More Guns
I don’t mean to rattle on about the NRA til I’m blue in the face - sorry about the punnage there - but it seems to me that their basic premise is flawed. I mean, the NRA are fucking nuts. They are so way off the point they don’t even seem to know what they’re talking about anymore. The second amendment states that a well-armed militia is necessary for the protection of the state. Now the dictionary defines the “militia” thus: “A citizen army; a military organization formed by local citizens to serve in emergencies. If this is the case, why can’t they be trained to use firearms only in case of emergency. How about you lock away all the weapons until such time as they are needed?
“Why Cap’n, that’s just… just… well, gay.”
Think about it like this. When the second amendment was created, the only firearms available were single-shot muskets. Now these, whilst definitely lethal, weren’t anywhere near as user-friendly as today’s guns. I mean, you couldn’t really, effectively go postal with a single-shot musket. A student would have a hard fucking time smuggling one into school so that he could kill as many innocent people as possible.
“Ok, could you all form lines of three and stay very still.”
I just don’t see it working out for the deranged little fucking pricks.
So, should our American friends, if they are unwilling to erase the second amendment from the constitution, at least admit that they are a little too liberal with its application? I think that’s reasonable.
So, since the second amendment was written at a time when the main consideration was single-shot muskets, fucking explain this:
What the fuck do those people have against that hillside? And what about that fridge? Is this some radical, new Weight-Watchers programme?
Great job Cap’n, with both blogs on gun control in the U.S. - and thank you, as I thought I was the only person on the planet that realized the obvious fact that the 2nd amendment referred to single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets, not Uzi’s or automatic hand guns.
The logic behind many of the arguments presented by gun advocates are so absurd that it embarasses me to be a member of the same species. It blows me away that they still use the same tiresome platitude: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This rallying cry tells one all they need to know about the reasoning capabilities of these morons. Think about the logic behind this assertion. If one applies this logic universally, then there should not be any government control over any objects or substances that harm the masses.
Consider these two aspects about the U.S. and it tells you much about American society: we have the most lenient gun cotrol policies in the Western World and we are the only Western nation that still practices capital punishment.
Keep up the good work, Cap.
Comment by Seymour Glass — May 19, 2007 @ 6:41 am
One more comment on the subject, Good Cap: One of the greatest commentaries on guns is the song, “Saturday Night Special”, by Lynyrd Skynyrd. The lyrics to this song should be tattooed on the asses of every NRA member!
Comment by Seymour Glass — May 19, 2007 @ 6:49 am
Good to hear from you again, Seymour. Whilst I believe that there are people on the “terrorist watch list” who have less to do with terrorism than Paul W.S Anderson has to do with making quality movies, it does stand to reason that there are quite a few dangerous people on it. The fact that the NRA object to these people being prohibited from buying or selling guns is testament to their abject apathy towards gun violence. I wonder if the NRA would share a plane with some of these people. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Well don’t give people guns and they’ll kill a lot less people.
Comment by Administrator — May 19, 2007 @ 11:23 am
I’m stunned. I have never heard the argument put so well. That post followed by that video is daming evidence. How can you continue with legislation that allows both rational and irrational people to own guns. I was on the fence until now. I spent a lot of time in abuquerque and I love america. I have two friends who are members of the N.R.A and I’ve sent them this link. I dont know if their minds can be changed but if they can these posts will do it. Well done Captain.
Comment by Rivka Kohl — May 20, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Still though. I thought Kav’s comment was good. Guns don’t kill people. Rappers kill people.
Comment by Bock the Robber — May 20, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Or, “People don’t kill people. Death kills people” He was alive when I shot him and, were it not for the severe case of death that followed, he might well be alive today.
Comment by Administrator — May 20, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
While I can’t explain the people in the video. I can explain certain reasons being not allowing gun control to destroy the second amendment. Now please don’t just cast this off as another gun slinger trying to prove a point.
But every issue of American Rifleman, the official magazine of the NRA, publishes several stories about responsible citizens rightfully protecting themselves using their guns.
Of course yes stores could be a bit more stern on the background checks and such but you have to think past what a criminal does with a gun and think about what someone who legally purchases a handgun or rifle.
Did you ever hear the term “The War on Crime”?
If you think about it, every attack on an American citizen whether it be by a foreigner or another citizen is technically an attack on the state. It’s a failure to uphold the laws of the government and therefore that criminal is defying it. Making it an emergency situation for everyone around the criminal. Everyone has the right to protect themselves.
If you think for one second that if we ban all guns in America that criminals will say, “Well, It’s illegal to have a gun so instead of breaking into this person’s home with my gun I think I’ll take my knife instead.” I would say your seriously mistaken. If you take guns away from responsible citizen’s your giving criminal a much easier job.
By standing here and telling the government to take people’s guns away, you’re telling every American who has a gun to take a knife to a gun fight.
Comment by Tim — July 24, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Tim, you’re entitled to your opinion and I appreciate your sharing of it. However, some of those happy gun-owning folk who legally own firearms have the ability to take life. Now, I don’t know about you but I believe that we all walk a fine line between sanity and insanity. Our ability to seperate right from wrong distinguishes us from your average sociopath. You know as well as I that it takes very little to push some people over the edge and I would prefer that those people didn’t own a gun when they’re pushed.
Also, you need to ban gun shows. Gun shows allow people to buy a weapon that cannot be traced back to them.
What you are saying is that America is in kind of a constant state of emergency. That being the case, it would be prudent to elect officials who will combat crime and cut it at its source. Constantly saying, “it can’t be done”, means it will never be done.
Guns are a scourge on every society. The people in the video all look like law-abiding people but they seem to have a love of guns that goes way beyond dangerous.
Comment by Administrator — July 25, 2007 @ 1:06 am
They are probably law-abiding and it looks like an officially sanctioned event. but I don’t see why people aren’t allowed to love guns. They are fun to shoot, and even more fun to shoot competitively. There are even Shooting competitiions in the Olympics. If they are shooting into a hillside where there is nothing that can be hit on the otherside and everyone is behind the firing line, there is not much more danger than if you drove your car to the store. More people die from Car accidents every year than by gunshot wounds. Those people shooting in the video may have the ability to hurt someone but so does someone who has a knife, a pencil, a baseball bat, even your hands. Every human being has the ability to be dangerous and to do damage to others whether it be with a gun or something else. There is always danger out there you aren’t going to stop violent crimes by taking away peoples guns. Every gun owner has more responsibility to keep others safe from their gun just like everyone who drives a car has the responsibility to drive safely and pay attention. Responsible law-abiding gun owners should not be punished for the few that use guns for wrong doing. Thats like sending the wrong kid to time-out.
Comment by Tim — July 26, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Adding on to my previous statement. I agree that it should be more difficult for some people to get guns. Those who were sent to get psychiatric help but never went don’t get registered. They should be reported and denying the ability to own guns. But there is also a certain point where gun control is going to far. I’m alol for better background checks I’m willing to wait a bit longer to get a gun if it means that they are making sure that I am safe to have one and that the other guy who has a history of physical abuse or some other violent crime doesn’t get one.
Comment by Tim — July 26, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Ohh. One more point sorry for the triple post but… I’m not saying that crimes won’t be prevented if they take guns away. There are much fewer crimes where a person who legally buys a gun uses it to his advantage. My point is you can take guns from people who legally purchase and use them responsibly but you cannot take them from criminals who are determined to have them. As I said before taking peoples guns away makes them more vulnerable to a criminal who decides to illegally carry a gun and break into that persons home.
“Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.”
Comment by Tim — July 26, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Don’t aplogise for making multiple posts. You’re welcome to make as may as you like. You have a voice and you are making a rational argument. Long live debate.
Let’s take Simon Rafcott. He didn’t make the papers. He lived in a quiet neighborhood. He took a gun and shot three people, who he deemed to be surplus to requirements.
