Is it me or have the gun control freaks been unusually levelheaded in regards to the VT shootings? OR Fuck You Wayne LaPierre (673 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.88 on 29 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by creep_firebombing (View user info) at 2007-04-26 13:38:39 EDT
When Columbine went down people came out of the woodwork screaming for legislation banning firearms, video games, Marilyn Manson, and even the sporting section of Target Superstores. However, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the media has been awash with...reason and logic.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268203,00.html
"Gun Control
If you are wondering why the apparent popular support for gun control does not translate into legislative action — there is ample illustration in the latest ABC News poll taken after the Virginia Tech shootings. 61 percent of the respondents said they favor stronger gun control laws — but as to whether they would do any good - 49 percent said yes and 50 percent said no. By a 52-to-29 margin, respondents said they prefer enforcing existing gun laws to passing new ones.
ABC devoted nearly two minutes to the poll during last night's evening newscast — but never mentioned one of the most interesting results. When asked the primary source of gun violence - 40 percent said popular culture, and 35 percent said the way parents raise their children. Only 18 percent blamed the availability of guns."
Did I miss a memo somewhere that the general public can no longer panic and point fingers irrationally? I'm not complaining, mind you. It's refreshing to see the American people asking the right questions and maintaining focus on the issue at hand. I'm glad people are asking why a Korean kid with documented mental health issues in this country on a student visa was allowed to purchase a handgun.
And by the way, Fuck You, Wayne LaPierre. I am a very vocal advocate of 2nd Amendment rights. I'm a well trained, disciplined, and responsible gun owner with firearms licenses and permits in various states. Without a doubt, I believe in my right as an American to bear arms and defend myself in accordance with the Continuum of Force. Yet in an attempt to make some sort of preemptive strike on gun control lobbyists, Wayne LaPierre, CEO & Executive Vice President NRA Board of Directors, makes me and everyone like me look like an idiot. Seriously, this guy is not doing the NRA any favors.
==========================================
http://www.nraleaders.com/wayne-la-pierre.html
On Gun Control Advocates:
" What fakes, frauds and liars! ... [A] shadowy network of extremist social guerillas fueled by anonymous wealth, sophisticated research, free media access and high-dollar consultants. You know, terrorism against freedom isn't just practiced with bombs and box cutters. Anti-freedom elitists in academia, the media, rich foundations and government can do permanent damage to individual freedoms just as real as an insurrection or coup. Together they form a sort of Taliban, an intolerant coalition of fanatics that shelter the anti-freedom alliance so it can thrive and grow."
2002 NRA Annual Meeting Speech
On people who support gun control
" If you consider the Constitution less relevant, if you ignore or distort the Second Amendment, if you conspire to make lawful firearms less accessible to lawful citizens, if you infiltrate school boards and churches and legislatures and foundations to advance an anti-freedom agenda of any kind -- the fact that you were born on American soil won't mask the fact that you're an enemy of freedom and a political terrorist."
2002 NRA Annual Meeting Speech
==========================================
Way to come off sounding like a douche bag gun nut.
Okay, look...for starters, can we please stop with the whole "All gun control efforts will lead to a total ban on guns." thing? Did licensing of drivers and registration of cars lead to a ban on automobiles? No. However, I think we can all agree that guns, like automobiles, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I love my guns. I love sport shooting. I love teaching people to safely and proficiently operate and maintain guns. However, I do not believe that EVERYBODY should have guns. And for the record, the Virginia Tech Massacre wouldn't have even occurred if the existing background check mandated by Federal law was done. Some people are just not equipped mentally to take on the responsibility of gun ownership. This is truth! Why can't there be a middle-of-the-road view? No, we do not have to ban guns altogether, but we also don't have to remove all legislation controlling the purchase of guns. Sure, it pisses me off that some states can be ridiculously strict with their gun laws, but intelligent federal laws regarding background checks and reasonable waiting periods are a damn good idea. [Rant about the ridiculous hoop-jumping necessary for a Massachusetts Concealed Carry Firearms License removed to keep the flow of the post, but will be revisited at a later time.] Now, I'm aware that creating laws is a slippery slope and that wording can be interpreted very differently from person to person for ubiquitous gains, but whatever happened to simple reason and good old-fashioned compromise?
Secondly, let's look at the "Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals." idea. How many times have I heard, "If some scumbag wants to get a gun, they'll find a way."? I can't even count 'em. There's a certain element of truth in that statement, but the assumption here is that Law Enforcement doesn't exist at all in our society. If I told you cops weren't confiscating illegal firearms (i.e. stolen, unregistered, or with destroyed serial numbers), you'd laugh in my face and you'd be right to. But on the flip side of the coin, criminals are going to keep breaking into houses and stealing guns. But responsible gun owners like myself are going to keep locking up weapons properly. Criminals are going to keep transferring guns illegally from person to person and state to state. But cops are going to keep arresting people that do this and confiscating their guns. Criminals are going to keep destroying serial numbers to make weapons difficult to trace. But district attorneys are still going to prosecute offenders with heavier penalties when such a weapon is involved. Gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens, but they affect criminals too.
$.02 deposited.
User Reviews
Submitted by konohasaiyajin (user info) at 2007-05-02 20:20:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice rant. Personally I perfer swords, guns are too easy to kill wildlife with.
