...

The most severe thing with these young men is being labeled as registered sex offenders. That label is now placed on them by Ohio law and, by the way, the laws in most other states now require such a designation in the face of such a serious crime. That will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Well hey guess what dipshit, that's what happens when you're convicted of a sexual crime. Don't want to be branded with the Mark of Sex Offender, then hey guess what, all you need to do is not sexually assault someone. Not a hard concept and not something hard to do.

Of course lets burn just CNN. Fox is guilty of releasing the girl's name to the public.

This goes back to what I said about adults perpetuating the reign of King Football. Poppy Harlow, Candy Crowley, and Paul Callan are just the same as Reno Saccoccia. Instead of simply discussing the technicalities of what awaits them instead they talk about how the two rapists were in tears, they talk about how they were getting comforting hugs from their lawyers, about their apologies and how one of them's dad wasn't there for them. All painting them in a sympathetic light, as if to say, lets all feel sorry that these two rapists lost their positions as the golden boys of high school football. Notice that neither of them bothered to ask, what is so broken in our society that made these two rapists think that what they did was ok. What is so broken in our society that Reno Saccoccia prioritizes his football over common human decency?

There was no reflection here, no questions raised about how this can be prevented. All there was, was "lets feel sorry for them because they're no longer the golden boys."

There's emphasis that the girl was drunk. Well who cares if she was drunk, that's still not an excuses to rape someone. Had these two golden boys not been put atop King Football's pedestal, they probably wouldn't have done what they did. Had they known better, whether the girl was sober or drunk they probably wouldn't have done what they did.

King Football might have been dethorned, but King Football is only on Elba. But so long as Poppy Harlow and Reno Saccoccia are around, King Football will return. And this will continue to happen again and again.

How many more till will this have to happen? Maybe these people will change when it happens to someone they care about.

A REAL man, doesn't rape.

King Football dethroned! Stubenville Rape Crew found Delinquent/Guilty!

The FBI defines rape as:  

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

The verdict for the Stubenville rape trial came down: Guilty. Well the equivlant of guilty in a juvenile court.

Today Big Red did not Roll, today Big Red was dethroned. Like Slim Shady, the Justice System did not give a fuck what Football thought.

The defense's argument was weak if not outright grasping at straws. The main argument the defense had was that it was not rape because the girl did not affirmatively say no.

Of course she doesn't have too, most if not all of us have heard of the date rape drug/roofies that knock a person out. It was a defense doomed to fail. Of course it wasn't the defense's fault, they did their job the best they could in the face of such damning evidence. Sure it was a bit underhanded to attack the girl herself, but that is all they had. The law was not on their side, the evidence was not on their side. It was the only hand they had to play.


But this time, King Football was dethroned. The system actually worked. 

However it is not enough that King Football be dethroned. King Football must be guillotined. King Football must be publicly executed. The streets need to flow with the blood of King Football.

As much as I place the responsibility amongst these two, people are to some extent a product of their environment. King Football isn't the sport of football itself, King Football is the privileged position, and special treatment that  athletes seem to get in this society. They were held up as special and hence thought they could do what they wanted.

Others think it's all about football and point to the number of former Big Red players on local police forces and with various administrative ties to the program. They blame the misguided principles that put small-town football above everything and have corrupted not just adults but left punk teenagers to believe they are above common decency, let alone the law.

People aren't necessarily born fucked up, they become fucked up. In a community where you're held up as a prince, free of accountability, THIS is the kind of shit that happens. Where you're held up as the golden boy/s you can do no wrong, and that seemed to be exactly the case here.  

“The players are considered heroes, and that’s pretty pathetic, because they’ve been able to get away with things for years because of it,” Flanagan said. “Everyone just looks the other way.”

“There’s a set of rules that don’t apply to everybody,” he (Bill Miller) said of what he called the favoritism regarding the players. “This has been happening since the early ’80s; this is nothing new. It’s disgusting. I can’t stand it. The culture is not what it should be. It’s not clean.”

There was the possibility this whole thing would have been swept under the rug if not for Anonymous blowing the whole thing up and bringing it to national attention. 

This might not have happened had the adults not perpetuated this privileged lifestyle. Coach Reno Saccoccia is part of the problem. Simply put this man needs to be fired, he is part of the engine that perpetuates this "culture". By failing to discipline his players he gives the impression of either what their doing is ok, or that if it is not ok Coach will make it all go away.

Saccoccia, pronounced SOCK-otch, told the principal and school superintendent that the players who posted online photographs and comments about the girl the night of the parties said they did not think they had done anything wrong. Because of that, he said, he had no basis for benching those players.

No basis my ass. Here's the thing, you bench your players when they have done something wrong, regardless of whether they know it or not. That's how you teach them that it is wrong, that is called discipline. Saccoccia himself should be charged with obstruction of justice. Reno Saccoccia is human filth, one of the worst kinds, barely fit to be called human. But I digress...

But it isn't just King Football, there's another issue here. The other issue is that quite a bit thought there was anything wrong with what they were doing. It didn't cross the minds of many people that it's not right to post or send around nude pictures of a minor, and, at least at the time it happened, it didn't cross some people that by video recording her rape, they were creating child porn. Sure there were some that knew what was going on and tried to do something about it.

Mark Cole testified that he didn't even think it was rape.

How in the Hell... How in the FUCK do you not know that performing sexual acts on someone without their consent is not rape?!

Then we have "people" (and I use the term loosely) like Michael Nodianos who think the who thing was a joke, just fun and games. Though his future is probably wreaked too given that he had to drop out of Ohio State University after receiving multiple threats.


What the fuck went wrong here?

Where were the parents in all this? Maybe it's because of my East Asian upbringing where you were taught to act with honor and dignity (lest you make the family look bad and get a really bad ass beating for it), but never once would it have ever crossed my mind to take pictures and send them around. Making fun of a drunk girl falling down on herself, sure that's one thing, but taking her clothes off, trying to put your dick in her mouth. Really? This is what happens when you don't beat your kids and keep them in line, in my opinion.

These kids were probably not taught the proper way to treat people and the proper way to carry themselves.

Just watching the Nodianos video and one can tell to some extent there is something of a sense that rape/sexual assault is all just fun and games and the victim to be laughed as the butt of some joke. This isn't just unique to Stubenville, it happens everywhere. That is the other problem this entire fiasco has exposed.

Well rape is not a joke, it is not just fun and games. No more than it is fun and games that I take a chainsaw to your legs and watch you crawl around fucking my carpet up with all your blood and laughing at how you'll never play football again.

Where King Football and seeing rape as just fun and games intersect, is where this whole matter sits. These boys thought they could get away with it. That they could do what ever they wanted to because they were the golden boys of Big Red Football. Then they saw this girl as an object for their amusement, and so here we arrive.

Ultimately though these two got off easy. Though it seems to be more out of mercy from the judge than anything. They should have been tried as adults, if you do a big boy crime, you should do big boy time. These two were 16 when it happened, they knew what they were doing. At least, however, they will be branded with the mark of Sex Offender. A brand that will follow them for quite some time. Personally I don't feel an ounce of pity for these two, even though their futures are probably destroyed at this point. I have two nieces, I can't imagine this kind of thing happening to either of them.

Hopefully they will be made an example of to the rest. That the law does not give a damn if you play varsity football. Reno Saccoccia cannot save you.


But it isn't over yet, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is looking to the possibility of charging more people involved in this incident.