Unfortunately, many gun-owners see their weapons as part of themselves. I don't know how this happened; it's a real psychological wonder - the love of guns. They have but one purpose and that is to give their owners the right to call you names because they can shoot you. It's a cult who's motto is: "You're an idiot." I know; I have a FB page for banning assault weapons and mostly I get hate mail. But they claim to be a peaceful lot!
Yall and yall bickering. I can't believe 3 people disliked that Metric song and then nobody liked it. Seriously people? Look yourself and the mirror and reevaluate please!
Then read the rest, "shall not be infringed." Free people have the right, by virtue of their existence, to defend themselves. Small women that don't want to be assaulted should have access to the most effective rape deterrent available. Old people living in bad neighborhoods shouldn't have to depend on the police, whose job it is to prosecute criminals and investigate crimes, not act as security guards. At least that's how the Supreme Court views their role. None of this matters though because clearly gun control has no hope of gIni any traction in the foreseeable future :)
We have cars that can go 250 miles on an electric charge, rovers on mars, remote control killing machines all over the world, and a virtual encrypted currency purchasing designer drugs via the internet. If we seriously wanted to do something about gun violence we could.
Might I suggest these two technology related solutions:
Create highly effective less than lethal weapons. Then by law make it mandatory for all police forces, national guard and 'domestic military' to carry them instead of lethal weapons.
-This helps alleviate some of the concerns that everyone from the founding fathers to some present days gun owners have concerning the importance of power being in the hands of the people over the possible tyranny of government
Biometric/computerized trigger mechanisms mandated on all new gun purchases. It wouldn't be too difficult to make safety zones around schools, etc. to make the weapons inoperable. It would also make mass shootings, hostage situations etc. much easier to end.
Any such stolen weapon would be worthless to criminals as well.
-For those concerned that the govt could simply then disable all of then see point 1 above. Also keep in mind this is for all new weapons. Commit a crime with an old style weapon and mandatory min. 25 years. Old weapons would be maintained by their current owners and will eventually be valuable relics of an earlier age. (A fond memory I have was the first time my dad showed off the old hunting rifles passed down from his father and told me the story behind them. If anything the solution I'm suggesting would enhance such experiences).
that's true. i love capital letters.
i figured you needed all the help you can get, chief.
but seriously, do yourself a favor and gain some knowledge about the meaning of "well-regulated".
Caps, ad hominems, AND a link? You win, guy.
let me fix that for ya, ignoramous13:
"If the facts that this TSARNAEV kid used Molotov cocktails and a shotgun AND KILLED 3 PEOPLE SINCE HE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO HIGH POWERED ASSAULT RIFLES LIKE YOUR BOY ADAM LANZA (WHO KILLED 26 PEOPLE WITH HIS BUSHMASTER AR 15) AND YOUR GUY JAMES HOLMES (WHO KILLED 13 PEOPLE WITH HIS BUSHMASTER AR 15) doesn't demonstrate the necessity of gun control, I don't know what would."
when you get a chance, take the time to get familiar with the wording of the 2nd amendment where it mentions a "well-regulated militia" and then look up the meaning of regulated. here's a hint - it involves controlling something with laws/authority.
If the facts that this kid used Molotov cocktails and a shotgun, and the growing ability to 3d print guns doesn't demonstrate the futility of gun control, I don't know what would. You can't control people and trying to creates a totalitarian society. The world you're imagining would be one ruled only by the strong and large, anyway, so maybe it's best that we all have easy access to the great equalizer.
The anti-gun nuts are just as bad as gun nuts.
Forbe's Magazine list of billionaires just came out revealing that Atlanta Falcon's majority owner (90%) Arthur Blank now has $1.7 billion in net worth. Yet he needed $200 million in taxpayer funds for a new football stadium? More if you count all the other taxpayer benefits Mayor Reed's deal heaped on him. Sadly, Blank only got $3.9 million for the sale of his Tuxedo Road home in Buckhead when he sold it in September, 2011. He had listed it for much more. Want to see photos of this mansion? Click here and savor the joys of living for the super rich, especially those, like Arthur Blank, who say they can't make it unless the taxpayers subsidize them with welfare payments in the hundreds of millions:
"Most professional athletes are union members for financial reasons. Where's your source to prove they are Leftists? My source to the contrary is this. I know and work with a lot of union electricians and there's not a Leftist in the bunch."
Ask your buddies Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity etc if union members are leftists.
Btw, why does anyone join a union? For financial reasons.
Okay, this is hilariously awful. Hans Utz, the Deputy COO, has now been suspended without pay for sending an email to Reed spokesman Carlos Campos containing the following haiku:
“The Braves might leave us
Becoming the Cobb Crackers
I feel bad for them”
Campos asked for a statement and that, among other more useful comments, is what Utz gave him. The haiku is perfect; I don't see what the problem is.
They should have just issued the haiku as their statement and left it at that.
Truth, I guess my answer would be to ask if fewer people would get shot in Chicago if it repealed its gun laws. My guess is no.
And, that laws are broken, in and of itself, is not grounds for getting rid of laws. Perhaps too simplistically, people speed day in and day out - getting rid of speed limits is the solution to the speeding violations but does it lead to more traffic accidents?
Dave, doesn't Chicago show that we fail miserably when we try and legislate keeping guns out of the hands of wackos?
The end of the first paragraph in my comment a few minutes ago should have continued "protecting peoples' exaggerated sense of Second Amendment rights."
I find it interesting that so-called "pro gun rights" lawmakers are in no rush to allow concealed guns in courtrooms, state capitol buildings, and Congress.
And @JF Williams is completely right, btw.
Vox, I agree we have big, perhaps bigger problems to solve than guns in America. But that's no reason not to deal with access to them. About 32,000 a year die by gun, intentionally or accidentally. That's a lot of folks to ignore in the name of addressing the larger problems and protecting
We aren't going to get rid of all the guns but we can do a way better job of making sure that people that have them aren't wacko and are trained to use them responsibly.
What is it with all the little-dick people with so many guns?
Moving on, it would be good to hear the board's opinions: Dep COO suspended for saying a few rude words about the Cobb Crackers? He should get a medal. Discuss.
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation