Be afraid, be very afraid

[kierthos]

Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights

Now, see, I'm not a gun nut. I don't own any. I don't plan to own any.

But even I realize that taking away gun rights is a bad idea.

You see, it's always easier to bestow rights then to take them away. And when the rights being taken away (maybe, depends on how the Supreme Court jumps on this one) involve firearms, you can bet that there's going to be a lot of people paying attention to this.

Hell, if SCOTUS decides to really limit gun rights, you can bet the state of Texas (and most of the rural South, for that matter) will shit themselves into a frenzy, not to mention how the NRA will go apeshit. (Note: A quote from Charlton Heston on those "damn dirty apes" may be quite appropriate.) And this is the wrong time to limit gun rights. I'm not talking because of a fear of "terrorism". I'm talking about the current low opinion of the federal government. The Prez has, what, a 20-something percent approval rating. Congress is not held in much higher esteem. And with the Feds fucking over people's rights left and right under the guise of protection, now would be the worst time (from a paranoid conspiracy theorist's point of view), to start seizing guns from all over the country.

Honestly, I can't see the Supreme Court being quite so stupid as to limit gun rights. But if they decide that the Second Amendment only applies to militias, you're going to see a lot of people forming new ones in an attempt to keep their guns. I'm honestly not sure how well that would work, though....

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

How many fallacies can you cram into one posting? Was there a competition going on I was unaware of?

Cars have other purposes, they are not designed to be death machines, what's more they actually accomplish their required purpose with decent regularity, unlike the supposed 'self defence' idea of firearms, which they fail miserably at statistically.

The point in both cases is that the device makes both much easier and whim/spree deaths that much more common, not a weighed decision.

[the-corruption.livejournal.com]

So, as if to prove my point, the actual NUMBER of people who lose their lives is irrelevant? Makes it hard to believe you care for any lives lost, and draws into suspicion the objectivity of your arguments. Indeed, you may indeed dislike firearms, many people do, but opinion is best left to oneself, and has little place in arguments of logic and merit. Especially when one is discussing the rights of others to their property.

You don't see a need, so there is no possible need? I'd like to see you telling an american black family they have no need, maybe in downtown Detroit. Or in Cabbegetown in Atlanta, Georgia. You see, black urban families here know they cannot trust their police force, they have a long history of abuse at police hands. So, I ask you, what other recourse might they have? At shooting ranges and firearms training I see more and more older black women attending than any other single group. Little old retired ladies, bank tellers, restaurant waitresses and day labourers.

But you know better than them their needs? You know there can be no POSSIBLE reason for the legality of firearm ownership? You know the solution to their hardships?

Honestly, I feel american blacks, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, liberals, animal rights activists, and all other systematically repressed groups should arm themselves. You simply cannot leave it to the right wing and uneducated rural whites to be armed alone. There is a time and place for peaceful demonstration, but it does not exclude the rare necessity for bearing arms in refusal to be subdued.

Lastly, I would admonish you to cease your childish insults. If you cannot bear the fact that other people have differing opinions than you, and that both sides should be free to express themselves in a calm, dignified manner, then it is better to grumble privately than demean those whom may share your arguments by behaving petulantly.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

Proportions are relevant and those families are better off without, yes, having a gun increases their chances of accident or suicide and increases the chances of them coming away dead from a confrontation. Better that the overall chances of encountering gun violence are decreased.

Yes, I know the solution to their hardships, but decent welfare, healthcare and a social system that doesn't shit on the poor from a great height seems to be anathema to the US.

I can bear the fact people have differing opinions, is it too much to ask that they derive from logic, reason and evidence?