|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2012-12-19 |
"I've given you a brain."
Really? Your followers seem to want most people to stop using the ones they have.
"I've given you the second amendment."
Forget all those Founding Fathers guys; it was really Gawd.
I'm also a bit iffy on this whole "set a guard" thing. It's almost as if they want you to believe you have an all-powerful all-seeing all-doing deity, yet this same being will withhold even the tiniest fraction of his power because you don't have some mortals covering for his incapable ass.
I'd figure that one of the bennies of having an omnipotent dude on your side was that you didn't need guards from anything.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2012-12-19 |
|Gmork - 2012-12-19 |
Both polarities of this argument disgust me.
|Vaidency - 2012-12-19 |
The argument that arming more people is the solution to gun violence is absurd. Filling our public spaces up with vigilantes ready and willing to open fire when they feel threatened won't make us safer. It will make us Afghanistan.
Where has vigilantism ever worked in the past as an effective means of keeping social order?
Are we talking about "vigilantism", or "gun ownership" here?
Because if it's the politics of gun ownership we're talking here, and not some absurd straw man scenario in which Christians are allowed to go around opening fire on anyone who dares take the Lord's name in vain, then an example from the PRESENT would be Switzerland. Switzerland's got one of the most relaxed attitudes towards gun ownership in the world; with nearly half a million privately owned automatic weapons, they make Texas look like France. Yet they have about forty incidents of gun related violence per year.
I know guns are scary, and I know it often seems like the only way we can save ourselves from being shot to death from the trenchcoat wearing gangs of Xtian gunslingers roaming our streets is to get rid of all guns, and embrace more fully the security, wisdom, and protection offered to us by our friends, the police and the corporate-owned state. But there's simply no rational reason to believe that, assuming gun violence really IS a statistically significant problem in this country, a problem that's so pressing that we can and should ignore the needs of freedom in favour of the comforts of security, that the only, let alone best, answer is to saddle the people with further restrictions on gun ownership.
But hey, we've experienced A Tragedy. We have to act, now, on our feelings, before people stop caring again.
We're talking vigilantism because that's exactly what's being suggested by gun advocates as the solution to gun violence in this country. Not hunting. Not sport shooting. Not collecting. They're suggesting armed people ready to gun down bad guys.
Your condescension is noted, though. Ignoring the needs of freedom in favor of the comforts of safety? There were sixteen mass shootings in the United States this year. SIXTEEN. Just how many random spree killings do you think freedom "needs?" And how come America seems to need so many more of them than any other free country?
Switzerland's situation is not even remotely similar to ours -- due to their unique military structure -- and you know that. Also, barely anyone has a license to carry.
Living in a society where the implicit threat of violence from every citizen on one another is considered a way of maintaining "peace" of some sort is not a free society.
Switzerland actually has something more in common with that "well regulated militia" the Constitution mentions, since everyone serves in the military and actually has training with firearms.
Vaidency - if we're just talking about "vigilantism", then that's great. All we have to do is *nothing*, since we've already got a society in which most citizens do not own guns, and gun nuts are not allowed to meet out justice whenever and wherever they see fit. So long as the question is "do we need MORE guns", then I think we can all safely say, no, no we don't.
But that isn't the only question being raised here. The real question- or rather, the one which the Obama administration is raising; if it's not your intention to raise this question yourself, I apologise if I sound like I'm trying to put words in your mouth- is: "do we need LESS guns". These two questions are not necessarily correlated. If it is the case that we do not need more guns, it does not follow that we must then need fewer guns.
As for how many, I don't know. I do know that sixteen is an awfully small number for such an awfully large country, and that the chances of you or anyone you love being killed by an assault rifle wielding mass murderer are far slimer than the chances of you being killed by a car, or by a gas leak, or by a cop, all of which are dangers that we as a society seem ready to accept. I also know that this is a far less common occurence than being blown up in one of Obama's many Congressionally unauthorized airstrikes or being hurled into a prison camp without trial, both of which are issues that really ARE the President's responsibility, and really CAN be solved with just a single executive decision. So once we start fixing those things, and showing that we (by which I mean Washington) are capable of prioritizing our moral crusades, then maybe I'll be more inclined to view sixteen as a number that begs us to throw out our constitutionally guaranteed decentralization of force.
