Iraq Joins the Fun of an Arms Race

Kalashnikov's booth at IDEX 2015

According to ViceNews, companies from all around the world have increased sales to the warring country of Iraq. At IDEX, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, corporations such as Kalashnikov, Colt, Sig Sauer, and Boeing all attempt to increase their exports, mostly to Iraq. While not all of the companies present, such as Kalashnikov of Russia and Sig Sauer of Germany/Switzerland, are American, the United States does send more exhibitors than any other country across the globe. Boeing admits to selling product to the Middle East for a total of 10 billion dollars annually. The ViceNews reporter present for this story stated, "I kind of couldn't help but think the instability is good for business," to the Vice President of Oshkosh Defense, a company that provides armored vehicles to those in warring countries. The reporter clearly understands the concept of the "war economy," but does not understand that no one wants war, even if it is "good for business." The sale of arms to the Middle East and Iraq is nothing new. The United States alone has been providing arms to the Middle East since the 1970s. However, as of recent days, the sale of armament in the region has increase exponentially. In 2013 alone, just the United States exported approximately six billion dollars worth of arms to the Middle East. In 2014, that amount increased to around eight billion dollars, due to Saudi Arabia's new found strength in the importation of arms. The United States is not the only world power taking a slice of the arms export pie, however. Russia has also increased its own arms exports by great amounts. One company that can have its products found in almost every conflict zone across the world is Russia's Kalashnikov Groups. America still remains at the top of the exportation world, though. Many fear that, due to the increase of arms to Iraq, militiamen will continue to commit human rights violations. However, many of the arms sold have been used against ISIS. The militiamen really are a problem and must be dealt with in a reasonable manner, while still being allowed to fight the terrorists in the region. While there are laws and regulations in place to prohibit the sale of arms to those who commit human rights violation, the violations continue with the arms provided by American companies. However, arms are not the only things being bought and sent to Iraq. In 2014, the United States hired numerous security contractors to fight members of ISIS. Due to political issues of taking U.S. soldiers out of Iraq, Obama will not send them right back in, so he sends contractors that have no real value to our government. If a contractor is killed, there is no 21 gun salute; there is not even a proper military burial for them. Most just lay dead in the streets of Iraq or whatever country they happen to be in. Also, if a contractor does something wrong while overseas, the American government can deny any involvement. These things simply cannot happen with the regular U.S. military. I personally hope that our government not only sees the necessity for contractors to fill the void of soldiers, but also takes responsibility for sending them and treats them as true soldiers. The Middle East is proving to be quite the hot spot for the "war economy." Maybe we will see almost all the world's focus turn to the Middle East soon. Only time will tell.

Minor language used and explicit violence.

Viewer discretion advised.

What Is Wrong With Jesus In School?

According to FoxNews, a student at Nevada's Somerset Academy was banned from using Biblical quotes in her assignment. Mackenzie Frazier used Biblical passages in her school projects, which the school stated was against the rules. Her project was titled "All About Me" and, as Miss Frazier is a Christian, she decided she would included John 3:16. Later, after her first project had been rejected, the class was given another project on the concept of self esteem. Frazier wrote that her self esteem originated from being "created in the likeness of God." Once again, her project was rejected. The school then sent an email to Miss Frazier's father. The email read that the "...[Teacher] appropriately followed school law expectations by asking Mackenzie to choose an alternate quote for the presentation." Then, Frazier's parents took action. They went to a law firm that specialized in Christian-based lawsuits. The lawyer in the case stated that students must be allowed to express their religious beliefs in schools and their classes. Not only does Somerset Academy's actions violate the first amendment, but they also acted in a morally incorrect manner. I do not understand how a school can teach the theory of evolution as absolute fact, but treat Christianity as taboo. I blame the drop in younger individuals believing in Christianity on school's actions against Christianity. If a child or teenager does not receive Christian teachings at home, then a school is the next best option, but that cannot happen, as schools seem to ban any mention of Christianity. I personally believe that both the theory of evolution can be taught alongside Christianity's belief of creationism. I am not alone either. More than half of Americans share this belief. Also, three-quarters of Americans state that they would approve of voluntary prayer in public school classes. Greater than four-fifths of United States citizens claim that they turn to God to aid in making their decisions, as well. Christianity is clearly still a powerful force in America, as it should be. Unfortunately, Christianity is still restricted, if not entirely banned in public schools. Hopefully Christianity will be acceptable in schools and various other public forums soon.

At Least Some People Understand the World

Hopefully this will become a common sight in every state.

