There's a famous saying that, "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."

 

I can't recall the originator - but with recent events in America - and the resulting pathetic rhetoric about political behavior, ignoring the smoking gun/elephant in the room - can America ever shed its historical feudal right to bear arms? Does anyone else think its about time it did?

 

There really is no need for a civilian to bear arms in the modern USA and despite all the laws - and the impenetrably powerful gun loonie lobby - isn't it about time American politicians grew spines and decided that this really is enough.

 

A little girl, born on 9/11/2001 lost her most basic and precious right, life itself because another man had the right to carry a gun. Americans you have Megan's law - how about a law to remember this little girl and abandon your primitive right to hold a tool which serves no purpose than to take life.

 

I note the the people most pro guns are also the most right-wing, pro-Life and pro-God - and if that doesn't prove what an anachronism this law is, I don't know what does.

Tags: gifford, guns, murder, politics

Views: 49

Replies to This Discussion

*sighs*

 

Q.E.D.

I grew up with a houseful of guns, and I know how to handle them.  The problem is that even trained professionals over-react in situations they perceive as dangerous.  People in danger often panic.  The Detroit cop who recently shot that intruder reacted pretty well, but many cops have reacted badly and shot unarmed civilians.  I guess I'm glad he had a gun, but a metal detector might have prevented all the shooting.  The military is plagued by friendly fire.  If the guy attacking you doesn't have a gun, your chances of surviving (and your family's chances) go way, way up. 

 

We liberals, by the way, don't think that any law would remove all guns from society, but far fewer people would have them if they were illegal.  Sure, you can make a weapon from just about anything.  My dad was heavily into guns, loaded his own ammo, competed in target shooting and hunted anything that was in season and woodchucks year round, and he never shot anyone.  He often said you could slip a double-edged razor blade into the brim of your hat and slash somebody with it.  Of course, drive-by hat slashings are, for some unfathomable reason, still quite rare, as are drive-by scissorings. 

Guns make killing, even from a distance, easy as pie.  Ready availability of guns, then, makes killing easy as pie.  I think I'm pretty sane, so I probably will never shoot anyone.  (I also haven't owned a gun in years.)  But I'll bet the man in Baton Rouge who shot a Japanese exchange student who knocked on the wrong door by mistake thought the same.  I'll bet, too, that the man in Georgia who shot and killed a motorcyclist he thought was following his daughter home thought he was sane and responsible, even though the motorcyclist was riding away at the time and so had to shot in the back.  Probably the cop who shot a stopped motorcyclist in the back thought the same.  What we do in a tight situation depends a lot on our state of mind.  Not many of us can remain cool and rational in the face of real danger--or what we (often mistakenly) perceive as real danger.

 

Maybe you're the exception.  But protecting your right to pack heat also protects the whack job's right to pack heat.  Maybe you won't run into a whack job with a .38.  But maybe your neighbor will, or your cousin, or your children when you're not around with your .38.  Maybe your congresswoman will, with a bunch of her friends and supporters, many of whom are dead because Jared Loughner, like Charlton Heston, had a right.

The founders couldn't have imagined a modern society like ours, or modern weapons like ours.  What they knew, though, was that standing armies were tools of tyranny.  They didn't want one, so they gave us the right to join militias and the responsibility to bring our own guns when we needed to defend our country.

Get a good tazer.

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly Mr. Apeman Jim

lol!!

Right, lets begin by marginalizing a minority and pin everything from teen pregnancy to crop failure, then let the games begin!

  • I note the the people most pro guns are also the most right-wing, pro-Life and pro-God - and if that doesn't prove what an anachronism this law is, I don't know what does.

That sounds reasonable at first, but it's about as prejudice as you can get.

 

Well I have not seen the statistics regarding pro-gun/pro-god, seems to me when you are dealing with a population that is a pro-god majority most general statistics will be weighted in that matter.

 

I think the reality is this, regardless of what a person may FEEL about this particular amendment it NOT the fault of the amendment that a little girl died, tragic as it was.  It was a HUMAN being was an idiot and not a responsible gun owner that such a horrible incident occurred.  If anyone thinks for one instant that rescinding the 2nd amendment will solve problems like this you are are not thinking realistically. 

 

As Americans our vast borders are too open to guarantee no illegal arms could not be smuggled in.  Rescinding the 2nd amendment would only guarantee that the law biding citizens would not be able to protect themselves, how would will that keep them out of the hands of the criminals?  The fact is that firearms are a proven deterrent.  Especially in rural areas.

 

IMO, firearm education would be better step to limiting such tragedies, stricter guidelines and heavier  penalties (including confiscation of firearms and jail time) for individuals who prove themselves irresponsible owners especially in instances that resulted in bodily harm, and in heavily populated areas.

 

As far as I'm concerned so long as our government has pro-god leadership there is no better reason to exercise our 2nd amendment right to bear arms.  When rational people reach critical mass in this country then maybe there is a chance that such drastic measure would be considered and acceptable...until then.... 

That's not really far from my stance.  My biggest complaint is that most states have completely inadequate background screening and such to at least help reduce the ease with which a psycho can get a weapon.  Fixing that, at the very least, sets a precedent for coming down hard on people who have weapons who aren't supposed to.

agreed

 

Isn't it just common sense to make it as difficult to own a gun as it is to own and drive a car?
That seems like a simple place to start.
You'd think, wouldn't you?
agreed

I am actually of the opinion that guns should be licensed similar to how you need a license to drive a car, carrying a concealed weapon should be illegal however. I also think that all citizens should if they are able, go through a program of national service, to take a place in the military reserves. Such an armed majority would make it much more difficult for a militant minority to terrorize the public. Also firearms eliminate the power difference between the physically strong and weak to a large extent, benefiting women for example. Lots of people die all the time in car crashes, should cars be banned (Yes rail should be used instead, but we are all about cutting costs rather than saving lives)? Furthermore criminals can get access to weapons from illegal sources while civilians are unlikely to, aiding criminality in the event of a gun ban.

 

Finally, I do not trust the government as it is controlled by private interests, I think the right to own a modern weapon for self defense is nearly as sacred as freedom of expression.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service