Bank robber, frustrated by empty
cash drawers, threatens to
complain to bank manager.
Ah, Idaho! Shortly after Barack Obama was elected President a woman approached one of the teachers at her child’s school and asked him, “When are you going to start your gay agenda? Let me know when you do so I can take my daughter out of school.” I think the teacher may have been too stunned to ask her what the hell she was talking about.
In Rexburg, Idaho, widely believed to be the reddest part of one of the reddest states, the second grade children were overheard chanting in their school bus: “assassinate Obama, assassinate Obama.” They did not understand what this meant but they must have learned it from someone. I wonder who.
There are said to be many Obama jokes circulating here. I have only heard one. People here don’t tell them to me. I wonder why.
Here are some more brief observations on the seemingly never-ending assault rifle question: My anonymous friend who works hard on this issue has indicated there are legal arguments about this topic that could go on endlessly. I believe him. But he also makes an assumption that I believe to be unfounded. Namely, that the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to keep and bear assault weapons (as well as other weapons). I do not believe it follows from the right to keep and bear arms that one necessarily has the right to specifically have assault weapons. There is nothing in the basic idea of the right to keep and bear arms that indicates assault rifles in particular have to be involved. There may be extenuating circumstances. I think this is the situation with the possession of assault rifles (or other fully automatic weapons). It seems to me there are two basic and related questions involved: (1) is it in the best interest of the community, public, or nation for ordinary citizens to be allowed to possess certain weapons (as assault rifles or other machine guns. And (2) are there any compelling reasons why citizens should be allowed to possess such weapons. When stated in this way I tend to lean in the direction of banning such weapons (although I do nothing to bring this about). As I have indicated before, I tend to believe they should probably be banned because there is no compelling reason for individual citizens to have them. As near as I can tell, the main reason for wanting such weapons is the fear that your government is going to take them away, or we are about to be attacked by someone-or-other. I believe these fears are irrational and hence I do not believe the possession of such weapons is necessary, and they are a greater potential danger to our citizens and our nation than they are worth.. You may, of course disagree with this. But there is a strange irony involved in this whole business that I find mystifying.
I think it is a pretty good bet that these same “gun nuts” (I did not invent this term, by the way, it exists in the literature on this subject) or, if you prefer these GGOWFS (gentle gentlemen obsessed with firearms – I made this up) are the main category of individuals that elected and maintained Bush/Cheney in office over these past eight years. And it is Bush/Cheney that have run roughshod over our individual rights and liberties, including those found in the Constitution. Obama was elected by a landslide specifically to turn back the tide of dictatorial fascism that Bush/Cheney have tried desperately to install (happily as it turns out they were too incompetent to succeed). But it is Obama, in principle, at least, who wants to protect our individual liberties that these people paradoxically fear. Apparently they have this fear because he said he might be in favor of banning assault rifles (this, to me, is not one of the most important rights of man, certainly not in the same category as habeas corpus, for example). I do not believe there is any fundamental right to bear assault weapons, even though there is a fundamental right to self protection. There are other ways of protecting yourself that do not pose a similar danger to the body politic or the public. Anonymous also suggest that assault rifles are a “tool” to prevent the “decay” of the social system or culture. But the only decay involved that is relevant here is that brought about by Bush/Cheney and which, at least hopefully, will be stopped by our new President (and without the use of assault rifles). Anyway, I think this issue is too deeply philosophical and abstract for my meager Professorial brain. I have a solution:
Let us all meet at a pre-arranged time, heavily armed, at the not-so-O.K.-corral and shoot it out. This is the American way. Of course in all fairness you will have to wait for me to get my cataracts removed. I don’t see or shoot as well as I once did. I can borrow an assault rifle from one of my neighbors. As near as I can tell from all the noise they all must have one (except strangely for one neighbor who was actually removed from a jury because he did not own a gun).. When the shooting becomes unbearable I sometimes stand on the porch and yell as loud as I can, “when did the war begin?” They don’t pay attention, being too immersed in blowing up all those tree stumps and tin cans.
I do not believe Hillary Clinton is going to become Secretary of State. I suspect Richardson might (my predictions are usually wrong but I go on making them anyway).
LKBIQ:
The hatred you're carrying is a live coal in your heart - far more damaging to yourself than to them.
Lawana Blackwell
TILT:
Peach Melba was created in 1893 by the great French chef, Auguste Escoffier, in honor of the Australian soprano, Dame Nellie Melba.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Covenants thrown down
Sand is not a foundation
Center cannot hold
An interesting position and would be worthy of discussion except for the minor detail that it is irrelevant.
You see, you are obsessing about a subject that is not even on the table for discussion.
Automatic weapons are not under discussion. They have been tightly regulated since at least 1934.
The ineptly named "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't ban any weapons at all. It banned both scary names for firearms (can't call it an AK-47 so we'll call it a WASR-10 or MAK-90), and scary cosmetic features (those bayonet lugs sure are of significant utility to bank robbers and gang bangers) that may make semi-automatic civilian firearms appear similar to military arms.
At root, they are still nothing more than semi-automatic firearms just like the ones that have been used for hunting and sport for 100 years.
I'm about as pro-gun as anyone can get, and yet I find the argument for restricting machineguns and assault rifles to be pretty reasonable. We've seen what happens when machineguns make their way into the wrong hands: the gang shootouts of the 1930s (with Thompson guns) and the 1980s (with MAC-10s) produced a lot of casualties, including a lot of innocent bystanders. In both instances the law stepped up to bring those weapons under control, and I have no problem with that.
My problem is that, as Sailorcurt pointed out, we aren't talking about machineguns here. We aren't talking about assault rifles. The issue of the day is "assault weapons". It's a recently coined term designed to sow confusion.
We've had semi-auto rifles available to the public for about 100 years now, and in large quantities for about 60 years (since WW2), and for the most part they've been used responsibly. There never has been any M1 Carbine or AR-15 crime wave. Yet, someone in the 1990s decided to slap the label "assault weapon" on them, and suddenly there was panic. Something had to be done about these dangerous weapons that "are only made to kill lots of people in a hurry".
It's Orwellian. The facts hadn't changed; only the language had changed. It's fundamentally dishonest.
I apologize. I found this comment through google news alerts and was not immediately aware that it was an ongoing discussion (that I even contributed to a few days ago in comments to another post...I guess that's the downside to continuing a conversation in a new thread rather than keeping it on the same one).
If this was only addressed to anonymous in the context of your ongoing dialog with him, then I withdraw my statement. Only you and he can determine what is relevant to your personal conversation.
If, on the other hand, you intended this to address the ongoing national debate on the subject, my comment still stands: The national discussion has nothing to do with automatic weapons and, so, that particular subject is moot.
No need to apologize. I'd say this is a public discussion that is open to all passersby.
Post a Comment