handofdave
|
Edited Oct 27, 2008, 16:58
Will the NRA be defending this one?
Oct 27, 2008, 16:56
|
this news item, from just down the highway from me, illustrates grimly what is wrong with 'gun culture'...
http://www.wfsb.com/news/17810051/detail.html
Unfuckingbelievable. Who lets an eight year old handle a full automatic weapon, let alone any gun?
I hope the 'certified instructor', the club, and the parents are handed their asses in a paper bag for this. It's got to be one of the most shocking examples of gun nut idiocy I've heard yet.
|
Moon Cat
|
Edited Oct 27, 2008, 18:03
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Oct 27, 2008, 18:01
|
Horrible. Kind of puts a dent in their old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra too doesn't it? Sadly, I doubt anything will change 8^(
I can almost hear the lawyers hovering, getting the parents to sue the club who try and sue .......
|
Shelby Mustang
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Oct 31, 2008, 21:28
|
that just makes your blood run cold. handing an eight year old a loaded machine gun. a 9mm loaded carbine uzi machine pistol.
jesus fuckin h.
it would be nice to see the NRA wriggle for a few weeks over that. but they won't.
|
zphage
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Oct 31, 2008, 22:10
|
Tragic, but not surprising, and for the gun lobby already figured in the price they are willing to pay.
With rights should come responsibility----- that means you want to own a gun, then be ready to have serious liability insurance and show up for monthly militia training/duty (including rigorous gun safety drills).
Obama's possibility of winning has created an explosion in gun sales, because people are afraid of new laws.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Nov 01, 2008, 11:46
|
"With rights should come responsibility----- that means you want to own a gun, then be ready to have serious liability insurance and show up for monthly militia training/duty (including rigorous gun safety drills)."
Or better still, grow up and understand the British aren't coming, the Old Frontier no longer exists and widespread gun ownership is entirely inconsistent with a civilised society in the twenty first century.
Sheeez. There's something very wrong with democracy when progressive people have zero chance of getting elected unless they pretend they think guns are somehow acceptable. A Vice President that goes out and slaughters moose for fun? Surely not? Only on Monty Python.
|
zphage
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Nov 01, 2008, 12:48
|
|
Unfortunately, the unspoken part here is not that the 'British are coming' it is that an armed populace serves as a a check and balance to local, state, and federal power.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Nov 01, 2008, 13:24
|
"Unfortunately, the unspoken part here is not that the 'British are coming' it is that an armed populace serves as a a check and balance to local, state, and federal power."
I know, but the 'British are coming' is what prompted it to start with and times change, so should laws. Anyway, armed resistance to Federal or State forces would be illegal so there ain't no real checks and balances being applied, only a pretence. Constitution checks and balances are exclusively a legal process, the Constitution laid that out. Congress doesn't check the President by maintaining an armed force against him or vice versa. Nah, individuals invoke spurious bullshit in defence of keeping their guns when really they just want to keep their guns. I guess I find it incomprehensible because I live in a unitary state. If a group of Yorkshiremen demanded a right to bear arms in case the British army marched down their street they'd be laughed at, locked up or certified. ;)
|
zphage
|
Edited Nov 01, 2008, 13:40
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Nov 01, 2008, 13:35
|
Believe me it is a very real check and balance that every police officer, marshall, and sherriff is aware of every time they enter a home or engage an assailant.
It is hard to remove something that has been in place since the beginning.
There are many serious gun laws on the books, it just that in a plea bargain they are the first infractions to be wiped out/off.
I don't see guns going away, but I do see a step by step hemming them in further.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Nov 01, 2008, 14:58
|
Well, I know it's not fully successful but the British banned hand guns at a stroke very soon after a single massacre, the Australians did the same.
Like you say though, it's easier to be against weapons when they haven't been part of the cultural fabric from the start. There's been a recent big growth in inner city knife crime here but there's no call for legalising the carrying of knives by everyone else for "defence". I know it's a bit different but it illustrates that what would be a ludicrous response to a new situation here is the same response that America has sleepwalked into over several centuries. For instance, does the NRA also campaign for the constitutional right of all citizens to bear one foot long kitchen knives, and if not why not?
|
handofdave
|
Re: Will the NRA be defending this one?
Nov 01, 2008, 22:59
|
Handguns and automatic weapons really have almost no place at all in a modern society.
I'm not strictly antigun. Even my hippie uncle was comfortable with rifle use. But I am against gun 'culture'. Since when did a 'culture' ever need to arise around a tool?
There is a middle ground in the USA that can be a model for responsible ownership. The whole wild-west, dirty harry attitude has got to end, tho.
|
