?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More venting, sorry

I posted to facebook saying I need to express my rage and grief but that I didn't want to pollute my friends' social media pages.



Where are these fucking "well-regulated militias" that are necessary for the security of our Free State?

How about we ban anyone who has been found guilty of a violent crime from owning a gun? How about the other states make the process as rigorous as Massachusetts (I had to get a letter STATING I WAS NOT INSANE and present it to my local police department to get my license).

I've got more but I'm at work and this isn't really helping

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
gigglingwizard
Jun. 14th, 2016 08:19 pm (UTC)
I'll play
"Where are these fucking "well-regulated militias" that are necessary for the security of our Free State?"

You're a free, able-bodied, gun-owning adult. It's you. You're the militia. The militia is wherever you are.

"How about we ban anyone who has been found guilty of a violent crime from owning a gun?"

Okay. How about this? It's pretty close. Anyone found guilty of ANY felony, violent or not, or any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, including verbal threats, is prohibited from owning a gun under federal law. It's not exactly what you asked for, but the ban on all felons kinda makes up for the oversight on petty bar brawlers. This fall will make 20 years it's been on the books:

1117. Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence

"How about the other states make the process as rigorous as Massachusetts (I had to get a letter STATING I WAS NOT INSANE and present it to my local police department to get my license)."

A police chief having that kind of personal discretion to choose who does or doesn't get to exercise their constitutional rights doesn't sound like the America that was advertised in my elementary school Social Studies classes.

In Mass., Gun Permit Standards Vary By Location

Say you get a chief who doesn't like gays, one who feels that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that such people ought not be trusted around guns? Same result as Orlando--fish in a barrel. Dude could've had a pointy stick and done as much damage when nobody's able to fight back. More, maybe, without the noise to give him away.

I hope you feel better soon.
urbpan
Jun. 15th, 2016 10:11 am (UTC)
Re: I'll play
You're a free, able-bodied, gun-owning adult. It's you. You're the militia. The militia is wherever you are.
That is one horrible chaotic way to organize a militia. Since it's in the Federal Constitution, there should be Federal standards for it.


A police chief having that kind of personal discretion to choose who does or doesn't get to exercise their constitutional rights doesn't sound like the America that was advertised in my elementary school Social Studies classes.
And yet here I am in the cradle of the Republic living under that interpretation of those constitutional rights and so far the laws of the Commonwealth stand.

Say you get a chief who doesn't like gays, one who feels that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that such people ought not be trusted around guns?
That would result in FEWER people having guns, and while I don't like the idea of people having their rights restricted on such an arbitrary basis, I am not complaining about people having less access to guns.


I hope you feel better soon.

Talk to me in November.



cottonmanifesto
Jun. 15th, 2016 12:46 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
fucking ammosexuals always think their "rights" (ill-defined as fuck) trump everyone else's.
urbpan
Jun. 15th, 2016 12:51 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
That's a really good point. When does my right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness infringe on this bullshit about keeping and bearing arms? And with it phrased like that, why NOT restrict people to pointy sticks--it doesn't specify what kind of arms. And if you tell me that at the time "arms" meant "guns" then don't allow any technology that was developed after 1791.
cottonmanifesto
Jun. 15th, 2016 01:07 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
"And if you tell me that at the time "arms" meant "guns" then don't allow any technology that was developed after 1791."

I like that idea!
gigglingwizard
Jun. 15th, 2016 02:47 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
"And with it phrased like that, why NOT restrict people to pointy sticks"

Because that defeats the whole point of having a militia unless all the rebels and foreign invaders are also armed only with pointy sticks.
urbpan
Jun. 15th, 2016 09:22 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
Won't the rebels and foreign invaders be armed with tanks and helicopters--exactly how much arms to you think the amendment guarantees us the right to keep and hold?
cottonmanifesto
Jun. 15th, 2016 11:42 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
exactly. that argument is fucking stupid as fuck.
gigglingwizard
Jun. 16th, 2016 08:50 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
China wants Taiwan. China believes it is entitled to possession of Taiwan. China has a total of 2.3 million military personnel, while Taiwan has only 1.9 million. If China invaded Taiwan, China would win. China knows it. Taiwan knows it. China invaded Tibet and now controls it, so they don't have a problem with invading their neighbors.