According to Al Jazeera, due to the recent shooting between biker gangs in Waco, Texas, the state has moved closer to actually allowing civilians to open carry handguns. There are numerous opponents to the bill, but Texas was already headed toward allowing open carry anyway (Just look up "Open Carry Texas" if you want to know more), so this shooting was just the push the state needed to finalize steps toward open carry. Many of the opponents claim that this shooting just proves that firearms are too easy for criminals to acquire and that stricter gun laws must be enacted. Despite the gun-friendly reputation of Texas, the state actually does not have the loosest of firearm laws. It is one of six states that bans the open carry of handguns (So much for the "Wild-west" state). However, that number will most likely go from six states to five. Of course, as with all controversial firearm issues, Moms Demand Gun Sense In America was there to comment. They claim that by allowing more law-abiding citizens to open carry, the new situation in Waco would have been no different, if not created more confusion for officers. However, this is not true, as bikers are quite easy to tell apart from other civilians. But, for sake of argument, let us pretend that there was confusion. An officer knows not to fire at someone who is not firing at them, so therefore they would not be shooting at the law-abiding citizens shooting in the opposite direction on the officers. Also, the civilians may possibly have been in a line with the officers, mitigating the confusion a great amount. Another way to mitigate confusion is the fact that, as Jonathan Pranzer stated, "I don’t think lax gun laws created this vigilante system." This statement is very true. Just because one is carrying does not mean they will risk their lives in a situation that does not involve them, unless there is an innocent involved. While open carrying may not deter all crime, such as the Waco shootout, most criminal activity would be deterred and/or halted altogether. The gang members may have been shooting each other right in front of officers and then shot at officers, but the officers were able to respond are take control of the situation, resulting in over 170 arrests. While the introduction of more firearms (The officers) did not deter the gangs, most criminals are deterred from committing a crime when there is a legal firearm present. Just think about it, which would you rather rob, a citizen open carrying a firearm, who has the ability to defend him or herself, or someone without a firearm, who has very little chance to protect themselves. Also, how can a 130 pound woman defend herself from a 200 pound criminal; a firearm evens the playing field. Firearms can be used for evil, just as in both Waco shootings (The biker one and the massacre in 1993), but they can also be used for good by defending people; it all depends on what the person intends for the use of the firearm.



All this is causing such a big controversy in the firearms community.

Military Equipment; Really? Everyone Can Buy That Stuff.

Anyone can purchase all of this equipment. Even I have to own
more than half of the things they are wearing.

According to Al Jazeera, due to the increase in "military equipment" used by police officers, President Obama has announced his plans to decrease the funding of such equipment. An interagency group claims that there is a "substantial risk of misusing or overusing" armored vehicles, "high-powered" firearms, and camouflage in policing situations. Obama originally supported the use of "military equipment" for police officers, but due to increasing anger and scrutiny of officers, Obama has reversed his position and decided to limit the amount of the "military equipment" that has become hated for some reason. The list of proposed bans includes vehicles that operate on tracks, aircraft and other vehicles that have weapons on them, firearms that operate with .50 caliber ammunition or greater, grenade launchers, bayonets, and uniforms of camouflage. However, most of these have no reason to be banned or limited, as almost all can be purchased by a regular civilian. Don't believe me? Police officers generally use AR-15 rifles, Glock handguns, Sig Sauer handguns, .308 rifles, etc. All of these firearms can be purchased from atlanticfirearms.com and bigskyguns.com, among other sites online or local firearms stores. Also, the body armor used can be purchased by civilians, as well. Actually, civilians can buy body armor that is much greater in protection than that used by police. The company AR500 and USPALM both sell plate carriers that can accept Level IIIA armor plates, while most officers use Level IIA plates. AR500 even creates and sells the plates for the carriers. Bayonets are legal as well. Any firearm with a bayonet lug is allowed to have a bayonet in the civilian market, in most states. The thought of even banning or limiting camouflage uniforms is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone can own camouflage. Even I own camouflage uniforms. Camouflage can be purchased from any number of places, including Airsoft GI and eHobbyAsia (these are where cheaper versions of camouflage can be purchased), among other websites and stores, such as Kryptek for more expensive, yet durable camouflage. If you do not believe that civilians can purchase such "military equipment," just watch Cory from RangeTimeTS operate an AR-15 with a battle belt and a chest rig (tactical vest without plates) at his tactical shooting range. Others at the Haley Strategic course were wearing plate carriers. All those present at the course demonstrate that civilians have the ability to purchase the same equipment law enforcement uses. Not only should officers use the equipment, but they should have more, as crimes just seem to be getting worse and worse and hatred of police seems to be getting greater and greater.

A civilian wearing a US PALM plate carrier. Proof that military
and police are not the only ones who can purchase "military equipment."

Arrested for a Shirt

The shirt the 14 year-old was arrested for.

