Also, black people love watermelon.
Self-parody for $1,000, Alex. What was that Charmers, The Protocols of the Elders of Gun Owners? The International Firearms Enthusiast?
My summary of the “gun control” sturm und drang:
-
The gun control debate is just a pointless diversion. The government/police will always have more and better guns. When the gun nuts are frothing at the mouth about the Gov’t swooping in like hungry owls to take their guns, they’re ignoring how their real freedoms are being destroyed by the oligarchy. Hey, abortions and same sex marriages are essentially the same pointless diversions, and they work just as well. FREEDOM!
-
The oligarchy loves having the Right worked up about guns. I mean, what powerbase doesn’t want a well-armed Sturmabteilung^H^H^H^H^H^H militia? So don’t worry, gun fans, go ahead and bring those gats into Chilis and Applebys to show FREEDOM.
-
You want to know when guns will really started to get cracked down on? It’s when the Left decides to start seriously arming itself. Unlike the Right, whose targets generally include random passerbys in Wal*Mart, the Left knows which motherfuckers really need shooting. Of course, it’s been a couple of hundred years or so since we saw the last time progressives in our country decided to start capping fools, and we’ve been well trained to do stuff like hug trees and contribute to the EFF since then.
I’ve always said that just have a big group of black guys tot AR15s in public in the Deep South, and watch their reactions then.
No need for “self-parody” when I can cruise over to any gun nut website and grab stuff like
So now it’s “gun nuts” instead of “gun advocates,” and of course we started with my own “firearm owners.” Keep draggin’ that goalpost. Maybe you can shore up your stance with a salient argument against spree killers next? Nobody likes those guys.
There are lots of responsible gun-owners. I’ve always felt that a firearm was just like any other item with lethal capabilities that civilians can own. Cars, chainsaws, propane tanks, swords, baseball bats, etc. I’m not as sure on my stance of where to draw the line between a gun that someone could reasonably own and one that just seems like a fetishist’s fantasy or something that law enforcement or the military should only access, but I think overall we’ve done a pretty good job differentiating. You can’t buy an RPG or an M60 without some compelling reasoning, for example. The area that gives me trouble are the so-called “assault rifles.” There are good arguments for owning them and there are good arguments for not having them in the hands of civilians. The back and forth seems to always go “Why do they need these rifles?” to “Why not?” to “There’s no need for them!” to “2nd Amendment!” ad nauseum. Frankly, I’m not fully swayed by either side, so I find myself in mental deadlock on it.
I do feel the extremists on both sides hurt their arguments more than help them. The people showing up en masse at restaurants with loaded rifles freak people out and set their own cause back. The people calling for 100% firearms bans and comparing every spree shooter to normal gun owners sound just as shrill and unreasonable.
Here’s where I put on my liberal hat. If the anti-gun people have their way, I can’t think of a really bad outcome other than the hypothetical “but what will you do when THEY come for YOU!!???” argument which I find pretty silly anyway, whereas I feel unhindered, unlicensed gun ownership and 100% open carry is something I definitely don’t ever want to see happen. I don’t think we’re ever going to see either USA in my lifetime, so I guess I’m not too worried about it.
I’d prefer to use the term “gun fuckwits”, but that would be the messenger masking the message. As for goalposts, let’s try this. I am a “Responsible” gun owner. I own two guns: a Mossberg, and a K98. They are kept clean and stashed away. I do not bring them into my local Olive Garden. My life does not revolve around the possession of these two objects, and, if they mysteriously vanished tomorrow, I would not be upset. If a letter showed up in my mailbox telling me I had to register those guns in order to keep them, I would register them and not be upset. If the same letter said I had to go through a 1-day training and safety course in order to use them legally, I would not be upset. And if that same letter said I needed trigger locks… you get the picture.
Reasonable gun ownership. Everybody outside of that envelope is a gun fuckwit, period, full stop.
“Gunners”. After all, if the “anti-gunners” label is being thrown around…
I would like you guys to go on the talk show circuit to apologize for using these hurtful terms.
Now that’s nasty! I’m sure appearing on Opera counts as “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Sure, it’s not being used /here/, but it’s increasingly common for people to start using the term in debate, and things degrade into slanging matches.
AFAIK - Germany. France. Northern Ireland, even. Those are good models for gun legislation.