He had two loving parents, two adoring sisters and a brother. He stopped believing in Santa Claus at an early age because he knew where his parents hid the presents. He was nine, when he went on his rampage. He followed his father and took note of the combination to the safe in which the gunS were stored.
You’re absolutely right; drinking and driving is just as dangerous, but it is a tired and useless argument when put up against guns. I would prefer to be hit by a drunk driver than shot by a pissed off Republican.
Guns may be fun to shoot but a lot of people think that watching Tom Cruise shoot someone in the head is fun - and he’s a fuckng scientologist!
We live in a world that allows two thirds of its population to starve to death. These people are constantly in a warzone. The rest of us like our creature comforts. We like to have our Plasma TVs, our cell phones, our polyphonic ringtones and our lethal weapons.
I dunno; you tell me. What’s wrong with that picture?
Comment by Administrator — July 26, 2007 @ 1:09 am
I don’t know about that… Getting hit by a car sounds more painful than being shot. But thats just me. Your final paragraph is another issue entirely, but I do agree with you on that. Now rather than thinking Tom Cruise shooting people in the head is fun, I think it’s just funny. Only because of how hypocritical some actors are. Take Mark Wahlberg for instance. Big anti-gun activist, so what does he do? He goes to star in one of the biggers gun movies of the year, Shooter. According to the person who supplied the guns for the film he hardly knew how to operate the guns. Flinching was also a big problem for him too. It may just be me but if your gonna fight against something atleast know how it works.
As for Simon, it’s a tradegy. Stille it wouldn’t have happened if his father took precautions. If your gonna lock up your guns make sure your kid isn’t close enough to see you put in the code for it. A lot of kids look for their parent’s guns because they are curious about them. If the parent’s responsibly teach the child that guns can be dangerous and teach the proper safety techniques to handling a gun, the kid is much less likely to go looking for it in the first place. That story is also a bit confusing. A 9 year old kid shot three people because he thought they were surplus to what requirements? Was it some sort of game? If it wasn’t about a game, how does a 9 year old determine such requirements? It’s easy the father wasn’t responsible enough to make sure his guns were locked up and the kid has to be mentally unbalanced.
Comment by Tim — July 26, 2007 @ 5:05 am
Surplus to requirements was a little poetic licence on my part. Thee are far too many ifs in the pro-gun argumnent. It would be great to own a boa constrictor - if you knew how to look after it. The fact is that for every responsible gun owner, there’s someone who isn’t. That’s not the kind of statistic that anyone should feel comfortable with.
Comment by Administrator — July 26, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Admin, i own a boa constrictor…they are perfectly legal in NYS from what i know. boas are safer pets then dogs because dogs can become viscious if they don’t “Like” you, snakes dont have that capability. okay on to your gun arguement, you say that for every responsible gun owner there is an irresponsible one. well its more like for every 20,000 responsible one there is 1 irresponsible one. that is better than the statistic from drivers license. a car is a deadly weapon in the hands of every day people (im a firefighter, ive seen what cars can do to multiple people in a split second….its worse than gun shots because gun shots are clean wounds, car accidents splatter body parts all over the place). Responsibility is the key. Americas gun violence has more to do with our socio-economic problems then our availiablility of guns. check out the harvard study released recently on this.
Comment by Alex Mand — August 6, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
btw that video looks like the kentucky machine gun shoot which happens to never have had an injury occur during the event. also not one crime has been commmitted with a legally owned machine gun in 65 years
Comment by Alex Mand — August 6, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Hey Alex, check out the study done by a turd called 50 Cent. You are vouching for the majority of legally owned guns but you don’t have to register guns bought at gun shows and how many responsible gun owners have pawned off their lethal weapons at those things? Why on earth would you even want to own a machine gun?
As for your pet analagy, I don’t see the relevance. I do, however, disagree with wild animals being kept as pets.
Comment by Administrator — August 6, 2007 @ 10:50 pm