Why doesn't China invade Taiwan?

Edited at 2016-06-16 08:51 pm (UTC)
urbpan
Jun. 17th, 2016 01:07 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
This has something to do with the price of tea there, I assume.
gigglingwizard
Jun. 17th, 2016 02:06 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
It's because China realizes that, although they would certainly win, invading Taiwan would be too costly. Taiwan doesn't have to be tough enough to actually beat China, it just has to be tough enough to convince China that messing with Taiwan is a bad idea.

The US military has the most expensive, high-tech war gadgetry in the world, but they haven't actually won a war since bombing Japan over 70 years ago despite being at war pretty much constantly since then. Did Vietnam have superior weaponry? Does the Taliban? Does ISIS? Does Al-Qaeda? Big weapons (short of nukes) are ineffective against guerilla resistance. It's very hard to loot houses with a tank or do door-to-door searches with a helicopter. The US had supersonic aircraft and nukes in the 1960s, but they still had to send a guy with a pistol and a flashlight to crawl on his belly through the tunnels in Vietnam.

This raises the question of why the US keeps starting fights it can't win, when other countries sometimes refrain even from starting fights they can win. It's because the military-industrial complex has a lot of control over our government. The costs of these invasions are absorbed by the people, while the companies are able to profit from each conflict, whether we win or not.

If a force like that attacks us, and they have as large and complacent a population of taxpayers as we do, then yeah, we're probably fucked. But if we're talking about a group like the Zetas or Maras, and they're trying to decide how best to use their limited resources, they're probably a whole lot more likely to attack a rich, undefended place full of people who are afraid of getting PTSD from firing a gun (think Vikings raiding monasteries), than to attack a humble little town with a big wall around it, machine guns and guards at the gates, and infantry rifles in every home. It comes down to a simple risk/benefit analysis.
urbpan
Jun. 17th, 2016 02:55 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
So...

Everyone should be heavily armed in case of Red Dawn?
gigglingwizard
Jun. 18th, 2016 03:41 am (UTC)
Re: I'll play
Heavily enough to shoot back. That's the whole point of the Second Amendment. It's not to overthrow the government--that's just a fortunate byproduct. Unless Congress assembles an army for a declared war, we aren't supposed to have an army. And the concept of a police force, let alone a "militarized" one, didn't even exist in the 18th century. The government just flat out wasn't supposed to have armed troops policing the citizenry in peace time, period. We, the people, are supposed to be the first line of defense, as alien and uncomfortable as you apparently find that concept to be. Part of the responsibility of citizenship is supposed to be turning out to muster when called up in the event of an approaching attack.

So using the fact that we've (wrongly) delegated this public responsibility to a corps of full-time professionals as justification for stripping people of the means to fulfill their responsibility is like saying that if a tow truck is pulling your car, we should make it illegal for you to ever buy motor oil again. It's a recipe for a fatal dependency.

Edited at 2016-06-18 03:42 am (UTC)
urbpan
Jun. 18th, 2016 04:54 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
If every day ten lunatics poured motor oil into the drinking water, then it might be time to think about a motor oil ban.

If you are correct about your description of the intention of militias (and I have no reason to think you aren't) then that amendment should be considered a complete failure, and be amended to make sense to modern people--or interpreted by the judiciary to fall in line with modern life.
fabrisse
Jun. 17th, 2016 05:02 pm (UTC)
Re: I'll play
But she's obviously not drilling to make certain that she knows how to work with her fellow gun owners. I think that fails the "well-regulated" test.
empresspatti
Jun. 14th, 2016 10:59 pm (UTC)
Couldn't agree more.
viridian5
Jun. 15th, 2016 07:35 am (UTC)
New York also has strict gun laws, but people keep bringing in guns from southern states with lax laws, which is why we need federal regulations.
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

dandelion
urbpan
The Urban Pantheist

Latest Month

December 2016
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Witold Riedel