Friday, August 21, 2009
But what about in a strictly aeronautical sense?
For reconaissance, they are an exceptional idea. UAVs cuts out the idea of risking a pilot's life for info that can be gained through electronical means.
What about in attack mode though? I personally think that pilots lend the advantage of intuition. Technology cannot feign instinct. But I suppose along with human intuitive capabilities come inevitable human error.
UAVs- Worth it or not?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
In recent news, rape and sexual assault has become a prevalent military practice in the Congo. The war over Congo raw resources has escalated to a point where militias feel the need to subjugate the masses through sexual degradation. It isn’t only happening to women now. There are more and more accounts of men and children being raped.
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has come up with a plan that would allot 17 million dollars to those victims, for recovery and treatment. There are some very creative concepts, to say the least in this plan such as providing the victims with video cameras(???). This plan is a great gesture, it show the people of the Congo that they matter to the U.S. It’s the first time in a while that the Congo has meant anything to anyone aside from precious raw materials.
However, I feel that this plan is a waste of time and money in its current state. It’s treating the symptoms but not the condition. The U.S. will be treating victims and we’ll be wondering why the amount of people needing help never seems to decrease. Well it’s because all our resources are put into helping victims instead of keeping there from being any new ones.
Blame needs to be properly placed and come from the right sources. If Hilary Clinton wants to help, she’s going to have to start pointing a finger at parties responsible for this atrocity. The Congo isn’t going to stop it because their law is not the same as ours. A lawless territory can’t keep order. The U.S. needs to make a stand and demand that officers encouraging this behavior of the brutes under them be held fully accountable.
We’ve got to stop WASTING resources that WE need. Use them efficiently and there isn’t a problem. With a little bit of editing I think H. Clinton’s plan could be a great humanitarian stride for the U.S.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Assault Weapon Ban Reinstatement
There has been an uproar of controversy over the reinstatement of the Assault Weapon ban. The Assault Weapon ban of 1994 was a 10 year ban that prohibited a variety of military-style assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices. Theses so called assault weapons should not be outlawed again. Despite the term “assault weapon,” these firearms are used for recreational shooting and peace of mind to those that have them. Criminals will always have weapons, it only makes sense that everyday people have them to defend themselves. Without the ban, it’s not like a criminal can even legally buy them. A person must be over the age of 18, have no criminal record, and must fill out appropriate paperwork. The ban was a form of violation of the Second Amendment because it took firearms out of the hands of good citizens even though criminals would surely still have them. However, the legislation on high capacity feeding devices should be altered to allow higher capacity feeding devices but still have a size restriction before reinstatement.
The terminology on this topic is very loose which may be confusing to many people. First of all, a large capacity feeding device refers to a magazine. Magazines hold the bullets of repeating firearms and produce them as the trigger of a firearm is pulled. A magazine can either be fixed or detachable, though detachable magazines are often inappropriately referred to as “clips.” Detachable magazines can be taken off when empty and replaced by a full magazine, fixed do not come off. Assault weapons covered in the ban include any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine with multiple military-style features and any semi-auto shotgun that has multiple military like feature. Military like features can include flash suppressors, threaded barrels, etc. Semi-automatic weapons should not be confused with fully automatic. Semi-automatic firearms produce one to a few bullets every time the trigger is pulled while an automatic weapon will not cease firing until ammunition is out or until the trigger is released. Full auto weapons have been very highly regulated to the point of being borderline illegal since the 1930’s.
People use assault weapons all the time for recreational use; for shooting practice in designated ranges and for hunting. Certain features banned are features very conducive to good sportsmanship. For example, a hunter in the woods may have a gun with the multiple military-like features such as a scope and a tripod in order to polish his/her hunting skills. If caught, that person could face a $5,000 fine or up to 5 years in prison and never be allowed to own a gun again just for trying to be better at a given sport. There is nothing harmful about semiautomatic weapons with military-features when they are used in controlled environments. Many people, myself included, enjoy going to a shooting range to practice our skills. Yes, people can start with the small guns but those grow boring pretty fast. Once you master them you are ready to master a bigger better device. It’s about having the ability to aim and shoot not the ability to unleash terror. I know I don’t intend to take the skills I’ve honed at the shooting range to shoot up a college with any weapon, much less an AR-15 or M16. It’s all in good fun for those that know how to use them in an ethical and appropriate manner.
