Mr Bone, your insignificant opinion on our Bill of Rights has been acknowledged, and found lacking

Mr. Bone,

You are using emotion and neither logic nor science to make a point regarding gun control in the U.S.  I believe you, sir, may have barrel envy.

In your post you stated the 5.56 round tumbles and tears the body up.[1]  Now granted, I am using a shorter, much less graphic description of your post, but essentially that is what you said; and, you are both correct, and very incorrect.

The initial M-16 for which the 5.56x45mm round was designed for had a 1:14 inch barrel twist, which was just way too slow for the bullet and caused the bullet to destabilize during flight, thus causing the “tumbling” effect you described.  The very unfortunate side effects were two-fold; massive wounds from the bullets as well as abysmal accuracy.

The military quickly realized this flaw in accuracy, since accuracy is more important than the type of wounds, and changed the specifications on the barrel to a 1:12 inch twist, which stabilized the bullet and stopped the tumbling effect, making it more accurate, and allowing the soldier to hit his target.  Again, the wounds caused by the bullet were incidental to the enemy actually being hit, but the “tearing” you describe became non existent.

Later the specifications on the M-16 styled rifles changed and the barrel twist became a 1:7 inch twist in the 20 inch barrel, thus causing the bullet to spin completely nearly 2.5 times before leaving the barrel and becoming very, very stable.  The result is a bullet so stable it literally goes right through its intended target without any tearing or tumbling, even when it hits bone.  In fact, troops and law enforcement have complained that the stability of the bullet, along with the shortening of the barrels, is causing such “clean” wounds, the bullet is failing to incapacitate the enemy or the criminal.[2]

Now, with the science aside, lets look at cultural and political differences.

We, the United States of America, is no longer a part of the British empire.  We broke that relationship in 1776 and reinforced it in 1812.

Because of our experiences with the British empire, and the realization of just how screwed up it is, we developed a very unique document which was ratified by our common government in 1789 and still guides our country to this day. We call it the Constitution.

Now because our fore fathers understood the dangers of a government gone out of control, they insisted that there be an amendment to this Constitution, which became the Second Amendment; second only to the First Amendment covering freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and considered one of the Bill of Rights.  This Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This very Amendment has been in great debate over the years, and especially in recent times with the election of our Idiot in Chief.  This debate is in ignorance of previous U.S. Supreme court decisions supporting the right, if not the requirement, of the individual citizen to maintain arms, and in fact, could be fined for not keeping arms in the early years of our country.[3]

In United States v Miller, 308 U.S. 174 (1939) the Supreme Court addressed these issues and confirmed that the possession of a weapon that has “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.[4]  This means that the so called “assault rifles” the media keeps discussing is actually a protected armament that can be owned by the citizenry of the United States.

You may ask, “Why do the citizens need to own guns, much less these military styled weapons?”  Well sir, James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers, said it best in the Federalist Papers No. 46:

“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”[5]

The reason we have arms is to protect us from the government.

I have a friend who is from Scotland who was surprised at the recent protests of the opening of the Church of Lucifer in Houston.  She stood, watching all the protesting and could not believe everything going on, stating that in England the protestors would be arrested for their intolerance and rhetoric.  In the U.S. it is guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, to gather peaceably, voice their dissent, and protest as long as it is not violent and without threats of violence, just as it is the right under the same Amendment for the Luciferian Church to worship as they see fit without interference from the government.  Many of the protestors redressed their concerns with the Chamber of Commerce and other government entities.

All of this is guaranteed by our First Amendment, and the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, guarantees the government cannot remove these freedoms.  If we allow any of these rights to be taken away, then others are likely to follow.

Mr. Bone, if you want to make your insignificant opinion mean anything, legally move to the U.S., become a citizen, and fight to have your rights under our Constitution removed.  Until then enjoy your stay in a country that does not support these freedoms.


[1] Bone, Gavin. “Dear Friends, particularly those in the US.” Facebook, December 5, 2015. Accessed December 6, 2015. Apparently the post in question was removed shortly after this article was posted. Too bad I did not get a screen shot. Oh, wait, I did print it off in PDF format which you can find right here: Gavin Bones Original Post 5 Dec 2015.

[2] Dater, Philip H., and Wong, Jason M., “Effects of Barrel Length on Bore Pressure, Projectile Velocity and Sound Measurement.” Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 2010. Accessed December 6, 2015.

[3] “United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939).” FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions. Accessed December 6, 2015. Quoting The American Colonies In The 17th Century’, Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII.

[4] “United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939).” FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions. Accessed December 6, 2015.

[5] Madison, James. “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared.” The Federalist Papers. January 29, 1788. THOMAS- (Library of Congress). Accessed December 7, 2015.

One thought on “Mr Bone, your insignificant opinion on our Bill of Rights has been acknowledged, and found lacking”

Comments are closed.