(To be clear, I think the rest of the UK goes far too far. And don’t get me started on our idiotic knife legislation)
Isn’t it just a Chrome skin these days?
(Okay, stopping now!)
Since were all friends now, let switch from my light-hearted false-equivalence trolling to be a devil’s advocate instead:
A thought came to mind about the open carry restaurant patrons, so I did some digging on Wikipedia.
This first attempt at desegregation provoked a controversy within the black community in Durham, because the young activists threatened the delicate balance that had been cautiously maintained by the leadership of DCNA. Other well-established organizations such as Durham’s black Ministerial Alliance and the Durham NAACP also criticized Moore’s “radical” efforts. At that time, the local NAACP was still fighting for a prolonged legal struggle against Durham’s school segregation, and worried that losing the case might set a dangerous legal precedent and also divert the organization’s energy. In brief, the more experienced black leaders in Durham viewed the sit-in as a premature and risky act led by a radical, young outsider.
I get it. The context and consequences are not the same. But there is still prejudice about something that certain people perceive to be scary, dangerous, and threatening. It happens to be an object rather than a person. I’m not an -ologist, but when you agree with that notion, don’t you subtly strengthen that prejudice?
You can understand why the NRA wants to wait this out to see how the strategic debate emerges. I’m a huge believer in education eradicating ignorance. I personally think that works best during a consensual and open-minded trip to a gun range rather than poking at people as they go about their busy lives, trying to get a bite to eat. But maybe I’m wrong.
I’m thinking “perceive[d] to be scary, dangerous, and threatening” means a very different thing when we’re talking about a black person and a firearm. One thing is not like another there.
Honestly, your post comes down to “it made sense in one completely unrelated context, why not another?” A sit-in is a political tool. It doesn’t morph the reality of the message to make everything equivalent. I guess nudists should pull this off, too, since black people, gun advocates, and nudists are all the same, now. Of those three, one is an immutable trait and the other two are discretionary choices. Slightly different.
Aleck
3482
Next in the news: NRA spokesman fired for not getting all statements vetted.
I understand your point a little more now with your edit. Maybe I could find a better example with similar messages. But the debate was about the strategy and wisdom of the political tool itself, and how we can’t always tell the best approach when we’re right in the middle of it.
If you don’t believe in the cause, then yeah, how it’s presented is kind of irrelevant.
Aleck
3484
ShivaX
3485
Realize that “Assault Rifle” almost universally refers to form and not function. Bayonet lugs aren’t killing people, nor are pistol grips.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
Folding stocks, sweet Jesus we’re all gonna die if people have those! They’re killing machines!
Soon people will be folding their stocks and leading bayonet charges!!!
The whole assault weapons thing is stupidity and the reason a lot of people are against many forms of gun control. Rather than sensible, common-sense actions, the government went after bling.
If I shoot you with my M1 Garand, odds are you’ll be just as dead than if I shot you with an AR-15 with a bunch of rails and crap stuck to it (actually probably higher since it’s a more powerful rifle). Something looking “cool” shouldn’t be a basis for a ban, but that’s exactly what they did and they made a shitload of enemies and ton of money into the NRA’s war chest when they did it. I mean I know barrel shrouds are an obvious threat to civilization and they need to be stopped. If only people didn’t have those they might burn their hand and the rampage would be over!
From the gun-nut viewpoint the government has no idea what they’re doing (and to be fair, they’re actually kinda right on this point). So they wont trust the government to do anything. Would you? Imagine if they made cars with spoilers illegal? Would you trust those same exact fuckwits to draft a new car safety bill? Probably not. That’s the mindset and it’s not completely wrong really. Take two functionally identical weapons and one is an “assault weapon” and one isn’t. They fire the same shell from the same barrel, but one was illegal for a while cause it looked like the ones on the moving picture shows or whatever.
ShivaX
3486
Here’s a link to a terribly-made website that kinda goes over it. Obviously presented from one side of things, but a lot of facts. Now if you’re a responsible gun owner and you know these facts, odds are you aren’t too keen on letting those same people do it again (and when I say same people, I literally mean same people, not “the gubmint” people like Feinstein are reviled in most gun circles and with good reason and that’s the name that typically comes up when people start talking about regulation). Even most people on the left admitted it was purely a PR stunt and wouldn’t make any difference in crime.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