Did you really just use car deaths as a defense for gun ownership?
Cars are a method of transportation. They're not engineered to kill people by their common use. If cars are equally deadly as guns, then why aren't more cars used instead of guns to kill people en masse? Also, and this just might be a clue, more people regularly use cars than guns, increasing the instances where an accident might occur.
Not to mention to own and legally use a car, one has to be tested and licensed, renewing said license regularly. I can go get a gun without anything more than an ID, and in some cases, not even that.
K leenex and Stanley- is that such a bad thing? Switzerland's approach to the military, that is.
Swtizerland lacks a standing army, yet encourages military training for each of it's citizens, with the express purpose of being able to call up this citizen-militia should it ever be needed. They're the Montana of Europe, but crazy as it aounds, it works. Now I'm not saying we should disband our standing military (as you suggest, Stanley, I don't consider the National Guard to be "a militia", at least not in the constitutional sense) and focus our energies on churning out officially licensed groups of survivalists. But it is something to think about, because whatever Switzerland is doing, the numbers are clear: it works.
And yes, statistically speaking, cars are much more deadly than guns, and this despite the fact that they weren't engineered specifically to kill people (well, except for the Chevy Corvair). And this is an issue that, theoretically, be fixed by the "benevolent paternalism" of state regulations. Ban the private ownership of cars. Expand public transportation, and require all people to use these state provided services. This would drastically cut down on road fatalities, since buses staffed by state vetted professionals are far "safer" than privately owned death boxes which may, in fact, be driven by a maniac. We'd also greatly reduce polution, gas use, foreign oil dependence, and make the society-wide switch over to renewable fuel sources faster and simpler. Private citizens would still have access to the "transportation services" we need, all it'd cost us is our current (wasteful and highly dangerous) reliance on providing these services ourselves. Just as we still have access to "protective services" (the modern police system), at the cost of our protective self-reliance (armed vigilantism).
Bort - but this is ALREADY the case. No civilians have legal access to guns capable of mowing down armies. Even allowing for hyperbole, federal and most state laws prevent guns that approach anywhere near military specifications from being sold legally. If it's true that restrictions on assault weapons are all that's being suggested, then where's the issue? Where's "the change", as Obama put it?
In fact, the current crisis de jour, the Newtown killings, was carried out not by a gun nut decked out like Duke Nukem, but by a kid with some very modest firearms, which he came across in one of the least gun-friendly states in the Union. Why would we want to ban guns that are already banned, when the "national tragedy" was perpetrated mainly by a fairly dinky, legal, made-in-a-Blue-State .223 semi automatic?
Now you may be right. We (by which I mean us humble proles a thousand miles from the corridors of power) are still just speculating. Politicians and the news media are still just posturing and thumping their podiums; there has not, to my knowledge, been any actual bills presented yet. We won't know until then exactly how far the President and Congress are looking to take this latest gun-control thing.
The most prudent course of action, then, would be to decide, for oneself, just how far is too far? Or, conversley, just how far is far enough? Are we looking to simply limit private access to high end automatic weapons?
Where exactly are we, the individual components of the poeTV Hive Mind, hoping this latest Washington fagdance winds up?
Of course I'm right: no politician is going to take on banning ALL guns, because even if a lot of politicians genuinely thought that was the right thing to do (which I doubt), the resistance would be nearly insurmountable. At issue are weapons that are still better suited to mowing down invading armies than keeping a person safe (yeah yeah, I know they're not fully automatic and etc, but again, BETTER suited).
This is like worrying that USDA regulations about caged animals are just a prelude to banning meat altogether.
Jeez EvilHomer, since when did you become such a hardcore gun nut?
|B. Weed - 2012-12-19 |
Any room for a "shit golem" tag?
It already does: "Bryan Fischer"
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2012-12-19 |
Enough of this guy already.
|William Burns - 2012-12-19 |
Zardoz has spoken.
|dairyqueenlatifah - 2012-12-19 |
So what's the male equivalent of the term "cunt"? Dick doesn't quite encompass it.
I can't think of one. So yeah, fuck this old cunt.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|