Okay. Imagine if you stumbled across a quote that said.....
"When any child daycare facility mistrusts its children with scissors, it's sending a clear message: It no longer trusts its children, because such a daycare facility has evil plans!"
Now, the astute among us of course know that the real and much more likely reason that a daycare doesn't trust its children running around with scissors is that it's for the children's own safety. It's to prevent, or at least, it's to lessen the chances, of accidental injuries. A no-brainer, right?
Okay, now I present to you the latest in Facebook memes:
Note, while no analogy is perfect, I think the daycare comparison makes a valid and fair point: Just because a governing body regulates something doesn't mean that that governing body has sinister intentions. And BTW, I'm not even sure if it's a legit' quote, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't, because, after all, we are talking the National Gun Rights camp, here. Yeah, these are the same people who bring you bits of wisdom like...."Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"
Okay, really? 'Funny, then, that we don't send soldiers to war bare handed! C'mon!....think of the trillions of dollars we'd save in the manufacturing of weapons!?! Cheese 'n crackers!
8 comments:
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A well regulated militia ...
this part has been grossly overlooked on all levels. And quite frankly, it's disturbing. What's equally, if not moreso, disturbing is the level of delusion one must maintain to think that a person with his shotgun and a Glock semiautomatic hand gun is going to maintain the "security of a free state". Or to think that the founders intended of every single person to maintain a personal arsenal without oversight or participation in a state militia.
That said, I'm not unopposed to private citizens possessing firearms ... but firearms are not the necessary tools they once where 100-200 years ago ... they are basically a luxury in this day and age because we have police, sheriff national guard and federal military in all 50 states and so security in all cities towns villages etc and so forth, not to mention there is a network of grocery stores and butcher shops and farms that produce the food that was once hunted thus requiring a weapon.
STILL - I'm not unopposed to gun ownership - but there HAS to be an intelligent set of rules and guidelines for this ownership ... and that is what we do NOT have today - and with the paranoia that if even the weakest regulation is passed it will somehow lead to the government "breaking down every door to confiscate all weapons" ... well, it's just ridicules to even consider ... because, quite frankly, if they REALLY wanted to do that, are we really so deluded to think one sentence on a 230 year old document would really prevent them from doing so with the surplus of military hardware and resources they have at their disposal?!?
To modify a famous movie quote:
"You're gonna need a bigger gun"
:P
I don't like guns, never have. I know that they can be used responsibly and all that, but I just don't like them.
And I agree with your last statement Robert, if "they" wanted to do something, they'd do it :)
"That said, I'm not unopposed to private citizens possessing firearms" ~ R. Hall
Hang on a second....."not unopposed"??? Are you screwing with my head? If so, that's not unfunny! lol
But seriously, I'm not opposed to qualifying citizens possessing firearms. However, just like I believe that anyone who drives a car needs training, a license, and a registration, I believe a gun-owner needs the same.
"firearms are not the necessary tools they once where 100-200 years ago" ~ R. Hall
Precisely. We're talking single-fire muskets, here, and surely this is what the forefathers had mind when they wrote on the subject. As for the, "Guns don't kill people, people do", adage, hell, tanks don't kill people either, people operating tanks do. No sane American would advocate some guy driving a tank down to the Moose Lodge. Keyword..."sane".
"I don't like guns, never have. I know that they can be used responsibly and all that, but I just don't like them." ~ Alice
Hmmmm. Okay, could it have something to do with the fact that guns are made for killing???
Me? I don't buy the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" argument. I mean, can we walk into a maternity ward and pick out which babies will grown up to be outlaws, and which ones won't? No.
Case-in-point, a seemingly sane person can come temporarily unglued. Maybe they're exacting revenge, or maybe they're on a vigilante mission. Who really knows? But if someone comes unglued and decides they want to shoot up a school, I'd prefer their weapon selection be limited to a tool shed or junk drawer.
"If so, that's not unfunny! lol"
Stow it, grammar dork! :P Irregardless it's not unirrelevant ... but you knew you know what I knew I meant ... I think. :) :P
We're talking single-fire muskets ..."
"Hmmmm. Okay, could it have something to do with the fact that guns are made for killing???"
What's funny is ... where are all those "Good guy with a gun" stories where they saved the day from the bad guy with a gun? Didn't that loon from the NRA say that was the overwhelming need for guns in every home and in the hands of every child or some such silliness?
Fact is, and I think a vast majority of people will agree, In my 49 or so years on this planet, I cannot think of a single instance where having access to a weapon would have produced a net positive outcome to a single situation in my life ... conversely, I can come up with a dozen examples of moments where I'd be serving life in prison if I had access to a weapon at a given moment.
Having a gun in one's hand changes their whole mentality on conflict resolution - and I'd argue it is a very rare instance when that resolution (at the point of a gun) is an optimum solution.
"Stow it, grammar dork!"
N'yuk, n'yuk.
"Having a gun in one's hand changes their whole mentality on conflict resolution"
Exactly. Act now, think later(when it's too late)
"Exactly. Act now, think later(when it's too late)"
Actually it's worse than that even ... they start "seeing" reasons to be the "good guy with a gun". Having a gun in hand is almost like a paranoia multiplier - Instead of thinking "I'm being watched/followed" or "They're out to 'get' me" ... It's ... "OMG! There 'they' are - I've GOT to STOP them! My life depends on it!" ... I point to the examples of the guy who shot and killed a teen in a car at a convenient store playing rap music loudly (clearly an imminent threat - (eyeroll)) and/or the guy who shot the girl who was just in a car accident and went on his porch and banged on the door to use the phone - shot her THROUGH the door ... if a gun hand't been in hand, the guy might have called police which is what she wanted in the first place ... or ... if he is to be believed, that blade-runner guy in South Africa that shot and killed his model girl friend in the bathroom claiming he thought it was an intruder ... in the BATHROOM - I guess toilet paper is like gold over there or some such :P
Anyway, you get the gist - without a gun, a person calls police and finds out that the situation is relatively harmless ... with a gun, the situation is AUTOMATICALLY life threatening imminent peril that requires IMMEDIATE action (read: shooting)
"they start 'seeing' reasons to be the 'good guy with a gun'"
Not unlike the "good guy with a bible". Distinctions are there, of course, but the dynamics are quite the same.
Post a Comment