According to FoxNews, a teenager was arrested after refusing to turn his National Rifle Association, or NRA, t-shirt inside-out. Teachers claimed that the 14 year-old "disrupted an educational process" and "obstructed an officer." Originally, a teacher (presumably anti-gun) asked the teenager to turn his shirt, which featured a camouflaged AR-15 with a scope, inside-out. After refusing to turn the shirt inside-out, he was falsely charged with the previously mentioned accusations. However, the teen did nothing wrong. As long as the school does not have a policy that specifically states that there is to be no firearms on clothing (which is not necessarily Constitutional), then they had no right to infringe upon his 1st Amendment right. By using his 1st Amendment right, he was defending his 2nd Amendment right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, the teachers acted in a totally unprofessional manner. They clearly did not know the Constitution's Amendments, so they infringed upon the first of the original ten. The judge in the case did know the Amendments and chose to drop the charges on the teenager. The mother still plans on suing the school for wrongly charging her son, though. It is just too bad that the teenager was not in South Carolina. Earlier this year (2015), South Carolina proposed a bill that would allow for a 2nd Amendment class to be taught in classroom. The bill would mandate that a three-week NRA regulated curriculum be taught in each and every public elementary, middle, and high school. The bill was known as the Second Amendment Education Act. Clearly, had the teenager with the NRA shirt been in South Carolina at the time, he would have been praised, not ridiculed. Personally, I hope that the Second Amendment Education Act passes, as it would actually allow children to understand firearms as what they truly are. Firearms are tools used to do bad things, but they are used for good more then evil most of the time (the media just refuses to talk about that). If children and teens were taught that firearms were not evil killing machines, maybe people would not be afraid when they see one. I know I am not afraid of firearms when I see them; I just want to shoot them at a range. How easily we forget that more people are killed with cars than by firearms every single day.

Now the American Flag is Not Allowed?!

According to FoxNews, protest broke out in a South Carolina town after a high school student was told he could not fly the American flag on his truck. After not removing the flag, school officials removed it themselves. This action sparked a great amount of controversy and protest. Dozens of individuals were involved in the peaceful protest, in which flags could be seen flying on cars and in hand outside the school. The school was forced to react to such a protest by allowing the American flag on vehicles. Originally, the school's policy was the banning of all flags on vehicles, but that changed with this protest. However, just the American flag is allowed on vehicles at the school (not that that is a problem). Many of the protesters were veterans who fought to allow that flag to fly high. It is truly disheartening to see a school act in such an anti-patriotic way, but the true patriotism shown by the protesters restored my faith in humanity. Unfortunately, this is not the only situation when the American flag has been the center of controversy. In a Georgia homeowner's association, a 70 year-old veteran named Tony Cumberworth had flown the American flag outside of his home for over 20 years. However, one day he received a violation notice that stated his flag was to be removed. The homeowner's association told Cumberworth that the flag was to be removed within four days, otherwise he would be required to pay 50 dollars for each day after the initial four days. As Cumberworth read all the policy letters of the homeowner's association, he could find nothing on flags. USAtoday reporters went out to find the members of the homeowner's association to ask about the flag. Some members did not even know that Cumberworth was asked to take his flag down. After the reporters from USAtoday interviewed Cumberworth about his situation, the homeowner's association rescinded the original violation notice. Cumberworth is still proudly flying his flag in the front yard of his house. I personally do not understand what is the problem with flying this great country's flag. We live in America. If you do not stand behind that flag and the men who fight to protect it, then something is wrong.

God, Guns, and Guts Made This Country. Can We Keep All Three?

According to FoxNews, a two-star general in the United States Air Force, by the name of Craig Olson, runs the risk of being court-martialed for talking about God. General Olson gave a speech on "GOD TV" where he stated that God had given him the ability to perform all the actions he had ever done, including those of extreme difficulty in the military. After all the resounding claps ended, Olson asked the crowd to pray for the leaders of the Defense Department, as well as the soldiers that are getting ready to be sent to combat overseas. However, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation claims that Olson must be court-martialed and "aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions." The foundation states that the general's statements have left "...countless members of the United States Air Force...utterly disgusted and shocked." Of course, I cannot believe this to be true, as there are many people in the entire United States military that are Christian, so therefore they would not be "...utterly disgusted and shocked" by Olson's statements. I could see a few being "...disgusted and shocked," but "...countless members" seems absolutely ridiculous. My only question is, what about all the Chaplains in the military that preach Christian values, are they performing "...unforgivable crimes and transgressions."? Unfortunately, this is not the only time Christianity has been attacked. When Congress meets weekly, they can be found in Room 219 in the United States Capitol, praying, and  saying, "seek God’s wisdom and guidance in leading our great nation." However, advocates of a secular state and leaders of other religious groups claim that the great nation of the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation and that Christian values are not under threat, as many Christians state. Of course, the secular advocates and religious leaders are wrong. Let me explain with a rhetorical question. What was the religion of George Washington and the other Founding Fathers? And the fact that they say that Christian values are not under threat is a compete lie. Personally, I know that I can rarely speak of my Christian beliefs in my school, but atheists can state that Christianity is wrong all they want (Yes, this is an actual situation that has happened a few times in previous years). How easily we forget that our Pledge of Allegiance states, "...one nation under God."

Proof the America is still a country based on Christianity.