Many people are frightened by large weapons. The assault weapon ban was meant to help reassure those people that these big scary guns are kept away from criminals; away from the people that don’t know how to use them and who will use them for misdeeds. The honest truth is that criminals will have heavy firepower no matter what laws are in place. The only thing that really happens is that law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have them and therefore are out armed by the criminals. Good people are left defenseless. What could also happen is that law abiding citizens are made into criminals when they decide they must defend themselves. When they decide that they want a real weapon to reassure them instead of a dinky gun they are forced to do it behind the backs of law enforcement. And if they don’t, they leave themselves susceptible to attacks by criminals more heavily armed than they are. If criminals know that their targets COULD have heavier firepower than they do (or at least are evenly matched) then it makes sense that they’d be less likely to take the risk. Who wants to go try to rob someone’s house and find the barrel of a spiffed up AK47 aimed right between their eyes, really?
As for high capacity feeding devices, the ban prohibited any detachable feeding device that could hold more than ten rounds and any semi-auto shotgun that had a fixed capacity of more than five rounds. There are magazines that can hold 100 rounds! 100 bullets can do a lot of damage regardless of whose hands they’re in, especially a criminal’s. That being said, there should definitely be a restriction on high capacity magazines. However, the term “high capacity” should be redefined. Ten is too small of a number to be productive recreationally. Believe me, nothing is worse than having your sites aimed perfectly, shooting ten perfect shots, having to reload, and then realizing now can’t make a decent shot worth a damn. So, if ten is too low and 100 is too high a middle ground should be decided upon. This way, a sportsman has a chance to improve skills without having to constantly reload while a perpetrator has to reload more often than with a very high capacity mag.
By taking away weapons that pose no real threat when used correctly, the government is violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It’s just one of those rights that cannot be infringed upon without people having a cow. We know that if something that was considered an inalienable right is taken away we have no hope as a free nation. The hubbub isn’t so much about the firearms themselves but more about the immense power it’d mean the government ha if they could pull off taking away something that is in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The fundamentals have to be there for good just so Americans have the constancy and the assurance that so many of us need.
The Assault Weapon ban was no good in 1994 and it’s no good now. The people that shouldn’t have weapons will always have them. Why in the world would we leave the people that have the right to have guns in harm’s way? Is that really the point? No, of course it’s not the intent but it’s the inevitable result. Plus it’s like taking away a person’s hobby. Some people really enjoy being able to shoot anything, including assault weapons. The government doesn’t keep people from doing martial arts or basket weaving or any other hobby that is harmless when used in an appropriate capacity. Banning certain weapons is the same concept; they aren’t dangerous in most cases. Limiting the number of rounds a person can have in their magazine to a reasonable number would only entail a little bit of a restriction but a possible increase in safety. It seems like a fair trade off. Ultimately though, before reinstatement, the Assault Weapon ban needs to be clarified and edited.
Markowitz, David. UNDERSTANDING THE FEDERAL "ASSAULT WEAPONS" BAN. 4 April 2000. Web. 29 May 2009. http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/awb.htm.
Yes, anything is possible given the right circumstances. Anything is possible with the right attitude the right guidance, the right connections, and plenty of resources. Some of us get lucky and manage to acquire these thing whether by pure accident or by hard work, but some others are not so fortunate.
The biggest flaw in our country is the prospect of a "working poor." These people can work just as hard as anyone else and still barely get by. They are the people that could try and still just begin to level the playing field and by then are too exhausted to play the game.
The sad truth is that so much of every single individual's life/future is left to chance. Chance let's one child be born into a perfect family-wealthy, well-connected, educated-while the other child is born into no family at all-druggie mother, absentee father, no money, connections to people that will only dig the hole deeper, and education being the last thing of relevance. Chance gives the first child plenty of love and attention and a solid foundation, while it gives the second child abuse/neglect and head spinning in constant confusion. The first kid gets great nutrition, home-cooked meals and healthy snacks but the second child get junk either because it's all they could come up without help from a parent or it was all their parents could afford. The first kid adjusts well and excels in school because he/she has people telling him/her their is nothing standing in the was while the second kid has given up because he/she only sees disappointment and uneducated people all around.
YOU GET THE POINT
Not everyone gets the same opportunities. Not every kid gets the option to worry about a future because the present and past are so overwhelming.
I'm sure we can all agree that this is unfortunate and that something should be done about it. So the big question is what can be done to fix it. Helping the kids will only go so far because their circumstances will always be there, no matter what you try to tell them. Telling them that school isn't a waste of time and that learning is fun only works until they get home and realize they have to try to feed their brothers and sisters because Mom has disappeared again. Can't start with the parents though. They're set in their ways, with addictions and bad habits. And what could this country really do about circumstances, so many sucky things that need to be fixed; it's impossible to fix them all at the same time.
The solution is a collaborative effort that seems near impossible to coordinate. So what do we do?