I live in Tacoma Washington.
Judson, 23 years of living on this gravity well, spiraling around this nuclear fireball that somehow keeps us warm. Former Marine no longer a slave to Uncle Sam. Words of description: single, 'out to lunch', Malformed Public duty gland, and a deficiency in moral fiber precluding me from saving Universes. Possibly a dreamer (jury is still out). A bit rude, a bit crude, a bit into myself.
Nothing of importance: Don't listen to me, because I am Mostly harmless.
My Photography Blog if you are interested:
Someone used this picture against me in an argument [among other things, and it of course ended with the other person resorting to the GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE mantra, so I gave up there], and I’d like to know what you think of it and if/why its wrong.
Not sure if the stats are accurate or not, but actually, what’s the point? Yes, there are things that kill more than firearms. No one ever said that there wasn’t. Does this mean that we still shouldn’t try to reduce the number of deaths by firearms? All this is is an attempt to deflect the issue.
The whole point of this, for me, anyway, is to reduce illegal gun sales, better enforce laws that already exist, create or enforce better background checks before people can purchase guns to prevent sales to loons, and ban the legal sale of assault weapons.
Do you want to use assault weapons for sport? I’d love to have a tank to blow blow up the trees in my backyard so I don’t have to rake anymore. I’d never use it to hurt anyone. Still, too f’ing bad. Assault weapons aren’t for sport, they are weapons of war designed to kill humans in mass. If you want one for sport, find a different sport. There are millions to choose from.
That’s fine, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “sport”, any more than the 1st Amendment is about poetry.
PS. There’s nothing preventing you from purchasing a tank.
Point taken. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sport. It is interesting to note that the 2nd Amendment DOES mention a well regulated militia; a part that is generally ignored.
Using the militia as a guide, we can guess what the idea behind this amendment was for the people who drafted it. They had just won a revolution against their colonial overseers, and they wanted to ensure that people had the right to arm themselves should such a necessity arise again.
Of course, a single musket, a horse, and a sword would be all that would be necessary to arm oneself as well as anyone in any single person in the army of the day. Equality in weaponry was quite easy to achieve.
And the musket? Well, they were important weapons in their day, but a single person going on a shooting spree in a school house of the day would have got off a single shot before the students scattered and the local townspeople stormed the school and beat the hell out of you, so a massacre would have been difficult to achieve.
And then there’s that “well regulated” militia thing; what was the writer’s point of saying this? While the importance of this clause can be argued back and forth, it is pretty clear that giving automatic weapons to anyone who wants to buy them is not in the least “well regulated” nor does it necessarily have anything to do with a “militia”.
And as for arming oneself against the U.S. government? It’s impossible to individuals or even militias to have hope of getting equal armament as the U.S. military. It’s pretty clear that you can arm yourself with all the automatic weapons you want, and even be part of your local militia; if you choose to stage an uprising against the U.S. military, you’re going to lose. Sure, you might take out some soldiers before you lose, but even that’s only if the military is being nice and trying to minimize the number of your people it kills. If the military gets nasty, you and your militia are going your asses drone attacked, saturation bombed, and possibly low grade nuked if you piss them off enough. Realistically, the only way to have an uprising against the U.S. government these days is get at least some part of that military on your side.
So, I think it’s necessary to look at this amendment in light of current realities. And I happen to think that allowing any fuckstick who wants to buy a sub-machine gun to have one is kinda a bad idea.
And as for tanks, buying a mobile armored box with a fire-stick on it is all well and good, but I’d be kinda surprised if the ordinance necessary to blow up my trees is quite so easy to get.
You clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You obviously forget the fact that we have been at war for 11 years, against people who have essentially nothing, and we are still the furthest thing from ‘winning’. Those men over there have put it in their heads they they won’t give up until America leaves, so America decides in order to win, we will start bombing them in their homes killing innocent civilians and children. This war has essentially bankrupted us, and pilfered the wealth of this nation. If you think A general uprising against the Central Government wont work considering there are more people in America with Weapons and skills to demoralize the occupying force then that further highlights the fact that you should stick to what you know. All it takes is something that gives people enough cause to fight against. And please stop calling it an assault rifle, it only further shows that you actually know very little about weapons. An assault rifle is something that has selective fire, everything that is available for purchase by the common person does not have selective fire. Those are still very much illegal to buy (See National Firearms act of 1934)… This ‘renewed’ debate only highlights the fact that people have no idea what the hell they are regulating (Or trying to regulate), you only see something and think it is scary so you demonize it. and you demonize the people that feel like they should have the ability to own and practice with it. For some people going to the range and putting 1000 rounds through their rifle or pistol is a matter of letting off steam. For other people, buying a new cool/ odd looking rifle is a way to make themselves happy. If you are going to support a ban at least educate yourself on what is being banned. Go into a gun shop and talk to a knowledgeable person about what could possibly be banned. And don’t draw conclusions without looking at precedence, talking about less equipped forces going against better equipped forces (See American Revolution, See War of 1812, See Vietnam, See Russian War in Afghanistan, See Somalia the two times we did go in, See current war in Afghanistan (Note we aren’t going to ‘win’ that one), See Libya, See Syria, see Egypt, See the Current war going on just south of our Border.) I am sure I can go on, if I looked for more instances. But you get the idea. Don’t always put your bet on the State in conflicts, because you are neglecting the resolve of the people fighting against a seemingly all powerful organization. Those kind of fuckers have balls bigger than anyone you will ever know.
Robert Higgs (via disobey)
And guns are the great equalising implements of that human right. Arguments to the contrary are the arguments of every single tyrant of the last century. This human right should also include access to automatic and semi-automatic weapons, not to be confused with “assault weapons”, which is a purposely open ended term conjured by opportunistic politicians in order to evoke an emotional reaction in their more submissive and uniformed constituents. Criminals will have theirs, so the choice to have ours should not be hindered. Never forget the fact that the mind is the original “assault weapon”. The mind has been used to turn fertiliser into a massive bomb. The mind has been used to employ humble box cutters in order to bring about a horrific terrorist attack. The mind of a motivated criminal can see around obstacles, including the law. There are no guarantees, there are only chances, and we deserve every chance we can get. Arguments for gun control have everything to do with control and nothing to do with curbing violence. So pardon me if I don’t share your enthusiasm for deifying and empowering those who legally murder innocent people on a daily basis with the flick of a pen at the expense of our right to defend ourselves from all criminals who may threaten our well being.
"I don’t share your enthusiasm for deifying and empowering those who legally murder innocent people on a daily basis."
That is how I feel. And will always feel, until we no longer murder innocent people.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Heart of Buddha’s Teaching (via disobey)