Submitted by kimmy02721 (user info) at 2007-05-01 10:45:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
creep, i've read you're in new hampshire. any good bass fishing out your way?? if you get a sec shoot me an email kim.terceira.at.gmail.com
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-04-27 08:20:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with shitfuck but on the other hand Im not giving any of mine up
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-04-27 01:42:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Either way you look at it there are too many guns out there.
Too many.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-27 00:20:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-26 20:08:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-26 19:58:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just a quick point to anyone who actually uses this argumennt: "Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals."
Applying this principle, we should also legalise drugs. After all, criminals and addicts are still going to find access to narcotics.
----------
Well no, unless I missed the Constitutional Amendment that says drugs are OK. Nope, didn't see that one anywhere. I guess the Founders weren't on the pipe when they wrote the Big Paper. They did, however, have guns and they specifically said that having guns was a right (not a privelidge, and there's a difference). Sorry, your analogy isn't relevant on it's foundation.
____________
Well i was writing from a philosophical/logical perspective rather than a "The Document written by a group of separatist academics hundreds of years ago is a flawless account of the fundamental rights of man" perspective.
In layman's terms, the Constitution is not necessarily right.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-04-26 23:56:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-27 09:58:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Just a quick point to anyone who actually uses this argumennt: "Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals."
Applying this principle, we should also legalise drugs. After all, criminals and addicts are still going to find access to narcotics.
========
Yeah, I agree, may as well legalise rape by that logic.
Submitted by deelo (user info) at 2007-04-26 20:18:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
chalk me up for progun
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-26 20:08:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-26 19:58:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just a quick point to anyone who actually uses this argumennt: "Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals."
Applying this principle, we should also legalise drugs. After all, criminals and addicts are still going to find access to narcotics.
----------
Well no, unless I missed the Constitutional Amendment that says drugs are OK. Nope, didn't see that one anywhere. I guess the Founders weren't on the pipe when they wrote the Big Paper. They did, however, have guns and they specifically said that having guns was a right (not a privelidge, and there's a difference). Sorry, your analogy isn't relevant on it's foundation.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-26 19:58:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just a quick point to anyone who actually uses this argumennt: "Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals."
Applying this principle, we should also legalise drugs. After all, criminals and addicts are still going to find access to narcotics.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2007-04-26 18:12:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
a-fucking-men. it's about time someone said something logical and moderate on the issue.
the pro-gun nuts are crazy. the anti-gun nuts are crazy.
the smart people occupy the middle ground.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-04-26 16:40:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i have pictures of me drunk off my ass, holding a bottle in one hand and an M4 assault rifle in the other while out in Baghdad. i should probably not own a gun, although i'm quite responsible with them when i'm sober. not to mention i'm a great shot.
Submitted by earth_collapse (user info) at 2007-04-26 16:01:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't know. I have a very complex resolution that I think could work, but don't care to explain.
But kudos, nice post.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-04-26 15:29:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think the reason why is because in this particular case the course of action is quite clear: don't let batshit crazy people have access to firearms.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-26 15:16:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by AshK (user info) at 2007-04-26 15:00:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna have to whole heartedly agree.
As much as I hate to just outright agree with anyone.
So, fuck you for making me agree.
-2 asshole!
Ok, ok, maybe not.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-26 14:55:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck I was just going to write something very similar to this...damn my classes.
Allowing background checks to review psych exams and increasing resources for cops to crack down on the illegal gun trade will go a long way to curb gun violence without causing a decrease in 2nd Amendment rights.
Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2007-04-26 14:51:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So you've already given us your 2 cents.
The question is...
Are you willing to pay a penny for our thoughts?
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-04-26 14:35:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, an intelligent, rational discussion of a controversial issue on uber.
Well done man, +20000!
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2007-04-26 14:11:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-04-26 14:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sensibily speaking, the history and lawbooks of the USA are full of confusion and controversy about the second amendment.
From Wikipedia:
Debate regarding the Second Amendment has long been broken down into two schools of thought:
* Standard Model (or Individual Right Model): The Second Amendment protects the rights of an individual to own arms. The "militia" of the Second Amendment consists of the armed citizenry at large, but in no way is the individual right dependent on actual service in militia duty.
* States' Right Model (or Collective Right Model): The Second Amendment protects only the historical right of States to form well regulated militia. Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated militia" is the National Guard which has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately-owned, arms. Gun control laws and arms regulations in general have no effect on the arming of today's militia since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service. Therefore, such laws raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:55:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:54:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:53:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm a poorly trained marksman who has fired all of 4 guns ever.
I can make spaghetti though.
Submitted by creep_firebombing (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:51:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:43:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
will you teach me to shoot?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be glad to. Gimme a holler any time you're up in New Hampshire.
That goes for anybody. Leave an email address here and I'll get in contact with you.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:47:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Stop being so damn reasonable, it doesn't make for good uber-drama.
Submitted by EmoJean (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:47:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
logic and reason to boot?
pishah!
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:47:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Pennsylvania legislature just proposed an annual $10/gun tax. The tax will never see the light of day, because most of the senators have the instinct of self-preservation. The protests by hunter's rights groups at the capitol got pretty heated.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:43:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
will you teach me to shoot?
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-26 13:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I GIVE THIS MY SEAL OF APPROVAL