Last Chance To See 600 sq mi: Hidden
Missed Connections: Gefilte Fish...and "Chain Connections"
H-Town Rock
Rock Talk, Vol. IX
Need to know just a little bit about something? Ask a dilettante.
This was a rough week for the gun lobby. Federal “safeguards” didn't stop a very disturbed young man in Virginia from being able to purchase guns that he later used to kill lots of people. Though there has been no official statement from the NRA, many pundits, talk radio callers and a guy sitting at a bar in Houston who was overheard by Dilettante have been saying things like, "If gun laws were less strict, more people would be armed all the time. Then this kind of shit wouldn't happen ‘cause someone would have blown that guy away as soon as he started shooting."
Now that's an argument. Rather than strengthening laws to keep guns out of the hands of suicidal, violent people, let’s arm everyone. Let’s start taking gun-fighting-in-the-workplace classes. Look – you can be in a business suit and high heels and still shoot people! It’s your right as an American! Fire away! Oh, and don’t forget to duck!
If everyone were armed, you could challenge someone to a duel after slapping him in the face with a glove and demanding satisfaction. What, did you think that arming everyone would lead to some sort of Cold War among the populace? That people are going to think, “I would shoot this guy in the back while he’s not looking, but I’ll bet he has a gun. I better not.” Come on.
No doubt arming everyone would change things. Imagine sitting in church with a hangover and wanting to sleep for just a bit during the sermon. Then you see the preacher looking at you. He subtly touches the gun he’s wearing over his robes. He raises his eyebrow, as if to say “You love Jesus, don’t you?” You do love Jesus, but you’re not ready to see him yet, so you pop a mint and stay awake.
When a guy is trying to pick someone up in a bar, instead of talking about his car or how much money he makes, maybe he can just pull out his gun. Go ahead, touch it. I like having other people's fingerprints on it. And you know what a big gun means. It means someone is compensating for other...shortcomings. Best move on. Look for the guy who has one of these.
Fashion for today's female leaves little to the imagination and no room for a wallet, so where's a gal supposed to keep her gun? Putting it in your purse wouldn't work because you need to have it on you at all times. You never know when someone's going to try to kill you. Just imagine sitting on the toilet at work or at the mall, and you ask the person in the next stall to pass you a few squares of toilet paper. Perhaps that rubs her the wrong way, and she shoots you for bothering her while she’s doing her business. If you had your gun on you, you could have stuck it under her stall first and gotten that tissue. Instead, you have to sit there and air dry as you slowly bleed on the tile floor.
And at what age do you arm someone? There seems to be lots of gun violence in schools. It wouldn’t be enough just to arm the teachers because they occasionally leave the classroom to sneak off to the teachers’ lounge for some coffee and a quick smoke. Guess we better arm the children. I’m sure they’d be responsible and not do anything stupid like get in a “pretend” gun fight with real guns. Kids are Americans too. The Second Amendment doesn’t have an age requirement.
After all, guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
Photo: flickr user modowd.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
A comment from Ted Nugent;
My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.
She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.
No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.
Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.
Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.
Sorry, but an argument from Ted Nugent goes absolutely nowhere with me. Maybe you should try quoting someone who isn't a raving lunatic.
Anyone remember his opening statements to the crowd at the NRA convention, held right here in Houston?
"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em! To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."
No court case? No trial? Just a quick summary execution, right? No thanks, Ted. I believe in democracy, not lynch mobs.
Could a raving lunatic have penned "Wangdang Sweet Poontang"?
Isn't a lynch mob democratic?
Should the accused have both a court case and a trial?
Don't trials often protect the accused from the impulsiveness of the democratic mob?
Do you have to have a democracy to guarantee the rights of the accused?
Speaking of rights, do minors really have 2nd Ammendment rights?
Did any serious presidential candidate demand tighter gun control this past week?
Was it really a bad week for the gun lobby?
lynch mobs are an utter perversion of the democratic process. I'm embarrassed to even have to point that out.
as to other questions raised, go read your constitution, socrates.
...i do believe the nuge was talking about the most basic human right - the right to protect yourself - and the fact that if we all exercised that right more often by whatever means available (guns, knives, 7 lb cast iron skillets), there would fewer criminals around to complain about their constitutional rights...period...you interjected the notion of a lynch mob...like abortion, the gun control debate has been framed for far too long by the extremes on other either side the issue and is in dire need for cooler more thoughtful heads to come together and chisel out a compromise that allows sane, law abiding citizens the ability to own a gun and adequate protections for society in general to assure they are being used responsibly...actually, i'm more interested in the concept of a dilettante and these inane posts...dilletante...hmmm...showing frivolous or superficial interest; amateurish, dabbler, an amateur who engages in an activity without any serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge...lol...oops, sorry, my bad...hit that nail squarely on the head...keep up the good work crytal...you go girl...
Arthou, if all these posts bother you so much, why do you waste your time reading them?
A perverted democratic process is still a democratic process...isn't it?...and for those of us who are having trouble, perhaps someone could point out where in the Constitution the rights of minors to bear arms is adressed.
Oh, and don't be embarrassed Sara.
...i dunno red...good question...guess i will jes have to plead to a strict and unalienable right to self abusement...think that's covered in article 27 or there abouts...although i really do like the pictures...
billybaru -
Re: the Constitution.
Rules of statutory interpretation dictate that omissions must be construed as intentional, unless there is some evidence to indicate that the omission was unintentional. But you already knew that, didn't you?
I also would point out that I have not taken a stand in the larger question posed by the root article. I did point out that using a Ted Nugent quote to buttress any argument is probably a bad idea, given some of his other more (in)famous quotes. Furthermore, I don't intend to take a position on the larger issue in this forum because there's no point in doing so. Put simply, gun rights activists and gun control advocates don't mix.
And thanks for your 'concern', but don't worry, I feel no embarrassment whatsoever.
I don't think anyone has asked Sara to take a position on the larger issue, although it might be fun to have her weigh-in. She has, however; taken a very sensible position on quoting Ted Nugent.
So, does the fact that the 2nd Ammendment does not mention minors constitute an omission? If so, does that mean that the 2nd Ammendment does not apply to them?
FYI billybaru and dazed and confused - The correct spelling of the word is "amendment."
Thank you. I was apparently compensating for the adress with one 'd'.
Lesson of the day: misspell address and you look like a bad typist, misspell amendment and you look like a dumbass.
I've got to plenty to say here but commenting would be like bringing a gun to a knife fight...